4 ms·

also Aramaic was the main language of the Roman province of Judea some 2021 years ago.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Aramaic was the common language of every place east of the Hellespont, including Palestine, and many (not all) jews in Israel had forgotten Hebrew and long ago adopted the Aramaic script even when they did write Hebrew. And from Babylon they adopted the Babylonian Calendar and names for some of the months. That was the subtext of the book of Jubilees, bemoaning how jews had forgotten the proper times and corrupted their calendars with foreign dating systems. That was an amazing and very crazy period if you were a jew trying to hold onto your tradition, because there was a massive Hellenizing push in the wake of Alexander's conquests, and gymnasiums were springing up all over, there was a concerted effort to promote Hellenization as the new "international" culture of global trade and enlightenment, and many jews were even getting surgeries done to undo circumcision as they tried to fit into this new internationalist world. Many were learning and embracing Greek philosophy and the Greek approach to science, as well as the greek language and culture. That created lots of culture wars as traditional factions fought the (pro-Greek) liberalizing factions, leading to revolts, massacres, and significant turmoil in the whole region. The Maccabean revolt can be viewed as an example of traditional counterattack against Hellenizing influences, as can the subsequent revolts against Rome. It's truly a fascinating time period. But remember that even though all those traditionalist revolts ended in disaster, it is in fact the traditional societies that survive to this day, whereas the Greek and Roman empires have long vanished.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  The Babylonian Talmud is written in Aramaic, so it is not quite correct to equate Aramic with helenizing influence; also it would rather have been a neobabylonian/sasanian influence. Also all of the elite of Judae came back from babylonian captivity, and part of the Book of Ezra is written in Aramaic, just for a start.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  > adopted the Aramaic script even when they did write Hebrew Indeed, what we think of as the Hebrew alphabet is actually Aramaic (and Aramaic the language is now written using Syriac instead).
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    There was an original Hebrew alphabet. The Aramaic script was adopted when Israel was conquered by the Persian Empire as all the empire used Aramaic. It's a good thing, though, the proto-Hebrew is much uglier (IMO) than the square script. But judge for yourself which glyphs you prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Well Christianity is from a Hellenizing faction. That's still here.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Despite the fact that Koine ("common") Greek and Roman roads were used to spread Christianity, most converts didn't view themselves as "Hellenizing factions" or transmission vectors of Hellenistic culture anymore than they viewed themselves as Judaizers. But some did - it was a topic of much debate. The relationship (and philosophical differences) between Christianity, Hellenism, and Judaism is often discussed the in the letters of Paul: "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Early Christianity is very different than the views and practices of Herod or Josephus, I'll grant you. I suppose the most go-with-the-flow residents ended up as Arab Muslims after many rounds of assimilation. But there are many off-ramps along the way.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    That's not really an accurate view. Christianity is open to absorbing anything good in any culture (logos spermatikos) and the Greeks were unrivaled in terms of philosophical and artistic sophistication. St. John couldn't convert the Greeks to Christianity until he made the connection between Christ and Logos (John 1) because Hebrew genealogies didn't mean anything to the Greeks. And then it clicked. "Hellenizing" better describes the Seleucid influence, which lead to the Maccabean revolt, that not only led Jews to adopt Greek cultural practices and customs at odds with Jewish worship, but even to worshipping the pagan gods.
- saurik 5y ago
  > But remember that even though all those traditionalist revolts ended in disaster, it is in fact the traditional societies that survive to this day, whereas the Greek and Roman empires have long vanished. Might this not "just" be because those "fallen" empires largely blended into and became whatever came next--arguably barely even having an identity other than their government--while these separate smaller cultural groups chose to maintain their heritage (something "Rome" arguably didn't have any of to begin with) and so can be subjugated and suppressed but not destroyed? Like, to the extent to which Rome is even a thing with a culture as opposed to merely the world's most thinly-stretched government, I have seen a lot of historians now take the position that it was more of a decline than a fall, that depending on where you were that it might have existed for a very long time (a century? longer?) in a form where people on the ground might have only barely noticed changes, and that maybe it arguably even still exists in the form of greater western civilization.
- golemiprague 5y ago
  It's funny that you call it "Palestine" talking about a period before the area was even named "Palestine" by the Roman conquerers. The Jews were speaking both languages, Arameic was the lingua franca of the whole region for a long time, it is still part of the Jewish scripture and prayers and it is closer to Hebrew than to Arabic so it is not that hard to pick it up for a modern Orthodox Jew who study the talmud.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  Yet here we are, using the Latin alphabet, communicating in a language largely comprised of Romance and Greek words, and (me, at least) living in a world dominated by Western political ideas drawn almost completely from the Greco-Roman world.
  - simonh 5y ago
    I suppose that's right, but I do feel the Anglo-Saxon influence in the British system, and thus that of the US and many Commonwealth countries, doesn't get it's fair due. There really isn't any direct line from the British parliament back to Rome or Greece, rather it derives from the Anglo-Saxon Witan and folkmoots. Yes this system was interrupted at the top by th Norman invasion, but it fought it's way back up the power structure into the Model Parliament which had actual elected commoner members. Imagine! I'm sure Greek democracy influenced the process of voting at some point and Athenian democracy set an important cultural and historical precedent, but the principle of commoner representation came from the Anglo-Saxon traditions, at least in England. And then there's the common law system of course.

Aramaic was the common language of every place east of the Hellespont, including Palestine, and many (not all) jews in Israel had forgotten Hebrew and long ago adopted the Aramaic script even when they did write Hebrew. And from Babylon they adopted the Babylonian Calendar and names for some of the months. That was the subtext of the book of Jubilees, bemoaning how jews had forgotten the proper times and corrupted their calendars with foreign dating systems. That was an amazing and very crazy period if you were a jew trying to hold onto your tradition, because there was a massive Hellenizing push in the wake of Alexander's conquests, and gymnasiums were springing up all over, there was a concerted effort to promote Hellenization as the new "international" culture of global trade and enlightenment, and many jews were even getting surgeries done to undo circumcision as they tried to fit into this new internationalist world. Many were learning and embracing Greek philosophy and the Greek approach to science, as well as the greek language and culture. That created lots of culture wars as traditional factions fought the (pro-Greek) liberalizing factions, leading to revolts, massacres, and significant turmoil in the whole region. The Maccabean revolt can be viewed as an example of traditional counterattack against Hellenizing influences, as can the subsequent revolts against Rome. It's truly a fascinating time period. But remember that even though all those traditionalist revolts ended in disaster, it is in fact the traditional societies that survive to this day, whereas the Greek and Roman empires have long vanished.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago
The Babylonian Talmud is written in Aramaic, so it is not quite correct to equate Aramic with helenizing influence; also it would rather have been a neobabylonian/sasanian influence. Also all of the elite of Judae came back from babylonian captivity, and part of the Book of Ezra is written in Aramaic, just for a start.
Koshkin 5y ago
> adopted the Aramaic script even when they did write Hebrew Indeed, what we think of as the Hebrew alphabet is actually Aramaic (and Aramaic the language is now written using Syriac instead).
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  There was an original Hebrew alphabet. The Aramaic script was adopted when Israel was conquered by the Persian Empire as all the empire used Aramaic. It's a good thing, though, the proto-Hebrew is much uglier (IMO) than the square script. But judge for yourself which glyphs you prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet
Ericson2314 5y ago
Well Christianity is from a Hellenizing faction. That's still here.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Despite the fact that Koine ("common") Greek and Roman roads were used to spread Christianity, most converts didn't view themselves as "Hellenizing factions" or transmission vectors of Hellenistic culture anymore than they viewed themselves as Judaizers. But some did - it was a topic of much debate. The relationship (and philosophical differences) between Christianity, Hellenism, and Judaism is often discussed the in the letters of Paul: "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Early Christianity is very different than the views and practices of Herod or Josephus, I'll grant you. I suppose the most go-with-the-flow residents ended up as Arab Muslims after many rounds of assimilation. But there are many off-ramps along the way.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  That's not really an accurate view. Christianity is open to absorbing anything good in any culture (logos spermatikos) and the Greeks were unrivaled in terms of philosophical and artistic sophistication. St. John couldn't convert the Greeks to Christianity until he made the connection between Christ and Logos (John 1) because Hebrew genealogies didn't mean anything to the Greeks. And then it clicked. "Hellenizing" better describes the Seleucid influence, which lead to the Maccabean revolt, that not only led Jews to adopt Greek cultural practices and customs at odds with Jewish worship, but even to worshipping the pagan gods.
saurik 5y ago
> But remember that even though all those traditionalist revolts ended in disaster, it is in fact the traditional societies that survive to this day, whereas the Greek and Roman empires have long vanished. Might this not "just" be because those "fallen" empires largely blended into and became whatever came next--arguably barely even having an identity other than their government--while these separate smaller cultural groups chose to maintain their heritage (something "Rome" arguably didn't have any of to begin with) and so can be subjugated and suppressed but not destroyed? Like, to the extent to which Rome is even a thing with a culture as opposed to merely the world's most thinly-stretched government, I have seen a lot of historians now take the position that it was more of a decline than a fall, that depending on where you were that it might have existed for a very long time (a century? longer?) in a form where people on the ground might have only barely noticed changes, and that maybe it arguably even still exists in the form of greater western civilization.
golemiprague 5y ago
It's funny that you call it "Palestine" talking about a period before the area was even named "Palestine" by the Roman conquerers. The Jews were speaking both languages, Arameic was the lingua franca of the whole region for a long time, it is still part of the Jewish scripture and prayers and it is closer to Hebrew than to Arabic so it is not that hard to pick it up for a modern Orthodox Jew who study the talmud.
ceilingcorner 5y ago
Yet here we are, using the Latin alphabet, communicating in a language largely comprised of Romance and Greek words, and (me, at least) living in a world dominated by Western political ideas drawn almost completely from the Greco-Roman world.
- simonh 5y ago
  I suppose that's right, but I do feel the Anglo-Saxon influence in the British system, and thus that of the US and many Commonwealth countries, doesn't get it's fair due. There really isn't any direct line from the British parliament back to Rome or Greece, rather it derives from the Anglo-Saxon Witan and folkmoots. Yes this system was interrupted at the top by th Norman invasion, but it fought it's way back up the power structure into the Model Parliament which had actual elected commoner members. Imagine! I'm sure Greek democracy influenced the process of voting at some point and Athenian democracy set an important cultural and historical precedent, but the principle of commoner representation came from the Anglo-Saxon traditions, at least in England. And then there's the common law system of course.