When the fishermen, doctors, and lawyers sat down under the inspiration of God to compose what Christians now refer to as Scripture, they wrote in a language that has often been taken for granted. Roman politicians spoke in Latin, the Jews of Palestine spoke in Aramaic, but neither were the words of the New Testament. During the two centuries before Christ, the booty of war had brought the Romans a flood of Greek slaves who would play a tremendous part in proving the deficiencies of Latin to their more cultured Greek tongue. Thus, by the hands of an intellectual slave population, modern theologians interested in the origin of first century Scripture now study Greek instead of the language of the Romans. The impact of this lingua servus, or language of slaves, is a rarely told fragment of antiquity that needs to be shared.

Discussing the realm of Koine Greek from 330 BC to 330 AD, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote that "even when Rome was in absolute control, Latin was not the lingua franca" of the day. 1 In the sixth century, a barbarous tribe of Francs defeated the Gauls in modern day France and their coarse language earned them this Latin expression. However, lingua franca would evolve in scholarly circles as an implication of any language outside the perimeter of the reigning power. 2 Although this phrase is still considered useful among Mediterranean traders, Wallace simply makes the point that the Roman tongue had little influence in areas beyond Rome itself. With or without Latin, language was to be an integral piece of the fading republic and the rising empire.

Without a vocabulary for creative imagination, both children and adults would have no form of expression. Language is there within education to both "facilitate and condition" the learning process. 3 Knowing the language of a foreigner introduces men to an entirely "new world of tradition and thought and feeling." 4 Hence, if a body of people see all other languages as crude, such as the Greeks were known to consider their enemies, they will themselves be limited when it comes to expansion. An empire with several languages under their belt will know better how to think universally.

Latin, like other languages, went through a series of stages. As far back as 500 BC, it was purely an infantile tongue. 5 Although the early Romans intermingled with Etruscan culture and society, the Etruscan language was "fundamentally different" from Latin, Celtic, or Greek. Some might have even called it "unintelligible or indecipherable." 6 Between 500 and 100 BC, Latin was referred to as Early or Archaic. From 100 BC to the death of Augustus in 14 AD is Latin is known as Classical or Golden. 7 During this Classical period, Roman words were raised to a level of conventional rhetoric. 8 This can and should be highly attributed to the dent that Cicero put into society.

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman Senator whose short term impact was rather suppressed by his assassination in 43 BC. 9 Soon after his death, the mark that he had left on the Italian literary world was astounding. His writing was "greatly admired" with an "elegance and rhetorical flair" that would serve as an example for young students to copy in the years to come. 10 By the works of Cicero, Classical Latin was generally "composed on the page" as an attempt to convey Roman philosophy in contrast to Greek. 11

"I have thought it an employment worthy of me to illustrate them [thoughts] in the Latin tongue, not because philosophy could not be understood in the Greek language, or by the teaching of Greek masters; but it has always been my opinion that our countrymen have, in some instances, made wiser discoveries than the Greeks." 12

The problem with Latin was not that it was incapable of stretching to the philosophical world, but rather, that it was "inhospitable to compound words." There were no definitive articles in the Classical language (like "the" or "a" or "an") and thus, statements could be almost dry and without purposeful direction. 13 Perhaps thinking of this inadequacy, Seneca would later make reference to Latin as the language of poverty. 14

Such an underdeveloped system of communication left Romans deeply vulnerable to kingdoms and territories that were more mature with their language. Records do show that Latin was used on occasion during "imperial proclamations and inscriptions" like New Testament readers might find in Luke 23:38 (KJV). 15 However, the overwhelming evidence seems to imply that only the "educated minority" were even literate and from among those who could read, Latin was more experimental and evolutionary than useful for daily living. 16 Some of the famous first century Romans were known to "devote themselves to reading and writing almost from morning to night" in what seems to have been a constant effort to prove that their language was worth investing even when it was not practical. 17 The void left by Latin in its Classical stage opened the door to an eastern form of expression. Greeks weren't exactly falling over themselves to learn about Latin, but the Romans were in great need of a Greek education.

Everyday Greeks of the Classical world spoke in four different styles of what has come to be known as Koine, or the "melting pot" language of the common man. Atticistic Greek was, perhaps, somewhat of an "artificial language" revived in later years among those who wanted to elevate Koine to a higher level. Conventional Greek was used for literary purposes. Levantine Greek was more conversational among "Hellenized foreigners" and can be seen in the style of Biblical epistles and gospel writing. Lastly, Colloquial Greek was considered the "popular" or even "vulgar" speech of the day. 18 Much like men of the modern world might be inclined to speak with football friends differently than they speak with their professional clients, the language itself is still common and understood by all.

Kings and princes of the Greek world would, of course, speak through conventional means, but it was still considered common. From the age of Alexander the Great into the Classical age of a First Century Roman Empire, Koine was used by governments and tradesmen all across the Mediterranean as the primary language of commerce and diplomacy. 19 Of course, when a man of the market was to get involved in "polite reading," his manner of Koine Greek would naturally change. 20

By the time of the Punic Wars, Greek was so much of a developed language that it became humbling to the Roman soldiers and left them thirsting in admiration for what they did needed in diplomatic circles. As they were progressively conquered, Greeks saw themselves as "more civilized, but politically less powerful." Romans knew this was undeniably true and found themselves "culturally parasitic on Greece." 21 Greek was easily the lingua franca of the rising Roman Empire, but hardly an educated Greek would take the time to know or study the language of their invading enemy. 22 Romans, on the other hand, were eager to become educated by those that they had put into subjection. This required, as they believed, an established system of slavery.

Roman slavery stemmed from the "rules of war" in the ancient world. Men, women, and children from a defeated land, regardless of any skin color that modern Americans usually associate with this institution, were taken as prisoners of war. The vast majority of Roman slaves came from the east and envied society of Greece. Some of them went on to serve in the upper echelon of Latin aristocracy becoming "active in philosophical speculation and historical writing" while others were thrown into the degrading order that has long earned slavery the badge of dishonor. Nearly half of these captive people were subjected to strained labor while their somewhat fortunate brethren might be found living in the comforts of the upper class. Historical estimations have been made to suggest that as many as 40% of the Roman population were captive servants. 23

The 2nd Century BC provided the greatest "influx of slaves" by way of war, piracy, and global trade. Many were well educated in medicine, architecture, education, mining, and agriculture. Perhaps the greatest atrocities of abuse came through farmers who might work their slaves seven days a week. Yet it must be made clear that Romans saw their slaves as an "investment" that required a firm restraint on harshness. With manumission on the horizon of possibility in the Roman system, landowners would risk both productivity and the harm of a future citizen if they were to become abusive. 24

By many standards, it was much easier for the slaves of Rome to earn their freedom than it was for the slaves of Greece. 25 Every captive was given the right by law to purchase their own freedom "if they could raise enough money." At first glance, this might seem to be an impossible task if we measure Roman slavery by the more familiar American institution. However, the Romans saw manumission, or the emancipation of slaves, as an "incentive to good labor." 26 It was not in the best interest of any slave-owning Roman to discourage his slaves from their possibility of freedom or he might face the backlash of weakened productivity.

One angle of this emancipation was that of "formal manumission." Not only could a slave earn or purchase their liberti as a freedman, but they could be given immediate citizenship as a Roman. 27 In spite of occasional abuse or slave revolts such as the one lead by Spartacus, men and women were being "freed in great numbers." 28 Their rights as citizens earned them an equality that took the United States nearly a century to understand after the Civil War. While some might reasonably ask whether slaves could trust the government to abide by their policies of manumission, Cicero illustrates the conditional thinking of the day:

"As to the manumission of the slaves you need not be uneasy. To begin with, the promise made to yours was that you would treat them according as each severally deserved. So far Orpheus has behaved well, besides him no one very markedly so. With the rest of the slaves, the arrangement is that, if my property is forfeited, they should become my freedmen, supposing them to be able to maintain at law that status. But if my property remained in my ownership, they were to continue slaves, with the exception of a very few. But these are trifles." 29

Across the board, nearly all Greek slaves were able to read and write with great efficiency. Having been entrusted with the contemptuous artistic culture, Greeks found that they had the capacity to exhibit "transient emotions" that would earn them a place of esteem among the Romans. 30 Slaves of a Hellenistic background grew in high demand as they were usually "more educated than their masters." 31 And through the system of slavery, the Romans were now able to achieve the coveted linguistic education that they had been watching from afar.

With the increase in Greek slave teachers, Latin had inversely achieved a great fitting for the classroom. Though it lacked the expressive nature that Greek most certainly offered, the Romans found that it was an effective training ground for understanding and learning words. 32 During the earlier influx of the 2nd Century, slaves working as Greek teachers would train their students in Hellenistic rhetoric as a form of secondary education for those over age sixteen. Had the empire not put a leash on Senatorial debate by the middle of the first century before Christ, Cicero's Latin might have evolved through "political oratory" much like he had set his sights on achieving. 33 Without room for discussion and the practice of polished Latin, Greek remained the dominant language of the empire.

The vast majority of books written during this Classical age tended to be written in Greek and housed in personal libraries where every Roman child could grow up learning it as their primary tongue of communication. 34 Lucius Seneca once commented, "even if my sister knows no Greek, I do," thus proving that a Latin man could rightly speak with pride about his knowledge and mastery of the eastern language. 35

With an understanding of Greek language came the absorbing of Greek "ideas, stories, and gods." Where the men of the east had been good "speakers and squabblers," men of the west began to assimilate and shape their own language accordingly. 36 The Roman tongue would not achieve the ideals of Cicero until long after the Classical period had passed into history, but lyrical poets like Horace would discuss what a "great thing" it was to have "intermixed Greek words with Latin." 37 First century lawyer, Pliny the Younger, deemed it a "very advantageous practice (and it is what many recommend) to translate either from Greek into Latin or from Latin into Greek. By this means you acquire propriety and dignity of expression, and a variety of beautiful figures, and an ease and strength of exposition." 38

The lingua servus in Rome had been so heavily impacted by the slave population that perhaps a great insight can be taken from Paul's Biblical application of servants and masters. When he writes that servants are to be "obedient unto their own masters," any grace-abiding Christian should ask the necessary question of the text. 39 Surely God would not condone slavery in the dispensation of His grace where all men are considered equal in His sight and there is no "bond or free." 40 Careful readers should wisely note that Paul does not speak with excuses for its institution, but instead, focuses on the condition that he is not in a position to remove. Thus, if a Greek man, for example, is in the human condition of slavery, his obedience to Roman masters could have a more far-reaching impact than the condition itself. More plainly, if Paul had been limited to script the Word of God in Latin rather than the conversational lingua servus that obedient slaves had taught to their ignorant masters, his Biblical vocabulary would have been tremendously hampered.

New Testament writers were living in a Roman empire where Greek had become "the common language in the east and Latin in the west." 41 Noted inscriptions from passages like Luke 23:38 give reason to consider that Latin had very little impact, if any at all, in the Greek-speaking east. Challenging the foolish misuse of God's gift among believers, the Apostle Paul teaches that he "spoke in tongues" moreso than anyone else because it was the essential task of his ministry. 42 From the various tribes of Cyprus to the culture of Ephesus and Asia Minor, certainly he had cause to know more than Greek alone, but it was only through Levantine Koine, mentioned earlier, that Paul wrote his epistles. 43

The impact of both languages from the Classical world continue to leave strings of evidence in our modern lives. Trickles of Latin show up when we pass our fingers over the Book of Ecclesiastes with no idea that the ecclesia is the Latin church (similarly found in Greek). 44 During the fourth and fifth centuries after Christ, St. Jerome managed to "woo" the western world to Christianity by way of his modern Latin Vulgate. 45 Writing in the early 20th Century, the British historian and future Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote, "Naturally I am biased in favor of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honor, and Greek as a treat." 46

Sensible historians ought never find glory in the depths of slavery, but much can be taken from the imprints that they left behind. Rome was, perhaps, a cultural leech on the language of the Greeks, but it was through their educated slave population that we can now speak of Biblical Greek instead of Biblical Latin. The potential dryness of a Classical Roman tongue might never have allowed contemporaries like William Tyndale or the companies of King James to translate such wondrous Scriptures with the beauty that they accomplished. By the hands of time and faithful servants, we are forever indebted to the lingua servus.