Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 25/02/2004 20:01, turgueman AT netzero.net wrote:

> ...
>
> Concerning Latin, the letters of Paul cannot be used as evidence against 
> Latin and on favour of Greek as the language of Rome and its provinces. Latin 
> was well alive and this fact is confirmed by its fruiets: the Romance 
> languages that are still spoken in the former Roman territories (Castillian, 
> Galego, Catala, Rumanian, Italian, Portuguese, French etc).
>
> Of course, the influence of Greek is evident in these languages, but we 
> cannot refer to Greek as the mother language of these ones. Latin was the 
> mother tongue and to be so it must have been a very common language. ...

This argument does not follow. It is possible for a language to die (as 
an everyday spoken language) and then be revived, as has happened with 
Hebrew. It is possible for one to almost die and be revived, which seems 
to be the hope for Aramaic. It is possible that Latin almost died, 
before it was revived under the Flavian emperors. This would probably be 
an exaggeration, but the point I made was that Greek had taken over from 
Latin as the common spoken language in the city of Rome in the 1st 
century CE. I expect that Latin was still in widespread use in more 
rural parts of Italy.

> ... Why Paul choose to write in Greek rather than Latin. I have no idea. Of course, in the region of Northern Israel or Palestine in those days Greek was common too. On the cross the title was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. 
>
> Could it be possible Paul's letter were written centuries later by Greek 
> Christians? (translated)
>  

No, this is not possible. Paul's letter to the Romans is included in the 
extant P46, dated around 200. There is ample evidence that the original 
text is Greek and it was translated into Latin only later.

...

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/