Let's consider that in light of the example of the apostles. Their everyday language as Galileans was Aramaic, but they had learned, and continued to learn, the Old Testament in its original Hebrew. Paul, Peter, Matthew, and John obviously learned Greek--and given the location of their deaths, I'm guessing Paul and Peter probably picked up some Latin as well. "Doubting Thomas" established a church in India, and is reputed to be buried in Korea--so I'm guessing he must have picked up Hindi (or other Indian languages), Chinese, and Korean along the way. Other New Testament writer who were obviously multilingual were Luke, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews.
So were they unlearned men by the standards of their time, or ours? I'd have to suggest that they were only unlearned men in the standards of
What do you call a man who speaks three languages?
Trilingual.
What do you call a man who speaks two languages?
Bilingual.
What do you call a man who speaks only one language?
An American.
2 comments:
the apostles also were given the gift of tongues. they didnt need learning to preach, as the words spewed forth through the power of The Holy Spirit.
as for palestine in the time: i had read that most dwellers knew three languages functionally, if not fluently.
latin was the language of goovernment and empire: you needed to know a little of it to get by.
greek, the language of commerce. everybdoy spoke it because business was conducted in it.
and them aramaic, the masses spoke.
Gino; exactly, they technically didn't "need" to have this capability, and yet they did.
I'm of the impression that it would generally be Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic instead of Latin, Greek, and Aramaic, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least the merchant classes and ruling classes would have a smattering of Latin.
(Ancient Romans, knowing the Greek body of literature, would actually use Greek as a declined language for their children in the same way that people today use Latin...so even in government, you didn't always "need" Latin)
Post a Comment