A
Alexandria2020
Guest
So would it be fair to say the West Syriac Rite is more Hellenized? Whereas the East Syriac is more oriental and has aspects of Judaism in it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross.
It read,
“Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription,
because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;
and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
The Gospel of John 19:20 gives us a clue to the first century languages that were spoken at the time of crucifixion. Latin probably being the predominate one at the time among the whole populace being that the Latin Romans were in power at the time in Jerusalem. Including Paul and Peter who spent their last days in Rome.
The mysteries of the liturgy was the same but diverse languages were spoken in diverse regions when no books were recorded yet after the resurrection. When the Apostolic Letters were written, they come down to us in Greek and later in Latin. Yet we know many Latin speaking Romans were celebrating the mysteries because one New Testament book is written to the Romans.
I don’t believe you can date one liturgy over and against another liturgy because spoken in diverse languages and converts of other languages, Syriac for example celebrated the liturgy as ONE at all times.
Peace be with you
It read,
“Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription,
because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;
and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
The Gospel of John 19:20 gives us a clue to the first century languages that were spoken at the time of crucifixion. Latin probably being the predominate one at the time among the whole populace being that the Latin Romans were in power at the time in Jerusalem. Including Paul and Peter who spent their last days in Rome.
The mysteries of the liturgy was the same but diverse languages were spoken in diverse regions when no books were recorded yet after the resurrection. When the Apostolic Letters were written, they come down to us in Greek and later in Latin. Yet we know many Latin speaking Romans were celebrating the mysteries because one New Testament book is written to the Romans.
I don’t believe you can date one liturgy over and against another liturgy because spoken in diverse languages and converts of other languages, Syriac for example celebrated the liturgy as ONE at all times.
Peace be with you
Last edited:
H
HollyDolly
Guest
Well I’m no expert by any means.There is the Sarum Rite which was used in England, the Mozabric Rite used in Toledo and maybe a few places in Spain, the Ambrosian in Milan, named for St.Ambrose and the Galleic Rite, found in France,etc. The rites of the Copitc Church and those of the Ethiopean Orthodox Church are very old.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And historically we know that the predominant language on the east side of the empire was Greek. Not even Pilate’s men were versed in Latin but Greek and Aramaic as they were Syrian and Samaritan.Latin probably being the predominate one at the time among the whole populace being that the Latin Romans were in power at the time in Jerusalem.
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I would agree that the Conscriptions (conquered armies who joined the Romans) spoke other languages. But one is hard pressed to deny those Roman Soldiers loyal to Ceasar especially the Royal guards under Pontius Pilate spoke Latin and Greek If they were of higher rank.Not even Pilate’s men were versed in Latin but Greek and Aramaic as they were Syrian and Samaritan.
But no one can deny what Pontius Pilate wrote in public the spoken languages at the time of the Crucifixion was Hebrew a dieing language Latin and Greek.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And that’s only six people who spoke Latin, those six being cohort commanders. In all likelihood, centurions and others would have a high percentage of being conscripted by 30 A.D.But one is hard pressed to deny those Roman Soldiers loyal to Ceasar especially the Royal guards under Pontius Pilate spoke Latin and Greek If they were of higher rank.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I would just call your attention to the fact from Pontius Pilate writing the three languages was meant to inform every visiting Jew from around the world would be informed of Jesus Crucifixion, King of the Jews. When the Jews were the first converts to Christianity.
Last edited:
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I would say the six is a debatable subject. The historical fact is Latin, Greek, Hebrew were all spoken within Pontius Pilate rule at the time.And that’s only six people who spoke Latin, those six being cohort commanders. In all likelihood, centurions and others would have a high percentage of being conscripted by 30 A.D.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I agree with your historical assessment. We have to remember Titus and his second Tiberius brought with them Roman Legions who were all Roman Latin speaking citizens who conquered Jerusalem. if only six Romans spoke Latin, i don’t think Pilate would of bothered to include Latin in his public signage.
That’s true the making of Roman Citizens came at a high cost, even St. Paul a learned Jew purchased his Roman Citizenship.
That’s true the making of Roman Citizens came at a high cost, even St. Paul a learned Jew purchased his Roman Citizenship.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
There were no legions in Judea. Only auxiliary cohorts. The closest you’re gonna get to a legionary unit is the Italian Cohort, and that was in Syria province for a considerable amount of time.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And those Jews who were in the East would be only able to read two of those languages.I would just call your attention to the fact from Pontius Pilate writing the three languages was meant to inform every visiting Jew from around the world would be informed of Jesus Crucifixion, King of the Jews. When the Jews were the first converts to Christianity.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Or it’s merely adding official punch to the sign.if only six Romans spoke Latin, i don’t think Pilate would of bothered to include Latin in his public signage.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
And the Jews visiting Jerusalem at the Passover from the Roman Western provinces who were citizens and friends of Ceasar? You do know Jews from all over the world was present when Piltate wrote the Hebrew, Latin and Greek sign for all the world to see. Pilate did not write in Syriac.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Pretty sure those Western Jews would’ve been peasants. And second of all, Greek was big there too.And the Jews visiting Jerusalem at the Passover from the Roman Western provinces who were citizens and friends of Ceasar? You do know Jews from all over the world was present when Piltate wrote the Hebrew, Latin and Greek sign for all the world to see. Pilate did not write in Syriac.
Yes I was under the impression (I forget where I read this as it was many years ago) that Greek was the common tongue of the time, with the Jews of the area speaking Aramaic and the Romans speaking Latin, the common language between all being Greek.And historically we know that the predominant language on the east side of the empire was Greek. Not even Pilate’s men were versed in Latin but Greek and Aramaic as they were Syrian and Samaritan.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The Romans probably wouldn’t have spoken Latin unless they were senior officers. Pilate’s men were Gentiles native to the Levant.that Greek was the common tongue of the time, with the Jews of the area speaking Aramaic and the Romans speaking Latin, the common language between all being Greek.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Aramaic was. Most modern scholarship thinks that Greek probably wasn’t as extensive in Roman Judaea as was previously thought (see for example the Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine).So would Greek have been the common tongue between the people?
In reality, people probably spoke a little bit of everything given the variety of archaelogical and textual attestations. But day-to-day life was largely conducted in Aramaic given the sheer dominance of findings in that language. It’s also important to note that Aramaic was inculturated ino Judaea by the Neo-Assyrians and the Achaemenids quite a long while prior to the Greeks even setting foot into the region.
I don’t think there was a time when Greek was ever a dominant language in Judaea. In the Christian era, the local Aramaic developed into Syriac, and then was gradually supplanted by Arabic which in turn was replaced by (Modern) Hebrew.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And the Bible comes to us in Greek. We have to assume Jesus and His Apostles would be at least proficient in Greek. Especially since they came from Galilee, an area called Galilee of the Gentiles. Even in the time of Jesus, Judaea was heavily Hellenized.In reality, people probably spoke a little bit of everything given the variety of archaelogical and textual attestations. But day-to-day life was largely conducted in Aramaic given the sheer dominance of findings in that language. It’s also important to note that Aramaic was inculturated ino Judaea by the Neo-Assyrians and the Achaemenids quite a long while prior to the Greeks even setting foot into the region.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
I believe the Greek language was the more academic language spoken among the learned and intellectuals. Where as the locals spoke their native languages Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac within their local provinces. Following the three language biblical account spoke to the three political circles, because the crucifixion had local political tendencies that spoke to the Hebrews, Latins and Greek speaking Jews. Thus the New Testament letters came to us first in the written academia language of Greek, later in Latin and then Later in the different local languages as the Gospel message of Jesus Christ grew.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.