5 ms·

I'm a bit confused here. I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are c

by anm89 5y ago

I'm a bit confused here. I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are claiming this papyrus originated from. why would a text even exist at all on the subject of Christ from that Era in Greek. Wouldn't all of the relevant texts have been in Latin at that point? honestly asking. I'm not supposing I have a good grasp on the history here.

gmoot 5y ago
The common language was Greek, even though the Romans were in charge. Greek spread through the conquests of Alexander the Great, and Latin never supplanted it.
- fourtrees 5y ago
  Yup, the entire eastern half of the Roman Empire used Greek as a lingua franca.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    rather, as an actual and official first Lingua
mistercheph 5y ago
Like Latin, Greek was a language whose use extended far past the decline of its birthplace. We do not have extensive contemporary sources for the Gospels. All we have are copies produced much later. This word is found in authoritative sources for the text of the new testament, which is written in Koine Greek.
NobodyNada 5y ago
The entire New Testament was originally written in Greek during the late 00’s/early 100’s. The papyrus mentioned in the article is a copy of Luke’s gospel dated to about 200 AD, but the original manuscript was written closer to 100 AD [0]. We have fragments of and references to the book of Luke from earlier than 200, but the copy from 200 is the first fragment containing the Lord’s Prayer and that unknown adjective. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
- prometheus76 5y ago
  The Septuagint (the Old Testament) was also in Greek, and translated around 200 BC, and was the official scriptures read in synagogues at the time. If they read scriptures in another local language in the synagogue, they were also required to read it from the Septuagint in Greek afterwards because that was the official language for scriptures in the synagogues. Only after Romans started persecuting the Christians did Jews start separating themselves and trying to put together a separate canon and translating it back into Hebrew, which wasn't accomplished until the 1400s.
coldtea 5y ago
>I'm a bit confused here. I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are claiming this papyrus originated from. why would a text even exist at all on the subject of Christ from that Era in Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek ("The New Testament is a collection of Christian texts originally written in the Koine Greek language, at different times by various authors"). Heck, Paul's epistles were written to mostly Greek-side churches, addressed in Greek. Furtherore, while Greece had declined as an "superpower" (basically Romans took over), Greek culture, communities, and the use of Greek language had not, and were prevalent in the Eastern part of the Empire, which later became the Eastern Roman Empire (known as Byzantium). The Eastern empire used Latin at first as official language, but the common language of the majority of the population was Greek (which was also what was taught, and the language were literature and such was written). This includes the old core ancient Greece (modern-day Greece, Asia Minor, southern Italy, Cyprus), and all the way around eastern mediteranean and the middle east - e.g. places like Alexandria, Antioch, etc. where Greek were spoken, and had big -and ruiling- Greek-speaking populations from the hellenistic times). Byzantium itself turned to use Greek as official language after 2-3 centuries (and kept it for another millenium).
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Indeed, there is no evidence there was ever any New Testament text in Aramaic. Nothing in the Greek text hints at any sort of translation difficulty going from a Semitic to an Indo-European language. Questions of whether Jesus, Matthew, Luke, et al ever even existed as live people arise. Again, there is no evidence of any kind to settle the matter. Serious historians, in its absence, lean toward "no". Many conclude that Christianity started out as a cult wholly based in Rome, that later identified a need for "people stories" set in someplace exotic to appeal to the laity.
  - bhaak 5y ago
    [citation needed] who those serious historians are supposed to be.
    - 5y ago
Bayart 5y ago
Greek was the literate language of the Eastern Mediterranean during Roman times. Roman domination couldn't undo the existing network effects that preexisted there, all the more so that you couldn't be considered to have an education in Rome if you didn't speak Greek. Latin was used but it was essentially restricted to legal and administrative tasks.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  I would also add that Greek was more philosophically sophisticated. The Greeks had a rich philosophical tradition and the resulting terminology was beyond what was available in other languages. Even today, following centuries of scholasticism, the Latin translations aren't always adequate enough for the task. Take "logos" and "verbum", for example.
  - Bayart 5y ago
    You can just use Greek words in Latin ! They certainly did often enough that it doesn't carry any prejudice. The declension system is very similar and Latin is by itself highly flexible, I wouldn't go as far as calling Greek particularly more sophisticated (and I'm usually very wary of assigning inherent qualities to languages). But it does carry along a cultural environment that's more focused on philosophy. You could say the same of Latin and law.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      > You can just use Greek words in Latin ! Haha, yes and no. This isn't really a question of the inherent grammatical qualities of languages in this case (though I don't see why certain languages can't perhaps be more suitable for certain kinds of discourse over others, but I digress). There's a received bit of wisdom in poetry that literature, strictly speaking, cannot be translated. This expression gets to the bottom of something very important which is that language is inseparable from culture and tradition (which you gesture toward in your reply). So a word like "logos" simply has no equivalent in Latin and simply using the word "logos" or claiming that "verbum" is now the same as "logos" would require that either the receiver already know the Greek, or that Latin had become sophisticated enough to absorb the Greek meaning and all that it presupposes. Every translation of John 1:1 seems equally as anemic as "verbum" or deficient in some way: word, Wort, słowo, Слово, parole, Verbo, 道. You need a sophisticated philosophical culture to support a word like "logos". Otherwise, there's nothing in your language to translate into.
antillean 5y ago
If you happen to live in London or ever go there, you can see one of the oldest surviving New Testament Greek manuscripts. It's called Codex Sinaiticus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus), dates from the 4th century AD, and is always on free public display at the British Library in London.
throw0101a 5y ago
> I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are claiming this papyrus originated from. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean. In the Middle East during that time Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke) was the lingua franca, as was Persian further east. See The Last Lingua Franca by Nicholas Ostler for a history: * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/04/last-lingua-franca-ostler-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/04/last-lingua-fr... A language can survive the waning of the culture that it was associated with. For another example, see Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin, also by Ostler: * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview25 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreview...
- prometheus76 5y ago
  I wanted to add that Koine Greek was also the official language used in synagogues at the time, and that the Septuagint was the official version of the scriptures used in synagogues at the time of Christ. The scriptures could be read in Aramaic, but if they were read in Aramaic, it was also required that they be read in Greek afterwards.

by anm89 5y ago

gmoot 5y ago

The common language was Greek, even though the Romans were in charge. Greek spread through the conquests of Alexander the Great, and Latin never supplanted it.

fourtrees 5y ago
Yup, the entire eastern half of the Roman Empire used Greek as a lingua franca.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  rather, as an actual and official first Lingua

mistercheph 5y ago

Like Latin, Greek was a language whose use extended far past the decline of its birthplace. We do not have extensive contemporary sources for the Gospels. All we have are copies produced much later. This word is found in authoritative sources for the text of the new testament, which is written in Koine Greek.

NobodyNada 5y ago

The entire New Testament was originally written in Greek during the late 00’s/early 100’s. The papyrus mentioned in the article is a copy of Luke’s gospel dated to about 200 AD, but the original manuscript was written closer to 100 AD [0]. We have fragments of and references to the book of Luke from earlier than 200, but the copy from 200 is the first fragment containing the Lord’s Prayer and that unknown adjective. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

prometheus76 5y ago
The Septuagint (the Old Testament) was also in Greek, and translated around 200 BC, and was the official scriptures read in synagogues at the time. If they read scriptures in another local language in the synagogue, they were also required to read it from the Septuagint in Greek afterwards because that was the official language for scriptures in the synagogues. Only after Romans started persecuting the Christians did Jews start separating themselves and trying to put together a separate canon and translating it back into Hebrew, which wasn't accomplished until the 1400s.

coldtea 5y ago

>I'm a bit confused here. I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are claiming this papyrus originated from. why would a text even exist at all on the subject of Christ from that Era in Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek ("The New Testament is a collection of Christian texts originally written in the Koine Greek language, at different times by various authors"). Heck, Paul's epistles were written to mostly Greek-side churches, addressed in Greek. Furtherore, while Greece had declined as an "superpower" (basically Romans took over), Greek culture, communities, and the use of Greek language had not, and were prevalent in the Eastern part of the Empire, which later became the Eastern Roman Empire (known as Byzantium). The Eastern empire used Latin at first as official language, but the common language of the majority of the population was Greek (which was also what was taught, and the language were literature and such was written). This includes the old core ancient Greece (modern-day Greece, Asia Minor, southern Italy, Cyprus), and all the way around eastern mediteranean and the middle east - e.g. places like Alexandria, Antioch, etc. where Greek were spoken, and had big -and ruiling- Greek-speaking populations from the hellenistic times). Byzantium itself turned to use Greek as official language after 2-3 centuries (and kept it for another millenium).

ncmncm 5y ago
Indeed, there is no evidence there was ever any New Testament text in Aramaic. Nothing in the Greek text hints at any sort of translation difficulty going from a Semitic to an Indo-European language. Questions of whether Jesus, Matthew, Luke, et al ever even existed as live people arise. Again, there is no evidence of any kind to settle the matter. Serious historians, in its absence, lean toward "no". Many conclude that Christianity started out as a cult wholly based in Rome, that later identified a need for "people stories" set in someplace exotic to appeal to the laity.
- bhaak 5y ago
  [citation needed] who those serious historians are supposed to be.
  - 5y ago

Bayart 5y ago

Greek was the literate language of the Eastern Mediterranean during Roman times. Roman domination couldn't undo the existing network effects that preexisted there, all the more so that you couldn't be considered to have an education in Rome if you didn't speak Greek. Latin was used but it was essentially restricted to legal and administrative tasks.

bobthechef 5y ago
I would also add that Greek was more philosophically sophisticated. The Greeks had a rich philosophical tradition and the resulting terminology was beyond what was available in other languages. Even today, following centuries of scholasticism, the Latin translations aren't always adequate enough for the task. Take "logos" and "verbum", for example.
- Bayart 5y ago
  You can just use Greek words in Latin ! They certainly did often enough that it doesn't carry any prejudice. The declension system is very similar and Latin is by itself highly flexible, I wouldn't go as far as calling Greek particularly more sophisticated (and I'm usually very wary of assigning inherent qualities to languages). But it does carry along a cultural environment that's more focused on philosophy. You could say the same of Latin and law.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    > You can just use Greek words in Latin ! Haha, yes and no. This isn't really a question of the inherent grammatical qualities of languages in this case (though I don't see why certain languages can't perhaps be more suitable for certain kinds of discourse over others, but I digress). There's a received bit of wisdom in poetry that literature, strictly speaking, cannot be translated. This expression gets to the bottom of something very important which is that language is inseparable from culture and tradition (which you gesture toward in your reply). So a word like "logos" simply has no equivalent in Latin and simply using the word "logos" or claiming that "verbum" is now the same as "logos" would require that either the receiver already know the Greek, or that Latin had become sophisticated enough to absorb the Greek meaning and all that it presupposes. Every translation of John 1:1 seems equally as anemic as "verbum" or deficient in some way: word, Wort, słowo, Слово, parole, Verbo, 道. You need a sophisticated philosophical culture to support a word like "logos". Otherwise, there's nothing in your language to translate into.

antillean 5y ago

If you happen to live in London or ever go there, you can see one of the oldest surviving New Testament Greek manuscripts. It's called Codex Sinaiticus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus), dates from the 4th century AD, and is always on free public display at the British Library in London.

throw0101a 5y ago

> I self admittedly an extremely amateur history buff but my impression was that Greece had completely declined by 200 ce when they are claiming this papyrus originated from. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean. In the Middle East during that time Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke) was the lingua franca, as was Persian further east. See The Last Lingua Franca by Nicholas Ostler for a history: * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/04/last-lingua-franca-ostler-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/04/last-lingua-fr... A language can survive the waning of the culture that it was associated with. For another example, see Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin, also by Ostler: * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview25 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreview...

prometheus76 5y ago
I wanted to add that Koine Greek was also the official language used in synagogues at the time, and that the Septuagint was the official version of the scriptures used in synagogues at the time of Christ. The scriptures could be read in Aramaic, but if they were read in Aramaic, it was also required that they be read in Greek afterwards.