Submitted by ItaloSvevo111 t3_z3h2tn in history
I could be off about this one, but I read at one point that the reason the New Testament was written in Greek was because it was the lingua franca of that area, owing to the centuries the Greek Seuclid Empire held dominion over Canaan, but by the time of the early Christian writers, the place had come under Roman rule, and usually, when the Romans take over an area, people quickly begin start speaking vulgar latin (see Gaul, Hispania, Romania, Provence). So my question is, why was it that the linguistic influence Rome usually had over its conquered territories did nothing to dislodge Greek as the language of choice for the composers of the bible?
whistleridge t1_ixlpobq wrote
The Romans colonized and settled Hispania and Gaul and Dacia, in large part because their wars of conquest there were also wars of annihilation and depopulation.
Such numbers are necessarily a rough estimate, but Gaul probably had a population of ~5 million before Roman conquest. Historians generally agree Caesar killed about a million, and enslaved another million or so. So it was a HUGE reduction in population.
The conquests in the east were nothing of the sort. Pompey basically just marched through and collected surrenders. The local populations were huge and urbanized, and the Latinate Roman population was never large. So while local elites might have learned Latin, the average person in the street never did.