- Jim Baur writes:
Ultimately, this also means that it is very, very likely that Jesus
spoke Greek as well as Aramaic.
I would like to point out Jn 12-20,22....
Jn. 12-20. Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast:
12- 21. these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
12- 22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Jesus.
If Jesus did not speak Greek, then perhaps Philip did. Having two Greek GoTh's, certainly
suggests a Greek following. Many of the Roman legions of the provinces may have been
from Greece. It is likely to have been a 'lingua prima' 2nd language established by trade
routes through Damascus. (Syria was made a Roman Province by Pompey in 63 B.C.)
Greece is closer and would have established trade routes very early.
Alexander had conquered India in 326 B.C. and it is known that some stayed and conducted
business (government). There was a trade network that was set up by Alexander's armies.
However, this diminished the further east you went after Alexander moved out. Damascus is
too close to Greece to have had its trade routes diminished. Greece became part of the Roman
Empire around 263 B.C. Greeks became part of the Roman Army. Syria was more peaceful
or conducive to early Christian sects as we know some prospered there. It would be more
appealing to a Greek in the Roman army to go to Syria rather than Britain or Germany. (IMO)
By the time of Jesus most of the Roman Provinces could well have been run by great grandsons of Alexander's army, now working for the Romans, but still Greeks. Who better to run the old trade
routes? The Roman empire stressed moving its forces the other way, northwest. They did not conquer
Greek, the language, they likely used it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]