What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Number Six]

Well, you mentioned Jews. It is indeed an interesting clue, but what Jews are we talking about? Not that you cared as much as to specify it, for the sake of the historical facts you boast about. So, let's see, what Jews? The Alexandrian Jews created a hybrid Judeo-Hellenistic culture, Philo being their most notorious champion, but is it in any way similar to what Romans did with Greek? Hell, no. Jews speaking Greek in Greek Alexandria is not the same field, not the same championship and not even the same sport, like someone said. Jews in Judea following Alexander's conquests? Great, that's another good clue, but what did they really do with Greek? How did it affect their culture? Would you tell us? War, you finally said it, indeed. It doesn't appear to me that Greek was used on the same extents as it was in the Roman Empire: the Jewish culture was little affected, other than for originating sub-cultures such as gnosis. Do we wanna talk of post-70 CE Jews? That's interesting too, Christianity was a big phenomenon which originated from Judea and was permeated by Greek thought, but 70 CE is quite after Rome and we may also question the extent of Jewish contributions once Christianity took off.

The influence of Persian, Babylonian etc. empires over the Jewish civilization is significant and it is probably a better example, but I keep missing the point of the comparison, as Jews were basically under the rule of those people.

 

So, well, first of all, you don't make a good service to the historical facts by making a list of ancient nations, without either argumenting why it's actually relevant. Secondly, you can probably name each and every one of them, for anywhere there have been forms of bilingualism, contacts, influences, etc.

So, in the end, you're probably missing the point I was trying to make: it's not about some random peeps speaking another as random language. Maybe the impact of the Greek culture over Rome is not entirely clear: I didn't mention bilingualism because Romans were smart or because it's fun to speak a second language. Simply, Rome (which is: its upper classes) went through the last centuries before Christ and came out with a completely different figure; the 1st century CE Rome had changed a whole lot from what it was in the 4th century BC. Rome took a foreign, more advanced culture, the Greek culture, and provided itself with the means to establish a political dominion and a cultural reference over the mediterrean ecumene: the absorbtion was so deep that you can't always distinguish what's Roman and what's Hellenistic: historians do sometime talk of the Roman Empire as of a Roman-Hellenistic Empire. All of this went by the knowledge of the language. There is no equal: Romans were first at doing exactly this (and not some other random form of cultural exchange or subjugation).

 

And hey, I just gave the clue to the OP. If he wants to use it, he can get documented and/or ask for clarifications, but I didn't intend to write a paper for him. More so because, in the end, we may have different opinions.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

Alright, I'll narrow down the Greek-Hebrew Bilingualism to the Ptolomies, and Selucid holdings post Alexander, and prior to that, Assyrian for the conquered Samaritan areas, and prior to that Pre-Mosaic it was Egyptian.

 

Of the Mosaic factions- the Jews and Samaritans, they tended to know those three language groups, at different points in their history. The anti-Mosaic Mandaeans had Assyrian, Arab, and Persain tongues at various points.

 

The Jews in North Africa mostly integrated, TO THIS DAY, with the Berbers, and have been there since before Roman Times.They maintained not just the language, but also customs and distinct archaic clothing. I don't have much data on the Jews in Greek Marselies, or much of anything with the Hittites.

 

My proof is the Torah and Talmund. They use several languages in it, as well as incorporate wisdom texts from the societies. The Ptolomy Philadalphius II (might of misspelled that) also sponsored many Jewish intellectuals, I found his discussion of statecraft with the Jews copied into the Emperor Krishnaraya's supposed discussions with his ministers back in the 1600s.... wasn't a complete plagiarism, but somehow a discussion by Hebrew Scholars to a Greek king in Egypt made it to Southern India, into the Marathi language. Just a little interesting sidenote.

 

Do I have to list the language used in each canonical and apocryphal old testament work to satisfy you? If your Chinese, I'll understand, but I assume most people in the west know the Jews used many languages for their Holy Texts. They maintained 5 temples (Samaritans only one), some outside of Israel.

 

 

I don't know for certain, but the Romans, or perhaps the Persians, equal shot, might of been the first Bijuralist...... having multiple legal codes per region. I know Persia would conquer areas, and install rulers with autonomy to national groups, but I don't know if this freedom also extended to lawmaking.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Onasander

[Number Six]

So basicly the Jews took something from anybody they came in touch with. Oh, God, I didn't know. Basicly the same as anybody else usually did. The Romans themselves took from Etruscans, from Magna Graecia (long before the 'Hellenization' of their culture would begin) and from the other Italic peoples. Hell, if we consider the influences of Etruscans over the early Rome (an influence that some scholars tend to exaggerate; but, although I do not agree with exaggerations, the influence is far from minimal), Roman-Greek bilingualism wasn't any original... not because of the Jews, but because of the Romans themselves.

In the end it's down to one simple thing: do we recognize any originality to what the Romans did with Greece?

I have no doubt that what Jews did with other cultures they came in contact with (or were usually dominated by) is just as meaningful and original. Not necessarily the same thing.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

And I don't do a disservice to history, but bibliography when I don't quote. It' t respectful to do so, expected in academic source works, but  outside of my Cynic Encyclopedia, except for rare or obscure references, I don't list. It's little more than aesthetic clutter, I use history to prop up philosophy. If I feel a work requires deeper insight, I'll add a appendix. 

 

I mention the name, author, or context- unless like you asked to specify further (which I did, Torah and Talmund). Just...... we got this thing called google now. Half the time, I can find what I need from context to do a search via Google or Bing. 

[Onasander]

Romans..... they took a lot from the Etruscans...... I am surprised how little from the Greek colonies in the south. It's something I want to research. There is this big philosophical and intellectual delay to grasping a Greek culture with a high degree of civilization within a few days walk. It's a point of ignorance on my part, even if the land route was blocked, the sea wasn't. 

[Number Six]

Well, Romans may have been under the political influence of Etruscans. Their meeting with the Greeks of Italy probably was less favourable. Anyway I guess that the influece of the latters on the Romans may have been downrated.

Also, the Etruscans themselves were influenced by the Greeks, so one may suppose one route of influence or the other.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

There is some evidence (can't source this memory) that the Etruscans were from Asia Minor, which would bewildering be upon further reflection be...... Hittite territory. I have a lot of sudden doubt about this. 

 

Hard for me to say the archaic origins of the Etruscans..... when I last researched it, people were throwing out everything. The Etruscans could of been just as influenced by Carthage or Spain, which had cities. Or Phoenicians.

 

I don't know.