Replies

If I may... a couple of things... Greek was not the dominant language of ancient Rome... while a fair amount of Latin owe its roots in Greek - from Cicero- through Pliny- evidence points to a predominance of Latin spoken and written in those days- in aristocracy and government. Surely greeks though visited Rome.

Peter on the other hand would have a better grasp of Greek due to his geography and trade. That's not to say that St. Peter - with the power of the Holy Spirit couldn't spoke a Latin blue streak in Rome as well- Until another Apostle steps forward.. we have to assume... but cannot know that certainty.

We do know Nero was pretty pissed at these new Christian people dotting his city- so somebody had to be doing some talking to these converts and winning them over... (and if it wasn't St. Paul...) and so the Gospel wouldn't have been 'greek" to these ancient Roman Christians....

In defense of Latin - perhaps as a 'dead language" the Good Lord saw the Providence in a language that was "stuck in time"- to keep his everlasting Word from changing or being corrupted milennia down the road.... as MOST languages do... as the meanings of words obviously can and do change over time...(I'm thinking "Gay" ie). Just a thought from Mr. Madrid...

(I'm thinking "Gay" ie).

I'm thinking "pro multis" v. "pro multibus".

A deliberate mistranslation by the modernists. It wasn't even a translation; it was a lie.