re: Aramaic

I am not heated about this in any real sense. I am sorry for 
conveying that impression. It just seems to me that we are doing an 
injustice to the Palestinian setting of the Gospels if we argue that 
everyone knew Greek, at some level, and Jesus would have spoken in 
Greek to communicate to the masses.  Aramaic continued to be used in 
that area as the Palestinian Targums indicate and as the Qumran 
evidence indicates.  As for the inscriptions that are in Greek, the 
masses do commission inscriptions, the elite do.  And, just as on the 
coins and tomb stones of many countries, there are languages that are 
not those of the people (e.g., Latin on Canadian and British coins), 
the language on such things as tombstones and coins may not mean a 
great deal.  

Again, I do not dispute that Greek was known by some.  Palestine was 
Hellenized and there is evidence of that.  But, as pointed out 
several times now, aside from the elite, Greek was a lingua franca 
needed for commerce and government, not for the common things of 
life.  Porter will have to have some very conclusive and 
widespread evidence to show that the masses used Greek in the way 
that has been argued on this list.

I will have to read Porter's article for his details, 
but the discussion is not new.  There was one about a similar matter 
(or the same?) on IOUDAIOS some time back in which the various pieces 
of the argument for Greek were taken apart.

Glenn Wooden (a calm one, at that!)

> >>Glenn Wooden
> >>I would still disagree.  
> It seems to me that I am missing something or seriously misinterpreting your
> notes - this issue appears to be very important to you and it's merely an 
> interesting side question to me. If you could elaborate on why it is so 
> significant I might have a better feel for the topic.
> If I've misunderstood, I apologize but the discussion seems to be getting warm
> and I don't know why.
> +Robert M. Gross