|
Based on numbers alone, Greek had as much currency in first -as it did in second- and third-century Galilee. But measuring the use of Greek by calculating the number of inscriptions in each century is flawed methodology. This is because the inscriptional evidence is patchy and unrepresentative (as the very few inscriptions in Aramaic/Hebrew demonstrate). Scholars must first understand the various kinds of ancient bilingualism, then look for indications of these, including (written) Greek literacy. Literary and other evidence, especially factors that might encourage bilingualism, such as the influence of the administrative cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias and the surrounding Hellenistic cities, the state of the Galilean economy, and rural-urban dynamics, can then help to fill in the gaps. On the basis of all of the extant evidence, knowledge of Greek was probably quite common, with most people picking it up by force of circumstance rather than through formal instruction. |
|