Amd, of course you need to LIE to make your point.
I never said that Greek was the "ONLY" laguage spoken. I said it ewas the lingu franca (common language) of the day in that Eastern Mediterranean region of the world since it's congquest by Alexander the Grat som four centuries befor the birth of Christ.
This is a plain fact of history - which you can argue against ALL day long and you''ll STILL be wrong.
The Jews were disppersed thrpoughout the region. The Masoretic Text of the OT was translated into Greek in the Septuagint because oif this - about 2 cennturies before Christ.
Do your homework . . .
And Greek terms and idioms, that cannot be pefwctly translated.
One glaring exa,ple if John 1:28, where the angel calls Mary, "Kecharitomene".
This word translates as "One, having been completely, pergfectly and endyringly endowed with grace.". It is a perfect participle that connots a past event with a permanent result.
This is translated in the Vulgate as "Gratia plena" (full of drace) and "Highly favoured" in the KJV.
You are completely confused here.
Once again - I NEVER stated that Jesus SPOKE Greek to His followers.
In fact - I explicitly stated that Jesus SPOKE in Aramaic to His followers.
I ALSO said the Greek was the lingua franca in matters of commerser, intellect, ect.
The Epistles were written to LARGE and diverse audiences. Greek was a way of communicating with everyone instead of writing each letter in 50 different languages - as we see in Acts 2.
YOU have your bizarre opinions - whereas, I have the weight of history and bulk of linguistic scholarship on MY side.
Why don't we just leave it at this: I will continue to believe to logical ltryth of history - and YOU can make up whatever fairy tales suit YOU.
Stating points of fact do not require you to have said the opposite.
The two statements, “Greek was the common language among non-Jews,” and “But, that is far from it being the only language spoken in the area,” accuse you of nothing.
I pointed out that the Bible testifies of a variety of languages being spoken by people who visited Jerusalem. Those people were there for the feast of Shavu'ot. So, they were practicing Jews from diverse ethnic backgrounds. They spoke different languages. They lived in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Greek may have been the lingua franca among the Gentiles, but, most Jews hated Greek. Their lives were built around their identity as the children of Abraham, not Alexander. It was the Greeks that defiled the Temple at the order of Antiochus Epiphanes. Greek was the language of heathens and swine eaters. The language of the Temple is Hebrew.
Acts 10:28 tells us that hanging around non-Jews was unlawful. If I don't hang around them, I don't need to know their language. I might know a few words. I might know a few phrases. Familiarity does not make it my preferred language. Jesus proved that with the language He spoke.
Language reinforces the distinction between Jewish life and Gentile life. Greek was the lingua franca of commerce and intellect. That is “the world” we are regularly reminded to avoid. Neither of those would greatly influence Jewish religious life. Nor would it have much impact on people who made a point of NOT making relationships with heathens.
Embracing Hellenism would compromise the religious Jew's condition as “set apart” from the heathens. Certainly, the Pharisees had nothing to do with it. Their very name means “set apart ones.” Paul was a Pharisee, as was Nicodemus.
There were Hellenized Jews who wanted to have the OT in Greek. There was also a demand from non-Jews to have the text in Greek because they believed it was a valuable document, regardless of their personal religion. That is not, however, cause for authoring the NT in Greek. The Masoretic text was NOT used to create the LXX. The Masoretes didn't exist for another 600+ years. Do your homework.
John 1:28 says, “These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. “ You meant Luke 1:28.
That single word says nothing about Greek primacy. The phrase “full of blessing” appears in the Peshitta. The same is seen in Deuteronomy 33:23. So, if anything, you are making the case for it starting as a Hebrew idiom that was translated into Greek.
The epistles were NOT written to large and diverse audiences. They were written to specific congregations, and specific people. They were written to congregations that Paul visited. One would have to ignore the introductions to every single letter to believe anything else. That is how the seeds of error get planted. It's how the history gets re-written.
The leaders of those congregations were Jewish believers in Jesus. In those congregations were Jews and a growing number of former Gentiles who embraced the lifestyle of belief in Jesus as Messiah and obedience to His instructions. The “middle wall of partition” in the book of Ephesians is addressing that fact, and a tradition Paul is condemning.
Peter's letters have more generic introductions. But, even they are addressed to specific groups of people. One group is those who have been dispersed. Didn't you tell me that the Jews were dispersed? Peter warns these dispersed people to have their conversation to be honest among the Gentiles. So, he is NOT writing to Gentiles. He is writing to dispersed Jews. It is only the copying and disseminating of these letters that foster any “broader audience” kind of claim.
The conclusion is that Jesus spoke Aramaic to His followers, and spoke Hebrew to Paul. Paul spoke Hebrew to his audience and was not heard speaking Greek, except for one particular event. All of the religious activities of the Apostles centered around Jewish life. Their Messiah having visited them did not change the fact that they were Jewish, they acted Jewish and they spoke Aramaic or Hebrew in their daily lives. That is why letters written to them would have been in their native language.
