Julian

While that may (or may not) be true for the Levant, there is no reason to assume that Diaspora Jews spoke aramaic in general. As Toto pointed out earlier, material written in aramaic would find its growth severely stunted unlike Greek which could go anywhere. This would be especially true as the movement lost its jewish character and became a largely gentile phenomenon.

Julian

Edited to add: Look at it this way: How many Jews today speak Hebrew? How many Jews today speak the language of the land they live in (which would be mostly Greek back then)?

Ben C Smith

There is another angle to consider. It seems likely that some Christian texts were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. (Consider what Papias, for instance, has to say about Matthew, or what various fathers have to say about a Syriac or Aramaic gospel.) But those texts are lost to us, and it is quite possible that they were lost precisely because their currency, unlike that of texts written in Greek, was limited.

In that case, it is not really the case that early Christian literature is all Greek; rather, only the Greek specimens have survived.

Ben.

Julian

I would think it highly plausible that some early text(s) may well have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. One could even go so far as to suggest:

1) Original written in Aramaic by small Jewish movement.
2) Greek copy is made and reaches much broader audience.
3) Jewish Christianity is marginalized and the original Aramaic texts become the de facto copies, the variants, heretical.
4) Jewish Christianity disappear, Aramaic writings no longer copied. Besides they were herectical variations anyways. Weren't they?

Those pesky Ebionites...

Fanciful, perhaps. Possible, yes. Any evidence for such a scenario, not really, at least not significant evidence.

Julian

Malachi151

Ah... natural selection at work...

I think that this was the case for the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, which comes down to us only in a few quotes.

No Robots

Excellent, plausible and useful speculation.

S.C.Carlson

Current scholarship is not very definite: they were written in the last third of the first century, the authors are anonymous, and they were written in the Roman Empire.

Stephen

spin

I think it should be clear that Mark was written in Rome or thereabouts. The text has several words in Latin, few of which are necessary from the context. Explanations are given with Latin words. Some Latin idioms are found in the text making the Greek difficult to understand at times. The poor understanding of geography suggests that it was written elsewhere than Palestine. And the use of the term Syro-phoenician as distinct from Lybo-phoenician would be meaningless to anyone but an Italic dweller.


spin

S.C.Carlson

Martin Hengel agrees with you (he makes a similar analysis), so you're in good company.

The only other real candidate in the literature currently is Syria (Joel Marcus canvasses the arguments), but most of the points in favor of Syria also work for Rome.

Stephen

ETA: Morna Hooker refused to be more specific than the Roman Empire.

Ted Hoffman

I understand Matthew was written in Syria - the arguments are around somewhere but I have never really cared much.

spin

Hengel must be pretty bright.


spin