Did Christ and the Jews commonly speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?

by Daniel Michaels 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

Daniel Michaels

Did Christ and the Jews commonly speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?
Greetings group
Ever since the movie on the Passion of Christ, I have been interested in why it is that the majority of Scholars have thought that Aramaic was the language that Jesus mostly spoke and taught in. I am not at all saying that it was not spoken at all in the area, however, when reading the bible and noting what it has to say on this subject indirectly, the evidence seems to point to the languages of Greek and Hebrew being the common languages of the Jews of that time.
Note first, an event recorded in scripture that took place in the times of King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah.
ESV Isaiah 36:11 Then Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah said to the Rabshakeh, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of
From this text we can see that these 3 educated Jews who served in official positions in the city of were able to speak both Hebrew and Aramaic, and it is clear also in this text that both the bible and the Jews made a clear distinction between the language of Aramaic, (Gr. Syristi) and Hebrew. It is also noteworthy that Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah wanted Rabshakeh to speak in a language that the Jews would not understand, namely, Aramaic, instead of the language of the Jews, which was Hebrew.
One WT publication made this observation about the languages of the Jews.
?Later, in the days of the Jewish kings, Hebrew came to be known as ?the Jews? language.? (2 Ki. 18:26, 28) In Jesus? time, the Jews spoke a newer or expanded form of Hebrew, and this still later became a rabbinic Hebrew. However, it should be noted that in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the language is still referred to as the ?Hebrew? language, not the Aramaic. (John 5:2; , 17; Acts 22:2; Rev. 9:11)?
We can also look at the evidence in the NT to see that the languages that the bible seems to indicate that were spoken at the time of Jesus were Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
Note first Acts 21:37, which identifies Paul as speaking both Greek and Hebrew, and that the Jews, and perhaps even the Roman officer, understood the Hebrew language that he spoke.
*** Rbi8 Acts -22:2 ***
37 And as he was about to be led into the soldiers? quarters, Paul said to the military commander: ?Am I allowed to say something to you?? He said: ?Can you speak Greek? 38 Are you not really the Egyptian who before these days stirred up a sedition and led the four thousand dagger men out into the wilderness?? 39 Then Paul said: ?I am, in fact, a Jew, of in Ci·li´cia, a citizen of no obscure city. So I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.? 40 After he gave permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. When a great silence fell, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:
22 ?Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense to YOU now.? 2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent, and he said:)
Acts 26:14 shows that the resurrected Christ, when he spoke to Saul, spoke to him in the Hebrew language, with again, no mention of the language of Aramaic.
*** Rbi8 Acts 26:14 ***
14 And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, ?Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.?
Act 6:1 talks about 2 different languages that the Jews were speaking, namely, the Greek and Hebrew speaking Jews, with no mention again of a group of Jews who were speaking Aramaic, which we would expect to find if the majority of Jews were in fact speaking Aramaic. Either, that, or we are to belief that the Aramaic speaking Jews were not ever causing trouble.
*** Rbi8 Acts 6:1 ***
Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution
John 19:13-14, as well as John 5:2, make mention of only the Hebrew language, with again, no mention of Aramaic.
*** Rbi8 John 19:13-14 ***
Therefore Pilate, after hearing these words, brought Jesus outside, and he sat down on a judgment seat in a place called The Stone Pavement, but, in Hebrew, Gab´ba·tha. 14
*** Rbi8 John 5:2 ***
2 Now in at the sheepgate there is a pool designated in Hebrew Beth·za´tha, with five colonnades.
The text of Revelation 9:11gives Christ 2 names, one in Greek, and another in Hebrew. If the Jews were in fact speaking Aramaic, than you would expect John to tell us what his name in that language would be. But again, only Hebrew and Greek are identified for the reader.
*** Rbi8 Revelation ***
In Hebrew his name is A·bad´don, but in Greek he has the name A·pol´lyon.
Also, Revelation 16:16 speaks of only the Hebrew language.
*** Rbi8 Revelation ***
16 And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har?Ma·ged´on.
John 20:16 clearly identifies a language that Mary spoke to the risen Lord, which was Hebrew, showing that Mary at least spoke Hebrew, or was knowledgeable of Hebrew, and this text also tells us that John likely did not write in Hebrew but in Greek, since he writes that it was Hebrew that she spoke this word in, which, if he had wrote in Hebrew, he would not have had to identify.
*** Rbi8 John ***
Jesus said to her: ?Mary!? Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: ?Rab·bo´ni!? (which means ?Teacher!?)
Perhaps one of the more important verses in identifying the languages of the land, are the languages mentioned at John 19:17-21. Since Pilate wrote in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek, so that the Jews could read the title, we would expect Pilate to have written in the common languages of the people. It is of great interest to note that we don?t find any mention here of Aramaic, which we would expect to see if in fact that was the common language of the Jews.
*** Rbi8 John 19:17-21 ***
17 And, bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called , which is called Gol´go·tha in Hebrew; 18 and there they impaled him, and two other [men] with him, one on this side and one on that, but Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: ?Jesus the Naz·a·rene´ the King of the Jews.? 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek. 21
It would be of interest to me to understand why the majority of Scholars believe that Christ spoke in Aramaic, as well as the majority of Jews of that day. Since the LXX was the bible that the NT writer often quoted from, as well as the Hebrew Text, it would seem that the Jews would be able to speak those languages, since the NT authors wrote and quoted from those languages. Also, the written texts of Hebrew and Greek would have a preserving effect on the languages, allowing the Jews to preserve them in spoken form. The evidence in the NT also points to Greek and Hebrew as being the languages commonly spoken at the time, as well as the only languages specifically mentioned by the NT authors, besides the mention of Latin at the crucifixion of Christ. Since the bible does show that Hebrew and Aramaic are distinct languages, although similar, the text of Isaiah 36:11 seems to shows that a speaker of Hebrew would not understand Aramaic. Had Aramaic been the common language of the time, as the movie ?The Passion of the Christ? displays, we would expect to see its common usage by the biblical authors, who were also Jews and who wrote to the Jews. However, the evidence in the bible seems to point only to Hebrew and Greek, which are the languages that the oldest text of the bible, with the exception of the Aramaic Targums and parts of the writings of Daniel. Since the NT authors mentions only the Hebrew and Greek languages as being spoken by the Jews, I submit that Christ did in fact not speak in Aramaic, but in the common languages of the Jews, which NT biblical evidence indicates to be Hebrew, and perhaps some Greek, since Acts 6:1 tells us of only two categories of Jews, namely Greek-speaking Jews, and Hebrew-speaking Jews.
Free in Christ
Daniel Michaels
Terry

http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html
The above link is a good and simple explanation of what Aramaic was and who used it.
It is important to step back and examine what we are really dealing with when we view things through that one "book" (66 separate) called the Bible.
If you go out to your local city dump and look at all the shredded newpapers, magazines and other fragments of trash blown about in the wind and try to assemble it into a history of the people of your city you might have a perspective on how the Bible comes about.
As I have said in other posts on this Forum, it pays huge dividends to examine the history of the canonicity of what we call the Holy Bible. There were a great many agendas, politics, and power brokers who shifted, sifted and decided what we have.
Treating that book as though it were a document with data in it is a venture in self-delusion.
None of the words contained in any religious writing are actual quotes. They aren't news stories. They aren't objective reporter's unbiased on-the-spot accounts of eye-witness events. The Bible contains hearsay, it contains rumor and wishful-thinking and pseudo-history, regurgitated folk tales, outright distortions and a smattering of hand-me-down family lore.
Investigate the matter for yourselves! Please, do NOT take my word for it. Read the early church historians and you'll get an eyeful of the politics, the chicanery and the power-mongering that went into religious choices of what was canonized and what was thrown away.
To examine the languages of Jesus or any of the characters who speak and are quoted is a flight of fancy. No information is contained therein. Nobody heard Jesus say anything who wrote those gospel accounts. The names of apostles were attached to lend authority.
The Bible is not a repository of divine wisdom. I challenge anybody anywhere to give me a list of data that god "revealed" which could not have been known any other way except by revelation.
Even so-called prophecy, it can be demonstrated by scholars and historians, was written after the events. In all the law of Moses what do you have that is Divine?
Isn't it strange God never mentioned bacteria or viruses but through allowing people to remain ignorant of their very real existence insured the death of millions of people throughout history?]
Jesus followers did not even wash their hands! Shouldn't Jesus have whispered something to them?
No, studying the language of Jesus is as edifying as studying what Gullivar spoke in the Land of Liliput.
Just my opinion and I'm nobody. Ignore me and investigate the matter for yourself.
Terry
Balsam

Terry,
Have you read Karen Armstrongs book, "The Battle for God". I imagine you have. "101 Bible Myths" was good too.
Ruth
Leolaia

I have to say that your attempt to infer what languages were spoken in Judea in the early 1st century comes across to me as highly facile and myopic. I say this as someone whose academic expertise is, in fact, the analysis of historical literary sources in order to assess linguistic practice. The documentation contained within the Bible represents only a small sliver of the total evidence relating to the linguistic situation, which includes ossuary and funerary inscriptions, currency, extracanonical texts, ostraca, and so forth. There is also much evidence of Aramaic within the Bible which you've omitted through a selectivity bias. Now, there has been a vibrant academic debate among scholars on the extent to which Hebrew was still used in the first century, whether it was still an everyday language or limited to religious or scribal usage. But there can hardly be any doubt on the prevalance of Aramaic as vernacular.
Since the bible does show that Hebrew and Aramaic are distinct languages, although similar, the text of Isaiah 36:11 seems to shows that a speaker of Hebrew would not understand Aramaic.
Isaiah 36:11 purportedly represents a situation seven centuries before the time of Jesus. Languages change. Your appeal to this scripture makes as much sense as looking at a text from the 1300s to determine how well modern-day English would be understood by a speaker of another (related) language. In fact, the Bible itself clearly shows that Hebrew gradually became more and more like Aramaic in the post-exilic period. The latter books like Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Job, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, etc. are riddled through-and-through with Aramaic words that are totally anachronistic in earlier Hebrew writings, and the same can be found in other Hebrew compositions from the period (such as Sirach). If you want the specifics, consult Driver's introduction to the OT. The incursion of Aramaic lexicon in late Hebrew was undoubtedly the result of bilingualism, as Hebrew speakers borrowed Aramaic terms and used them as if they were Hebrew words. This was during the period when Aramaic was an official language of the Persian (cf. the Aramaic used in letters to Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7b-6:18 and 7:12-26) and Seleucid empires. The publication and popularity in the second century BC of such a work like Daniel, which is written both in Hebrew and Aramaic, is direct evidence of such bilingualism. Some had probably become monolingual in Aramaic as early as the Persian period; Nehemiah 8:8 refers to the time when Ezra read aloud the Hebrew Torah to the common people "translating and giving the sense so that the people understood what was read". Nehemiah 13:24 moreover says that Jews of mixed marriage spoke either "the language of Ashdod" (most likely a dialect of Aramaic) "or the language of one of the other peoples but could not speak the language of Judah".
There is extensive extrabiblical evidence for the everyday use of Aramaic in Judea/Palestine in the Hellenistic period. Public documents such as deeds, marriage contracts, divorce agreements, etc. were written in Aramaic (cf. COS, volume 3). Nabataean coins till A.D. 100 were in Aramaic. Aramaic ostraca have been found in Judea in such places as Tell Arad and Nebi Yunis (from 400-300 BC), and then of course there's the copious corpus of Aramaic sectarian and extrabiblical texts at Qumran. About one out of six of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Aramaic (including such works as 1 Enoch), and the language in the scrolls represents a literary koine of the distinct regional dialects that had already come into existence by this time. The Hasmonean inscription in the tomb of Abba, whose father was one of the priests of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was written entirely in Aramaic, the tomb of Simon "Temple-Builder" (evidently someone who labored on King Herod's rebuilding of the Temple) has a mortuary inscription in Aramaic, the ossuary of the family of the high priest Caiaphas was written in Aramaic, the personal letters written by Simon bar-Kochba were written in Aramaic, and so forth. An Aramaic halakic command of Yose b. Joezer who lived in the mid second century BC is preserved in 'Eduy. 8.4, and the Megillat Ta'anit ("Listing of Fast Days") which was written before AD 70, was written in Aramaic. All this evidence needs to be taken into account if you ask whether "the Jews commonly spoke Aramaic" at the time of Christ. If you compare the extant evidence for both Aramaic and Hebrew, there is a lot more attestation of Aramaic than Hebrew during the first centuries BC and AD. In fact, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was commonly thought that Hebrew had become extinct except as a scribal language during this period. We now know this was not the case.
Since the "historical" Jesus (assuming historicity for the sake of argument) hailed from the Galilee region and was not a member of the upper class, his most likely vernacular was Aramaic -- not Hebrew. And this is definitely confirmed by the Aramaic personal names (PNs), nicknames, and utterances that crop up throughout the gospels. Why are none of these mentioned? Cephas (Greek Ke:phas), the name Jesus gives to Simon (cf. John 1:42; Matthew 16:18-19), is derived from Aramaic kyp' "rock" and not Hebrew kpym, Bar-Jona (Greek Bario:na) is the patronymic of Simon Cephas in Matthew 16:17 and is likewise from Aramaic (cf. Aramaic br-ywchn' ; Hebrew patronymics start with bn-), the disciple Bartholomew (Mark 3:18; cf. Greek Bartholomaios) has an Aramaic name (cf. Aramaic br-tlmy), and the blind beggar Bartimeus (cf. Mark 10:46; derived from br-tm'y "son of the unclean"), the prisoner Barabbas (Matthew 27:16; cf. br-'b' ), the apostle Barsabas/Barsabbas (Acts 1:15-16; cf. br-sb' "son of old man" or br-sbbt "son of the Sabbath"), and the Cypriot nicknamed Barnabas by the apostles (Acts 4:36; cf. br-nb' "son of encouragement") all have Aramaic br- patronymics. The name Thomas, which is given as a nickname meaning "twin" to Judas "not Iscariot" in John, is certainly not Hebrew in its form but either Aramaic or Syriac (cf. Syriac thama "twin"). Martha (cf. Luke 10:38) comes from Aramaic mrty "lady, mistress" which appears in Aramaic inscriptions and commonly in the Talmud. And then there are phrases such as "maranatha," "talitha cumi," "eli eli lama sabachthani," and similar phrases in the gospels and Acts which are either Aramaic, or Hebrew-Aramaic hybrids.
*** Rbi8 John ***
Jesus said to her: ?Mary!? Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: ?Rab·bo´ni!? (which means ?Teacher!?)
Perhaps one of the more important verses in identifying the languages of the land, are the languages mentioned at John 19:17-21. Since Pilate wrote in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek, so that the Jews could read the title, we would expect Pilate to have written in the common languages of the people. It is of great interest to note that we don?t find any mention here of Aramaic, which we would expect to see if in fact that was the common language of the Jews.
*** Rbi8 John 19:17-21 ***
17 And, bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called , which is called Gol´go·tha in Hebrew; 18 and there they impaled him, and two other [men] with him, one on this side and one on that, but Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: ?Jesus the Naz·a·rene´ the King of the Jews.? 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.
The obvious flaw in this argument is the assumption that the word "Hebrew" as used in the gospels referred specifically to actual Hebrew and not loosely to Aramaic. Indeed, Josephus clearly uses this word to refer to the Aramaic language. He quotes Aramaic words as "Hebrew" (cf. Antiquities 3.10.6) and describes the language in which Titus' wrote his demands to the Jerusalem inhabitants as "Hebrew" (Jewish War, 6.2.1), even though he otherwise indicated the language of Judea as Aramaic. For instance, in the introduction of the Jewish War, Josephus indicates that he wrote it first in Aramaic before translating the work into Greek, that is, he "composed in the language of our country and sent to the Upper Barbarians" who thus spoke the same language as spoken in Judea (Jewish War, Preface, 1); this can only be a reference to Aramaic as this was the language of the Jews in the diaspora of Parthia, Babylon, and other Jews beyond the Euphrates. That is, Josephus thought of Aramaic as though it were Hebrew.
And it is the same as in the gospel writers. Take a look for instance at your example from John 19:17-19. It says that "Golgotha" means "Place of the Skull" in Hebrew. Yet this is Aramaic, not Hebrew. The Greek Golgotha comes from Aramaic gwlgwlt', (see the Onk. Targum on Exodus 16:16 for an example), not Hebrew glglt. Thus your own example shows that Aramaic can be meant when the word "Hebrew" is used.
ozziepost

It might be compared to historians 2,000 years from now looking back on our literature and questioning whether we spoke English or French - much of the English 'language' is French.
There's no easy answers.
Satanus

Leolaia
Well explained. One wonders, if aramaic was the most popular language of the street, why was lower class greek used to write the nt? Was it a case of one language being used as a spoken one, and another for literature? Also, how popular was greek in the roman domains, and when did it phase out? Did latin replace it?
S
Terry

In answer to Ruth I must say I adore Karen Armstrong's writing.
I did, indeed, read the Battle for God and her other books including the History of God.
I learned an amazing number of things I'd simply never thought of from reading Armstrong.
I highly reccomend her to everybody. She is a thoughtful writer who THINKS and analyzes and makes sense of things otherwise esoteric.
Incidentally, I'll make a quick analogy. When I was a teenager I use to use the Dictionary to prove to others what the "correct" pronunciation of words was. Then, one day, I was listening to National Public Radio and I heard and interview with one of the many people whose job it is to monitor how words are being used in everyday language and public writings. He made it quite clear that it is usage that determines not only definitions, but, pronunciations too.
This sent my world crashing about me! If enough idiots start saying New Kue Lur instead of New Clear (nuclear) then the "correct' pronunciation BECOMES that way of saying it!! Gasp. I realized that the inmates were in charge of the asylum.
What do I mean by citing such an analogy? We crave an absolute! If something were definitively absolute as an authority we could avail ourselves of it and ALWAYS be right!! But, alas, the world simply doesn't work that way. It is an illusion. Unless you are a mathematics professors teaching simple arithmetic you'll search far and wide for an absolute in this world!
And the Bible doesn't even make the list of documents that have anything remotely approaching absolute "information". It is a will o' the wisp.
Just my view, please ignore unless you investigate for yourself and agree from research.
Terry
Leolaia

Well explained. One wonders, if aramaic was the most popular language of the street, why was lower class greek used to write the nt? Was it a case of one language being used as a spoken one, and another for literature? Also, how popular was greek in the roman domains, and when did it phase out? Did latin replace it?

Good questions. I'm not intimately familiar with a lot of the specific evidence, so let me give an answer based on my general understanding of the dynamics of language contact situations and my knowledge from early Christianity. One should first realize that most of the NT was not written in Judea or for a Judean audience but to diaspora Jews and Gentiles outside of Judea. Paul was a native of Tarsus and thus was fully fluent speaker of Greek and he wrote to Asian and Greco-Roman churches, the Johannine literature belongs to Syria and Asia Minor, and the synoptics likewise were not written by native Judeans (cf. Mark's ignorance of Palestinian geography, and Matthew's dependence on Mark). Throughout the whole NT we see that writers depended on specifically the LXX translation of the OT -- indicating again that the writings emerged in a Hellenistic environment (plus the unmistakable Hellenistic thought in Paul, Mark, Luke, and the Johannine writings). However, some works (such as Q, Didache, and possibly Matthew) evidence a Syrian (possibly Antiochan) provenance, and thus likely arose in a bilingual Aramaic-Greek (but clearly Greek-dominant) environment. Some have argued that the synoptic logia were originally written in Aramaic but this is not the consensus in the field of NT studies. Most scholars believe that the logia of Q and Mark (as well as Thomas) were written originally in Greek, though they may have had a prehistory in Aramaic oral tradition. Mark also shows some strong Aramaisms, indicating not that the work was originally written in Aramaic but that the author was a bilingual or depended on sources that arose in a bilingual environment. In short, the literature of the NT is not representative of what was really spoken in Judea before AD 70. The religion and the literature was mostly a product of the broader Hellenistic world. That is why the gospels took the trouble to define and translate many of the Semitic names and phrases that occur, as they were likely not known (or known well) to their readers.
The use of Aramaic, Greek, and Latin varied considerably depending on region, social status, occupation, and so forth. From what I recall for the Galilee region, the town of Sepphoris was particularly cosmopolitan and it is likely that Greek was known to a much wider part of the Jewish population than in more isolated areas. Taking the example of a fisherman like Peter working along the Sea of Galilee, it is rather likely that such a person would have known some Greek (at least broken Greek) to communicate with Greek customers who wanted to buy fish. Because of gender disparities, one could guess that Greek was known much more to men than women. Also, those who were more highly educated and wealthy, or were involved in government, were more likely to be fluent in Greek. It is probable that both Greek and Aramaic (and Hebrew in the reading of texts) was spoken in the synagogues of Syria and Asia Minor, especially among Greek-dominant Jews.....recall also that it was during this period that Gentile "God-fearers" were drawn to the synagogues with some converting to Judaism. Within Judea, the use of Greek would have been far less than in Syria and the Aegean. There were quite a few Jews residing in the more urban areas who were born in the diaspora, and certainly important festivals and Passover in particular drew Greek-speaking Jews from all over (such as Simon of Cyrene who was in Jerusalem for the Passover)....including some who likely had no knowledge of Aramaic or Hebrew. The ruling class and religious leaders were also fluent in Greek (as was also the case in Egypt and Syria). The 1st century AD dedication inscription of the synagogue at Mt. Ophel in Jerusalem is in Greek, and uses terms such as arkhisunagogos to refer to the leaders of the synagogue. The "Sanhedrin" is actually a term borrowed from Greek sunedrion (meaning "sitting together"), and was made up of local elites like the priests, scribes, and elders. Greek was the scholarly language in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and science, and had a presence in Judea for several centuries. Latin, on the other hand, was very much new -- the Romans didn't take over Judea until 63 BC and inscriptional and literary evidence suggests that they continued to use the Greek that was already common coin in the land. It was commonly remarked by scholars when Passion of the Christ came out that the use of Latin by Pontius Pilate in addressing Jewish leaders and Jews in general was not realistic. My guess is that the use of Latin would have been strongest in the armed forces which were made up entirely of foreigners who likely had little opportunity or desire to learn much of the language of the Jews. I would guess ordinary Jews would have had the most opportunity to learn Latin in places such as Caesarea which was where Roman culture was most dominant in Judea.
Pole

Satanus,
Well explained. One wonders, if aramaic was the most popular language of the street, why was lower class greek used to write the nt? Was it a case of one language being used as a spoken one, and another for literature?
Leolaila has already made some remarks, but the simple answer is this: Greek and Latin served as the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world at that time. The writers of the NT had to reach christians of pagan origin as well as Jews. Aramaic may have been "the language of the street" as you put it, but only so for Jewish Christians. As a Semitic language it was totally exotic for many Christains of Pagan origin. So it was a matter of finding a common denominator.
Which kind of leaves us with a very interesting question:
How dependable is the NT especially when it comes to prophetic details (take the Apocalypse for instance) given the fact that its authors weren't even native speakers of Greek?
Also, how popular was greek in the roman domains, and when did it phase out? Did latin replace it?
I'm not sure about the exact dates, but as far as I can remeber from my historical linguistics classes, Latin, or "deteriorated Latin" by that time, replaced Greek for good with the massive influx of barbarians into the Roman empire, especially those of Romanic origin.
Later it was the lingua franca of the Middle Ages, for Romanic, Germanic and Slavic peoples of Europe.
Pole

Did Christ and the Jews commonly speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?

Share this