320 ilaria l. e. ramelli
both of them were very well conversant with greek?3 indeed, in that
period, roman philosophers such as musonius rufus and annaeus
cornutus, and marcus aurelius shortly afterwards, wrote in greek.4
Paul probably endeavoured to preach in Latin at least when he was in
rome, where he spread the christian message within the Praetorian guard
and while he was awaiting his trial. Likewise, Peter in rome used mark
as an interpreter, very probably to translate his own preaching into Latin
(more likely than to render it into greek). christian preaching adapted
itself to the language of its public from the very outset of the preach-
ing of the Jesus movement; the so-called miracle of the tongues in acts
2:4–11 reflects this. among those who are reported here to have heard the
apostles speak in their own language are also Jews and proselytes who
came from rome to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Passover of 30 ce.
The epistle to the hebrews, traditionally ascribed to Paul, was believed by
eusebius to have been necessarily written in aramaic, because it would
have been the language of its addressees.5 similarly, according to tradition,
the first redaction of what became the gospel of matthew was in aramaic
or hebrew, since it was written for the Jews. The same pastoral concern
is still shown by athanasius of alexandria, who preached in coptic in
the fourth century ce. besides this pastoral motive, our Pauline pseude-
pigraphon may also intimate an alternative linguistic reason: like anybody
3 For erasmus’s questions, see ilaria ramelli, “note sull’epistolario tra seneca e s. Paolo
alla luce delle osservazioni di erasmo,” InvLuc 26 (2004): 225–37.
4 see, e.g., ilaria ramelli, Musonio Rufo (milan: bompiani, 2001); ilaria ramelli, Anneo
Cornuto: Compendio di Teologia Greca (milan: bompiani, 2003) with the reviews by roberto
radice, Aevum 79 (2005): 220; Franco Ferrari, Athenaeum 95 (2007): 550–51; Jean-baptiste
gourinat, Philosophie Antique 8 (2008) 286–89; László Takács, Antik tanulmányok 50 (2006):
113–14; and ilaria ramelli, Stoici romani minori (milan: bompiani, 2008), with the review by
gretchen reydams-schils, BMCR 2009 [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-10.html].
on greek-Latin bilingualism in rome in the first century bce–ce, see simon swain, “bilin-
gualism in cicero? The evidence of code-switching,” in J. n. adams, m. Janse, and s. swain
(eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society (oxford: oxford university Press, 2002), 128–67, who
analyzes cicero, a good parallel to seneca in his bilingualism, but not to Paul in the pres-
ent letters (cicero’s letters are “not testimony of his bilingualism: it is first and foremost
a discourse strategy within his Latin” [164]); J. n. adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Lan-
guage (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 2003). F. biville describes the notion of
“graeco-Latin” as “one culture, two languages” drawing inspiration from suetonius, Claud.
42.1: utroque [.. .] sermone nostro (“graeco-romans and graeco-Latin: a Terminological
Framework for cases of bilingualism,” in adams, Janse, and swain [eds.], Bilingualism in
Ancient Society, 92). on the knowledge of Latin among the Jews in the apostolic age, see
J. J. Price, “The Jews and the Latin Language in the roman empire,” in m. mor, a. oppen-
heimer, J. Pastor, and d. r. schwartz (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days
of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi, 2003), 164–80.
5 see Hist. eccl. 3.38.2.