If the Galileans were speaking the same "Hellenistic" language you choose to believe they all spoke, there would have been no amazement... no accusation that the disciples were drunk.
I’m reading the text in a more historical and cultural context; I’m not changing anything written. I would argue that many people are reading into the narrative something that just isn’t there. The result of making assumptions that, when one examines the actual text in detail, are incorrect.
If these people spoke a slew of languages, why is it that nowhere in the entire narrative does it remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. Surely, people speaking as many languages as people assume were spoken, not to mention the confusion that would have caused, would merit at least a sentence or two in the narrative. It seems to me that mention of a communication issue would bolster the idea of a language miracle that supposedly occurred later on.
The amazement of the crowd has to do, in part, with the role of Hebrew and the ‘social status’ (so to speak) of Galileans.
Hebrew was a dead language by the first century AD, but it was still the sacerdotal language of the Jewish faith – all readings in the temple as well as any teaching, prophesies, prayers, etc. were required to be rendered in Hebrew, not Aramaic (as a quick aside – Greek was slowly gaining acceptance as an alternative to Hebrew in certain areas).
In a public setting, this was done by the ‘teacher’ (usually a rabbi) speaking/reading in Hebrew and a person standing next to him would translate what was said into Aramaic (or Greek, as the case may be).
This translator actually had a specific title (it escapes me at the moment). The idea of one person speaking and another translating is one of the reasons why speaking a language (“tongue”) and “interpreting” a language was considered two separate things in Jewish culture even though they go hand-in-hand. This is likely also why Paul differentiates the two in his list of spiritual gifts in his letter to the Corinthians.
This dual usage of Hebrew (considered the ‘high’ language) and Aramaic/Greek (the ‘low’ language) in Jewish culture encompasses a concept known as ecclesiastical diglossia.
Diglossia itself is the concept of using a “high” language in certain social (including religious) situations/settings as opposed to a “low” language (typically the vernacular, everyday speech heard on the streets).
Diglossia is alive and well today; both Greece and German-speaking Switzerland have it. In Greece it’s a distinction between Katharevousa (high) and Demotiki (low). In Switzerland, it’s (Hoch) Deutsch (high) and Schwyzerdüütsch (low).
If this concept of diglossia is used in a liturgical setting, it’s referred to as ‘ecclesiastical diglossia’.
I’m sort of digressing. The point is, the Jews in attendance for Pentecost spoke Aramaic and Greek, but it’s very important to note that in a religious setting such as Shavu’ot, Hebrew was required first, i.e., the expected language to be heard first, then a translation into the vernacular(s).
When the apostles at the temple started addressing the crowd, the culturally and (more importantly) religiously expected language was Hebrew – this is the language the crowd should have been addressed in first, followed then by a translation into Aramaic and Greek. This, as we know, didn’t happen. The crowds immediately got Aramaic and Greek.
The crowd would never expect to hear ordinary people boldly prophesying in the ‘low’ languages (Aramaic and Greek) in this situation, particularly during a religious holiday; as strange as it may sound to us today, it would not have been the culturally or religiously acceptable thing to do. It just wasn’t done.
When the crowds heard the disciples boldly proclaiming in the “other languages” of Greek and Aramaic; the languages they were “born in”, the result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule. This was an extreme breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better!
Another often overlooked reason for the crowd’s amazement was that Galileans were looked at as sort of uneducated ‘yokels” Because of this anti-Galilean prejudice, some of the crowd may have been surprised to hear the disciples “proclaiming the mighty works of God” with such incredible authority. Indeed, some even went so far as to accuse them of being drunk.
They spoke with “other languages”, i.e. Greek and Aramaic – “other languages”? Other than what?? Other than the expected Hebrew! Hebrew was completely dispensed with – for many people there, this would have been quite shocking and cause for amazement and bewilderment – they heard them in their own languages; not Hebrew first as should have happened.
The miracle was breaking through established cultural barriers and making “God”, directly accessible to anyone, in any language. A concept which, as silly as it sounds today, was virtually unheard of at that time. A ‘sign’ for the Jews that their God was now going to be made accessible to any nation in any language and anyone could benefit.
This, at a time in history where the concept of the Jewish God being accessible to non-Jews bordered on heresy; indeed, the mere suggesting that non-Jews could benefit from His goodness was to risk one’s life as evidenced in Acts 22:1-22.
On another note - the ‘list’ was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It does not evidence linguistic diversity; there was none.
Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject and I would encourage the reader to explore this further; it’s quite interesting! One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-br.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
I’m reading the text in a more historical and cultural context; I’m not changing anything written. I would argue that many people are reading into the narrative something that just isn’t there. The result of making assumptions that, when one examines the actual text in detail, are incorrect.
If these people spoke a slew of languages, why is it that nowhere in the entire narrative does it remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. Surely, people speaking as many languages as people assume were spoken, not to mention the confusion that would have caused, would merit at least a sentence or two in the narrative. It seems to me that mention of a communication issue would bolster the idea of a language miracle that supposedly occurred later on.
The amazement of the crowd has to do, in part, with the role of Hebrew and the ‘social status’ (so to speak) of Galileans.
Hebrew was a dead language by the first century AD, but it was still the sacerdotal language of the Jewish faith – all readings in the temple as well as any teaching, prophesies, prayers, etc. were required to be rendered in Hebrew, not Aramaic (as a quick aside – Greek was slowly gaining acceptance as an alternative to Hebrew in certain areas).
In a public setting, this was done by the ‘teacher’ (usually a rabbi) speaking/reading in Hebrew and a person standing next to him would translate what was said into Aramaic (or Greek, as the case may be).
This translator actually had a specific title (it escapes me at the moment). The idea of one person speaking and another translating is one of the reasons why speaking a language (“tongue”) and “interpreting” a language was considered two separate things in Jewish culture even though they go hand-in-hand. This is likely also why Paul differentiates the two in his list of spiritual gifts in his letter to the Corinthians.
This dual usage of Hebrew (considered the ‘high’ language) and Aramaic/Greek (the ‘low’ language) in Jewish culture encompasses a concept known as ecclesiastical diglossia.
Diglossia itself is the concept of using a “high” language in certain social (including religious) situations/settings as opposed to a “low” language (typically the vernacular, everyday speech heard on the streets).
Diglossia is alive and well today; both Greece and German-speaking Switzerland have it. In Greece it’s a distinction between Katharevousa (high) and Demotiki (low). In Switzerland, it’s (Hoch) Deutsch (high) and Schwyzerdüütsch (low).
If this concept of diglossia is used in a liturgical setting, it’s referred to as ‘ecclesiastical diglossia’.
I’m sort of digressing. The point is, the Jews in attendance for Pentecost spoke Aramaic and Greek, but it’s very important to note that in a religious setting such as Shavu’ot, Hebrew was required first, i.e., the expected language to be heard first, then a translation into the vernacular(s).
When the apostles at the temple started addressing the crowd, the culturally and (more importantly) religiously expected language was Hebrew – this is the language the crowd should have been addressed in first, followed then by a translation into Aramaic and Greek. This, as we know, didn’t happen. The crowds immediately got Aramaic and Greek.
The crowd would never expect to hear ordinary people boldly prophesying in the ‘low’ languages (Aramaic and Greek) in this situation, particularly during a religious holiday; as strange as it may sound to us today, it would not have been the culturally or religiously acceptable thing to do. It just wasn’t done.
When the crowds heard the disciples boldly proclaiming in the “other languages” of Greek and Aramaic; the languages they were “born in”, the result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule. This was an extreme breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better!
Another often overlooked reason for the crowd’s amazement was that Galileans were looked at as sort of uneducated ‘yokels” Because of this anti-Galilean prejudice, some of the crowd may have been surprised to hear the disciples “proclaiming the mighty works of God” with such incredible authority. Indeed, some even went so far as to accuse them of being drunk.
They spoke with “other languages”, i.e. Greek and Aramaic – “other languages”? Other than what?? Other than the expected Hebrew! Hebrew was completely dispensed with – for many people there, this would have been quite shocking and cause for amazement and bewilderment – they heard them in their own languages; not Hebrew first as should have happened.
The miracle was breaking through established cultural barriers and making “God”, directly accessible to anyone, in any language. A concept which, as silly as it sounds today, was virtually unheard of at that time. A ‘sign’ for the Jews that their God was now going to be made accessible to any nation in any language and anyone could benefit.
This, at a time in history where the concept of the Jewish God being accessible to non-Jews bordered on heresy; indeed, the mere suggesting that non-Jews could benefit from His goodness was to risk one’s life as evidenced in Acts 22:1-22.
On another note - the ‘list’ was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It does not evidence linguistic diversity; there was none.
Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject and I would encourage the reader to explore this further; it’s quite interesting! One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-br.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
