Re: EIPE LOGWi Matt & Luke

George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:38:01 +1100

> My thought, when Jonathan first raised the
>possibility was that if the Roman centurion were speaking in Greek,
which the
>comment (ascribed to Brian Wilson above but actualy from George Athas'
post)
>affirms, the Latinism would be in the mind of the Centurion and his
translation
>into Greek, not from his speaking in Latin.
>
>Jonathan, I'm not sure what I can see so I'll just call your denarius,
but I'm
>in for the pot!

>>OK, I'll hold my breath and wait for one of the scholars to comment
;->

I think the situation is this:

A centurion, who may well have thought in Latin but spoke in Greek, said
something to Jesus in Greek, perhaps using a common Latin term DIC VERBO
that could be used in numerous languages (like gasuntheit - is that how
it's spelt?). He could also have been using a translator to talk with
Jesus. But the people who recalled these events and later wrote them
down would have remembered the incident in Aramaic/Hebrew, and then
written them down in Greek.

If you're as confused as I am, don't worry. We just may have a diffusion
of a common expression into other languages and back again. It makes for
messy philology!

Regards,
George Athas (University of Sydney)
< gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au >

(Visit the Tel Dan & Bytyhwh Ostracon sites at)
(http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/TelDan.htm)