Kavik,
I started reading through the first paper, then skimming. I've been on an international trip and didn't have time to really read it. I am wondering if I am going to read it or not.
The problem with the theory he's promoting is that it just flat out contradicts the text. Pointing out that the passage that refers to the crowds who understood speaking in tongues did not list languages but only the regions in which the languages they heard were spoken, and trying to spin that into some kind of argument that the disciples weren't actually speaking these languages. That foundation is so flawed, building a paper with tons of quotes from theological and other journals isn't going to fix the flawed premise.
There is a reason this interpretation is not a historical interpretation of the passage. Can you help me out? Does the author offer us any evidence at all for his 'diglossia' theory? Does he present some historical documentation that either it was forbidden to speak in Greek or other languages in the streets of Jerusalem?
His theory runs contrary to what I have read of the era, that there was a form of Judaism we know as Hellenistic Judaism. They read the Torah in the Septuagint (LXX), Greek translation, which they considered to be inspired by God, translated the same independently by 70 elders working independently. There were early Christians who inherited this view of that translation as well. The Hellenistic Jews discussed and debated the LXX in their synagogues, treating the Greek like the Judaistic Jews treated the Hebrew text, making doctrinal points out of the slightest detail of the translation.
It would seem possible that many these Hellenistic Jews never even spoke Hebrew, and conducted their church services and prayers in Greek.
From Alfred Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. <https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.txt>
"More probably, however, the former would be the case, since
both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to read them, would be
difficult to procure. At any rate, we know that the Greek Scriptures
were authoritatively acknowledged in Palestine, [129] and that the
ordinary daily prayers might be said in Greek. [130]"
And since there was at least one Hellenistic synagogue in Jerusalem, probably more, it would seem Greek-speaking Jews were tolerated in the holy city. And if everyone had to speak Hebrew or Aramaic in the city, why would there be a distinction between the Hellenistic Jewish widows and other widows in Jerusalem in Acts? The Hellenistic Jews comprised a distinct group. No doubt this was associated by their use of the Greek, 'Hellenistic' language.
Does he present any evidence at all for a ban on languages other than Hebrew or Hebrew and Aramaic in the city? Is there a reference to a decree from the Sanhedrin or the high priests? What is the evidence? If we want to jump to such a bizzare and unhistorical interpretation that the passage about those present from various regions hearing the apostles speak in the languages where they were born just means speaking in Greek and or Latin or Aramaic, languages the apostles presumably knew, wouldn't we have some strong evidence to for it?
I've spent many years in Indonesia. Indonesia has a linga franca, Indonesian. I have met people who lived in different regions who knew the language of that region even though they weren't from the people-group associated with that region. I know a half Chinese, part Java-Sunda woman who speaks Padang and Batak, in addition to whatever else she speaks. Padang people can speak Indonesian, but she picked up the regional dialect. She lives in a city, too.
The first article argues that the Jews lived in Greek cities and wouldn't have known these dialects. The second article argues how widespread foreign languages would have been in Corinth, because it is a port city, a Greek city in the heart of Greece, surrounded by Greek-speaking regions. This seems somewhat contradictory. If Corinth, right in Greek, would have had foreign languages, how much more Greek cities in the middle of areas where other languages were spoken. There is also the possibility that Hellenistic synagogues would have had husbands married to local women who converted to Judaism, and taught their kids the local dialect. There were also proselytes. And some Jewish communities had been there for hundreds of years.
The theory seems to be written from the perspective of someone who lived in a monolingual environment, who doesn't realize that people who live in multi-lingual environments may learn multiple languages to some extent. Why would merely 'diglossia' be the case with Jews from Jewish communities? Where is the evidence that any of these Hellensitic Jews performed prayers in Hebrew? This is before Judaistic Pharisees took over the religion, before the temple was destroyed? The Torah readings, from what I've read, in these synagogues were in Greek. It is unclear if Hebrew played a role.
We can't assume the situation was the same in every synagogue. There could have been all-Greek liturgies, but from what I've read, they may not have been that uniform. And Jews from one city might have known the local dialect while Jews in another city spoke one Greek, or only Greek and Hebrew.
Hebrew was also apparently in a living language in places outside of Jerusalem, where it was a studied holy language. Some Hellenistic Jews may have had little idea of what was being said in the temple. They may have gotten along in Greek in town. They apparently had at least one Greek synagogue to go to, possibly more.
Stephen may have been a Hellenistic Jew, chosen with other Hellenistic Jews and a proselyte, to feed widows fairly without excluding the Hellenistic Jewish ones. The Synagogue of the Libertines whose members he debated with could have been a synagoague full of Greek-speakers. It's a likely scenario.
There is also good evidence right in the Bible that many Jews of the Dispersion could speak local languages besides Greek:
Acts 2
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Trying to argue they didn't speak multiple languages is quite frankly a ridiculous interpretation.
Saying there were more regions than apostles is also not a valid argument, since one person can conceivably offer utterances in more than one language, and there were actually 120 people in the upper room, not just 12.
