Adrian goes on to suggest that this high percentage of the Greek
(70 on the average, to 80 %) of all funerary inscriptions, "perhaps
represents the level of aquaintance and ability to converse in Greek
in the first two centuries of the CE", pointing further to the fact
that "Porter cites van der Horst "(whose contribution to this
field is substantial)" as saying,"
> if even rabbis and their families phrased their epitaphs
> in Greek, there is only one natural explanation for that
> phenomenon: Greek was the language of their daily lives.
>
>I would also concur with that.
I 'd like to add to Michael's phrase, if I may, that so *would* I, while
I feel at the same time obliged to point both to Adrian's cautious
"perhaps", as well as note that van der Horst's stated position may also
reflect a sense of understatement (rather understood in his case, too,
spelled under the weight of eons of rooted assumptions showing now
to be contrary to scientific evidence) and that such understatement
may at any rate in effect be compromising the evidence, to the extend
that may prevent from mounting a full and proper testing the case
hypothesis, such one that may lead us to a renewal of the assumptions
and possibly new insights. Thus, I may have probably concured fully
had the quotation read:
"if even rabbis and their families phrased their epitaphs
in Greek, there is only one natural explanation for that
phenomenon: Greek was the language of their daily religious lives."
Isidoros
ioniccentre@hol.gr