what languages did Jesus speak

[Kyneto Valesio]

I remember always being told that Jesus of Nazareth, the purported son of the true god, spoke aramaic only and never questioned this until I began with koine on march 3. What was probablity that he spoke other tongues? What about Hebrew or Greek? The circumstantial case for Greek seems very strong. I'll give my reasons later if anyone shows any interest in the topic. Any thoughts? Are the words of the sermon on the mount, say, that we read in the greek new testament the actual words of this pivotal historical figure or a translation into greek from aramaic ? In what language did Pilate address Jesus? In what language did Jesus speak to Nicodemus in the fourth chapter of the gospel of John? Were the Jews of Galilee more familiar with the Jewish scriptures in greek translation or with the originals ? Did they normally use the septuagint in their synagogues ? Who was the LXX written for ? Who used it ? Did Jesus grow up in Egypt among hellenized jews and other greek speakers? Was he a hippy ? Did he ever work ? What was his household like ? Poor or upper middle class ? Who would have been a typical customer of his father? Why was Jesus always walking by the lake shore talking to fishermen? Was he the first great motivational speaker ?

[klewlis]

well a lot of your questions can only be answered with guesses... we don't know the details...

as for languages, he was possibly trilingual. He would have spoken aramaic as the household language, hebrew as the religious language, and possibly greek and/or latin since they were trade languages... there are theories that the location where he grew up and his father's trade, etc, point to a knowledge of latin... but we can't know for sure. If he did speak latin then that is likely how he spoke with Pontius Pilate; otherwise, there may have been translators or they may have spoken greek, as most educated Jews at the time would have known greek.

[Celtica]

I'd say aramaic, hebrew, and almost certainly latin, given that he lived in an area that was occupied by the Romans. Possibly Greek, as it was widely taught. It'd all depend on his level of formal education, which I don't think is ever really detailed.

[ÓBuadhaigh]

Aramaic is a given. 'Ritual' Hebrew likewise. I base the latter on two facts - He was a Jewish male, and on at least one occasion we know about from Scripture He read from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue. A bit like many Catholic altar boys' knowledge of Latin forty years ago, and a bit more.

That He had at least a smattering of Greek and Latin is very likely. A clue is found in the trilingual notice, placed at Pilate's orders, above His head on the Cross.

I'm not so sure about the 'educated' arguement. Undoubtedly, He had an education but I think it would have been oriented more towards His religion than anything else. His profession according to tradition was a carpenter, a trasdesman. In times past, many intelligent tradesmen did much with an average education.

Relevant to the discussion (but inconclusive as is inevitable!) is the fact that Hellenisation of the Jews was a centuries old phenomenon by the time of Christ - read the books of Maccabees whether you accept them as canonical or not. The Roman occupation was of more recent vintage.

BTW, I have never before considered the linguistic issues of the Flight into Egypt. That is an interesting point indeed.

Seán

[ThomasGR]

If we consider that tomb epigraphs in Jerusalem were by 40% in Greek, 30% Aramaic, 20% Hebrew and only 10% Latin, he certainly spoke Greek like most Jews did so at that time, but I have my doubts on Latin. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was highly influenced by Greek and hardly by Latin. Greek was the lingua franca, Latin only a pastime activity. Latin might be the language of the rulers, but not the language of the ruling class.

[Chris Weimer]

If he was from Galilee, then he knew Greek and Aramaic, if he were devout, and always travelling to Jerusalem, no doubt he knew some Hebrew. Latin wasn't that strong in the area unless you were a Roman citizen, and Jesus was certainly not a Roman citizen.

[Kyneto Valesio]

Hi

Thanks for all the responses. I was a little bit surprised that there was so much sentiment for the idea of Jesus having been a a Greek speaker.

Klewis wrote

well a lot of your questions can only be answered with guesses... we don't know the details...

Which is great because now we all can guess. I take Aramaic and Hebrew as givens also and also believe that it was highly likely that he knew more than just some pidgeon greek. I hadn't thought about latin but I am doubtful. I am very curious about what the status of a carptenter would have been in Galilee at that time. As a kid I heard a lot of mention in chuch about Jesus the humble carpenters son etc. But would this really have been a humble occupation? I suppose that Joseph was not working for poor farmers but rather for rich merchant types and that the work he did (cabinetry with inlay and fancy doors maybe) was highly skilled and sought after. I also suppose that many of the clients might have been gentiles as Galilee is referred to (can't say where exactly) as Galilee of the Gentiles. In my mind I have cracked Jesus's social status up to something like upper middle class. Joseph must have known mathematics to do work like that what with compount angles and all.

One of the correspondents said that Jesus himself was a carpenter but that isn't known at least from the texts or is it ?

My internal picture of who Jesus might have been (the REAL JESUS) has beed modified by my little venture in koine. When I read in John about Nicodemus (Greek name, right? rich Hellenized Jew, right) I could not help but imagine the dialogue taking place quite naturally in Greek. If one is upper middle class and has an indulgent father (we know Jospeh was not a terribly harsh individual from the way he treated is wife when he learned that she was with child in the betrothal period) then one has time to study ... the scriptures .. the beliefs of various sects etc and to walk by the seashore engaging fishermen in dialog. This is fun to speculate about. Here is the picture I get: well off somewhat spoiled young man, smart as a whip (God wouldn't have anything less than a gifted son), knows several languages well, likes to hangout with all and sundry and talk about spiritual reality.

Beyond the language and class issues remains what was the crux of teaching and who did he think he was. I am not deep enough in this study to offer any opinions as to that yet.

I want to learn more about the pharisees, sadduccees and other social groupings in Jesus's time in Palestine. Internet sources might be best. I am also interested in the whole area of angels and demons. Was the belief in these beings generalized in his society? Where did it come from? Jesus commanded demons. Was he a sorcerer ? I don't really expect any responses I am just kind of thinking out loud about the real Jesus now that we have established (sort of) that he spoke greek.

[ÓBuadhaigh]

As regards the personal life of Christ, the Scriptures have little to say as that has no bearing on Salvation, therefore the curious have to look to other sources some of which are quite fanciful.

The middle of the road traditions that I am familiar with suggest that He was indeed poor, but that needs qualification. I mean the kind of poverty where folk do not want for anything they need and have to take care of everything they own, but don't have much over for extravegances. A bit like a modest farmer in the nineteenth century. Call it a lower middle class poverty, perhaps.

The same traditions tell us that Joseph died a good number of years before the beginning of the Public Life of Christ, and that Jesus had to assume the responsibility of principal breadwinner for the home. I doubt very much if He was spoiled.

Good luck with your researches!

Seán

[ThomasGR]

It may be interesting what I found in Wikipedia:


[edit] Languages Used in Ancient Palestine
Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in Greek

Currently, 1,600 Jewish epitaphs (funerary inscriptions) are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Approximately 70 percent are in Greek, about 12 percent are in Latin, and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 percent of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) are in Greek. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" [1]

[cdm2003]

If we consider that tomb epigraphs in Jerusalem were by 40% in Greek, 30% Aramaic, 20% Hebrew and only 10% Latin, he certainly spoke Greek like most Jews did so at that time, but I have my doubts on Latin.

I would venture a little more caution in assuming what one of the most apocryphal figures in the Western tradition spoke. Guessing based on tomb epigraphs hardly leads to certainty. Furthermore, I'd like to know just how the author of the quote given on Wikipedia (obviously not the best source for finding data for this argument) can assume that just because an inscription is written in a particular language, that everyone who passed by it was able to read it.

There are phone booths here in Kansas City with bilingual instructions and quite a bit of signage is also bilingual (English and Spanish). An archaeologist, looking back 2,000 years from now, could not conclude that we each "certainly" speak both languages. It would not only be presumptive but incorrect. The statement (from Wikipedia) also is assuming that everyone can read the inscriptions, and I'm guessing less that half the population of Jerusalem in the year zero was literate.

I think the only "given" we can assume is the Aramaic. Some Hebrew maybe, but it's not like he's going to have his own copy of the Torah back at his work-shed. Also, simply because his dad had some rich clients, doesn't necessarily mean they chattered away with one another in Greek, Latin, or even Hebrew. My neighbor just got his roof done by a bunch of guys who spoke nothing but Spanish. My neighbor didn't speak Spanish and they didn't speak English...yet the work was done and done well.

Cicero, one of the best educated orators of about the same time, spoke Latin and Greek. You wish to assume that someone without any formal education spoke three or more languages? I think it's a huge assumption just to say he was literate...let alone a walking Berlitz guide.

Chris

[Kynetus Valesius]

Hi all,

As I began to study koine in early march, I began to wonder whether the sayings of Jesus in the new testament could have been his actual words - i.e. whether the words were first spoken in greek? I had never heard of this idea before; in fact it went against all that I thought I learned from whatever sources. I told my wife triumphantly and several others that Jesus was a greek speaker and that I was the first person to realize this. Then realizing that this was a rather an outlandish claim, I researched the matter on the internet. That Jesus was an Aramaic speaker is the received wisdom. That Jesus was polyglot seems to be an idea drawing increasing support. I brought up the question here just to start a friendly discussion - because the topic interested me.

One of the articles that I read on the topic before I opened this discussion can be found here.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

It mentions the funerary inscriptions! The original source apparently is not wikipedia but rather Biblical Archeology Review (which I assume is an scholarly journal). Here are two quotes from the article (I assume the caps were added by the quoter):

APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).

The previous poster argued that the fact a large number of inscriptions were in Greek did not prove anything about the language capabilities of the persons who might have passed by these monuments. He gives the example of bilingual instructions in a telephone booth not saying much about the spanish (I assume) speaking capabilities of the general population). But this is not a logical argument because we are not talking about bilingual inscriptions but greek ones. Were the Jews having their inscriptions written for the gentiles or greek speaking jews ?

Another telling piece of evidence from the internet article:

Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

It was in light of this statement about greek being the business language, that I started wondering who Joseph's likely clients were - greek businessmen or aramaic speaking farmers?

As I continue with my studies in koine I will assume:

If Jesus is being quoted directly (especially in those quotes supported by the Q source) that I am reading the actual words of the purported son of the living god.

All this is fascinating according to me.

[Arvid]

It's very interesting to learn that Greek in first-century Judaea had penetrated further down the social scale than the educated elite that I had always assumed had been affected by Hellenism. Of course, there were a large number of Jews in Alexandria, especially, who spoke only Greek (that's why the Septuagint was written, after all) so I guess it should have been obvious that a lot of the stay-at-home Jews in Judaea would have at least spoken Greek as a second language, but I never connected the dots before. I'm still a little sceptical that this Hellenistic veneer penetrated down to Jesus' social level, but maybe it's true that the Gospel writers exaggerated his poverty for polemical effect. So let's say he spoke Aramaic and Greek, for the sake of argument.

I think we can be safe in assuming that he didn't know one word of Latin. The soldiers stationed in Judaea would have been the only Latin speakers there. Of course, in those days they wouldn't have been the polyglot bunch of later centuries who only spoke a sort of pidgin Latin among themselves because it's the only language they had in common, but still, they would have only interacted with the general populace when they were out on the town (which would be seldom.) Possibly a few prostitutes and tavern owners would have known the equivalent of "Hey, GI Joe! Wanna have some fun?" but the people in general would have never encountered a legionary and would have had no occasion to speak to them. Their officers would have course used Greek to speak to the locals they dealt with, but there's that educated elite again.

Which brings us to Hebrew. Because it was recited in temple ceremonies, I think people today have an exaggerated idea of how well it was understood by the people who attended those ceremonies. Remember it had really been a dead language for some centuries, and was only known in written form, in an alphabet which requires intimate knowledge of the language to fill in the vowels which carry a great deal of the grammatical load in a Semitic language. The few priests who had any familiarity with the language undoubtedly had very heated discussions about the meaning of every passage, since the interpretation hadn't settled out into the few schools we have today. And centuries of linguistic study give us a much sounder basis for determining the meaning of the original text than they had. How much Hebrew did the general population in first-century Judaea know? A lot of standard set-phrases that they memorized and were very hazy about the meanings of, certainly not a speaking knowledge of a language that hadn't been spoken for centuries!

[ThomasGR]

I’m impressed by the fact that so many funeral inscriptions, in fact the striking majority of them, are written other than Hebrew. The first time I;ve read this I could'nt believe it. I’d expect one sticks to his sacred religious language in such cases, even if no one understands Hebrew, like it happened in the synagogues with the Torah. You don’t write funeral tombs in Greek just to make a show off to the neighbors. Also I find it very obscure that people decided to change their mother tongue so easily, and within few generations forget it completely. I don’t think it was a matter of education. Even plain farmers preferred to speak Greek at home than Aramaic or Hebrew. There are cases in our modern times where people kept their mother language vivid, like koptic Egyptian, Assyrian or Gaelic.

[annis]

Also I find it very obscure that people decided to change their mother tongue so easily, and within few generations forget it completely.

Knowing Aramaic, and then Greek, would have put you in a better position to plug yourself into a vast (for the time) economy.

There are cases in our modern times where people kept their mother language vivid, like koptic Egyptian, Assyrian or Gaelic.

And just as many where the mother tongue is being swept away by economic pressures. Swahili and Hausa are doing as much to obliterate minor languages as English and Spanish, which process is often abetted by native speakers of the moribund languages.

[cdm2003]

I told my wife triumphantly and several others that Jesus was a greek speaker and that I was the first person to realize this. Then realizing that this was a rather an outlandish claim, I researched the matter on the internet.

Uh...herein lies your problem.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).

Well, not having that issue of BAR at hand, I can tell you that his conclusion is certainly deserving of heavy criticism if his conclusion is drawn from that sole statistic (which may or may not be true in the first place).

Were the Jews having their inscriptions written for the gentiles or greek speaking jews ?

Inscriptions are generally meant to be read by everyone. However, you cannot state with any certainty that specific inscriptions within a certain geographic location were able to be read by all inhabitants. That may be the case, but only maybe. You'll need further information to be able to draw any conclusions of scholarly value.

Most inscriptions made in the ancient world were done by people of means. No property-less person is going to be able to afford a monument with associated engraving, moving, etc. Even if the above statistic you give is true, and it's representative of inscriptions made in the right place at the right time, you still can't assume that people of small means or little education are going to be able to read them or even care.

Another telling piece of evidence from the internet article:

The only "telliing" piece of evidence from an internet article is that it was gotten off of the internet.

I don't mean to question matters of your faith or imply that I know for a fact that Jesus didn't speak Greek. I'm merely saying that, faith aside, the hard evidence just isn't there to make many more solid judgments other than most people in that location spoke Aramaic on a day-to-day basis.

Chris

[Bert]

The fact that John the evangelist wrote in Greek is an argument in favour of Greek being a common language in Israel at that time.

John wrote easy Greek and there are some grammatical oddities in his writings but how many of us write English (or whatever your native tongue may be,) without some oddities and mistakes?
I find it amazing that there are so few mistakes in Greek literature in general. Maybe editors have weeded out a few of them.
My point is that the writings of John seemed to have been written just fine for someone who did not have Greek as his first language.
(I have wondered if some of the exceptions to Greek grammatical rules are actually mistakes. One example which comes to mind is that a relative pronoun is in the case that is required for its function in the sentence, but sometimes, when it is in close proximity to its antecedent it is attracted to the case of its antecedent. Is that a grammatical mistake or a common exception used to make a point.)

[Chris Weimer]

John the Evangelist surely wasn't writing from Palestine! None of the gospels seem to emanate from Palestine. Start with Streeter's The Four Gospels for your basic overview of where the gospels were written.

[Kyneto Valesio]

[cdm2003]

Dear y'all

cdm wrote

The only "telliing" piece of evidence from an internet article is that it was gotten off of the internet.

Oh dear, cdm, you seem to have fallen into a rather serious cognitive error! Just as we don't automatically believe everything written in a book (even a book from a reputable author) so we cannot automatically discount all information on the net.

Apologies for harping...really, I don't mean to be rude, erudite-sounding, or confrontational. However, it's not a cognitive error to discount information garnered off of the internet as supporting evidence for rather bold historical conclusions. It doesn't mean that all information on the internet is utterly worthless in this regard. It simply means that to paint such a thick swath of history (for, mind you, probably the most controversial figure of all Western history) you're going to need a bit more evidence than "Eureka! I found it on the internet!"

As to the Library of Congress, it store-houses a lot of junk, but also peer-reviewed journals as well as up-to-date scholarly monographs. Last I checked, those weren't available to the general public on the internet free of charge. That leaves the junk...of which the internet has no shortage. Look at many of the things said in this thread alone...or in the Academy forum...most of it opinion without any concrete evidence (that's not to say that there isn't concrete evidence for some of it...we all just don't necessarily provide it). Anyone on the internet can find it and quote from it in there own threads elsewhere (or even term-papers for school) as gospel.

I don't mean to drudge this up...I know this topic was discussed at length in the Wikipedia thread.

Why did Mark record the Aramaic words that Jesus spoke and then give his readers the Greek translation? It is difficult to understand why Mark would have recorded the Aramaic words of Jesus if that were the language in which he normally spoke. If that were his customary language, why is it that Mark did not regularly record his statements in Aramaic?

To me, Mr Keating is very persuasive.

Without being trying to be a jerk, I would simply point out that this Keating is drawing one of maybe a dozen possible conclusions. You could just as easily conclude from his evidence that Mark is an inconsistent author as far as his audience is concerned.

While it is within the realm of possibility that Jesus may have spoken Greek, I'm just unsure as to how it can be historically substantiated...all matters of faith aside...but I do know that the internet is not the best place to begin to search for such evidence, excepting using it to help point you towards a more scholarly-appreciated venue.

Very Sincerely
Kyneto Valesio

I hope I didn't come across as too antagonist earlier...it was not my desire.

Best,
Chris

[Chris Weimer]

Aramaic is a given. 'Ritual' Hebrew likewise. I base the latter on two facts - He was a Jewish male, and on at least one occasion we know about from Scripture He read from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue. A bit like many Catholic altar boys' knowledge of Latin forty years ago, and a bit more.

You cannot trust Luke on this matter. The story is apocryphal at best. I have no doubt that Jesus could read scripture in Hebrew, but I seriously doubt that the story of him doing so at 12 is reminiscient of the youth stories of him that started to appear in the second century onwards.

That He had at least a smattering of Greek and Latin is very likely. A clue is found in the trilingual notice, placed at Pilate's orders, above His head on the Cross.

Is that evidence that Jesus knew it? Moreover, is that it happened even true?

BTW, I have never before considered the linguistic issues of the Flight into Egypt. That is an interesting point indeed.

Not really. There's no evidence for the flight into Egypt, and much evidence against it. It's Moses typology. Start with Allison, or Davies. There should be plenty of discussion floating around the internet too.

[Chris Weimer]

There are phone booths here in Kansas City with bilingual instructions and quite a bit of signage is also bilingual (English and Spanish). An archaeologist, looking back 2,000 years from now, could not conclude that we each "certainly" speak both languages. It would not only be presumptive but incorrect. The statement (from Wikipedia) also is assuming that everyone can read the inscriptions, and I'm guessing less that half the population of Jerusalem in the year zero was literate.

Actually, quite a few hispanic migrants do speak both languages. It's only the native-born American populace that isn't bilingual.

In Quebec, the same thing happens, quite a few Quebecois speak both English and French.

Finally, many Americans do know "a bit of Spanish", especially phrases like "no hablo espanol" or "habla ingles?". Go to Texas, and many white Americans can "get by" with a smattering of Spanish. It depends on population.

Likewise, Palestine was a country of both Aramaic and Hebrew speakers, but the proceeding centuries (compare only decades here for the "hispanicization" of America) saw Hellenization to a great degree, so much that even the gospels, written about a man purpotedly an Aramaic speaker in Greek. Greek truly was the lingua franca of the region.

So, like many educated Chinese, they are born hearing their local dialects first, taught Mandarin in school, and finally are made to learn English.

I think the only "given" we can assume is the Aramaic. Some Hebrew maybe, but it's not like he's going to have his own copy of the Torah back at his work-shed.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that Hebrew was alive and well in Palestine. Whether that's true for Galilee is to be debated. But if the gospels are accurate on his travels to Jerusalem, I believe they are, then most likely he could manage with the Hebrew speakers there, especially if the Context Group is right, which I also believe they are, about Jesus' predispositions.

Cicero, one of the best educated orators of about the same time, spoke Latin and Greek. You wish to assume that someone without any formal education spoke three or more languages? I think it's a huge assumption just to say he was literate...let alone a walking Berlitz guide.

I believe Julius Caesar was said to have spoken more than merely Latin and Greek. I know Colleen McCullough repeated the claim in The Grass Crown (I think it was that book).

[Kyneto Valesio]

our pal cdm wrote

I hope I didn't come across as too antagonist earlier...it was not my desire.

No problemo ! I enjoy a good spirited discussion.

To Chris who mentioned that there is no evidence that the flight into egypt ever took place, I would ask what else besides the supposed "moses typology" speaks agains the historicity of the flight? Since there were a lot of Jews in Alexandria, wouldn't that have been a good place to flee if one had had to run? Aren't the Gospels our sole source of information about this important figure (Jesus of Nazareth, the purported son of the living god)? If we reject the flight into Egypt, why not reject everything else and just say that the gospels are pure (as opposed to partial) mythology?

[Kasper]

I really don't know enough about this to have any substantial input, but a few points strike me about this discussion.

First, the fact (and let's assume it is a fact) that the sign above the cross was written in 3 languages. If anything, this is evidence that not everyone spoke these 3 languages. For if, eg., everyone spoke Greek, what would be the point of also writing it in Latin? Everyone could already read it. Anyone that has been to Singapore will have noticed many street signs are in 3 different languages. Clearly this would not be done if everyone could read English, it would unnecessarily make the signs larger and more complicated.

Second, although Greek may have been the lingua franca of the day and region, there is an enormous difference between reading/writing and speaking a certain language. Everyone on this forum knows this well enough. I'm currently reading Cicero's de Oratore, where Antonius actually says: "Namque egomet, qui sero ac leviter Graecas litteras attigissem, tamen cum pro consule in Ciliciam proficiscens venissem Athenas, [...]". As you see, Antonius was already consul before he learned to read Greek! This seems to strongly indicate that even men considered to be very learned did not generally acquire the ability to read foreign languages at an early age, indeed if at all. What does this say for the son of the local carpenter?

I would be very interested to know whether reading in Judea was confined to the upper class only, and reading Hebrew perhaps only to the religous classes.

Chris, why are the dead sea scrolls evidence that Hebrew was alive and well? During the middle ages many Ancient Greek and Classical Latin works were continuously transscribed, but this does not mean that the languages were alive and well, let alone that the carpenters could read them.

Although then again, do we know for certain that Jesus was brought up in his father's trade? I believe that at least Tacitus refered to him as a Rabbi in the professional sense like we speak of ministers and priests.

Like I said, i have little or no historical factual knowledge of any of these things and I am merely asking the questions.

[ThomasGR]

"Rabbi" was not a strict profession like we have today priests. Most Rabbis were fishermen or carpenters in their daily life, and on Sabbath served the community as rabbi. Only in an old age, when retired from their real profession, they then became devouted and full time servants as a abbi. The illeterate quote was huge, striking 90% or more, both in Greek or Aramaic or even Hebrew. That does not exclude possibilities to be able to read simple messages like names on tomb stones.

[Chris Weimer]

First, the fact (and let's assume it is a fact) that the sign above the cross was written in 3 languages. If anything, this is evidence that not everyone spoke these 3 languages. For if, eg., everyone spoke Greek, what would be the point of also writing it in Latin? Everyone could already read it. Anyone that has been to Singapore will have noticed many street signs are in 3 different languages. Clearly this would not be done if everyone could read English, it would unnecessarily make the signs larger and more complicated.

No one is assuming that everyone could speak these languages. It's a matter of probability. Most naturalized hispanics speak at least a little English, enough to go buy something from the store.

However, not all of them do, but they're a minority (actually, this really depends on where one is at).

I wish you'd refer to my Chinese example as a better example than either America or Singapore, as it more closely responds, at least linguistically, to what happened in Palestine at the time.

Second, although Greek may have been the lingua franca of the day and region, there is an enormous difference between reading/writing and speaking a certain language. Everyone on this forum knows this well enough. I'm currently reading Cicero's de Oratore, where Antonius actually says: "Namque egomet, qui sero ac leviter Graecas litteras attigissem, tamen cum pro consule in Ciliciam proficiscens venissem Athenas, [...]". As you see, Antonius was already consul before he learned to read Greek! This seems to strongly indicate that even men considered to be very learned did not generally acquire the ability to read foreign languages at an early age, indeed if at all. What does this say for the son of the local carpenter?

Antonius died in 87 BCE, at a time when one didn't need to learn those languages, in Rome, nonetheless. Different lands, different stories to tell.

But regardless, no one is saying that these are what Jesus definitely spoke. To think in such terms is in every way unacademic and anti-historical. History is probabilites

Chris, why are the dead sea scrolls evidence that Hebrew was alive and well? During the middle ages many Ancient Greek and Classical Latin works were continuously transscribed, but this does not mean that the languages were alive and well, let alone that the carpenters could read them.

The Hebrew of the scrolls was neither the Biblical Hebrew of the Tanakh (itself not entirely uniform) nor the later Midrashic Hebrew, but an intermediate period of Hebrew with all the signs of being a living language.

Although then again, do we know for certain that Jesus was brought up in his father's trade? I believe that at least Tacitus refered to him as a Rabbi in the professional sense like we speak of ministers and priests.

Nothing is known "for certain" - until you quit thinking like that, we'll never have fruitful discussion. And no, where did you get the idea that Tacitus referred to him as a Rabbi?

Like I said, i have little or no historical factual knowledge of any of these things and I am merely asking the questions.

Always good to ask questions - hopefully we can gear the conversation so we can start asking the right questions.

All the best

[cdm2003]

There are phone booths here in Kansas City with bilingual instructions and quite a bit of signage is also bilingual (English and Spanish). An archaeologist, looking back 2,000 years from now, could not conclude that we each "certainly" speak both languages...

Actually, quite a few hispanic migrants do speak both languages. It's only the native-born American populace that isn't bilingual.

I wasn't making a point about migrants, I was making a point about myself. I think the only Spanish I know is "ola," "adios," and "donde esta la bano?" The bilingual signage simply says people of the time period can read one or another or both...no sure-fire conclusions as to which.

If the question is whether or not Jesus knew a few words in Greek or Hebrew or even Latin, then yeah...probably...as I can say "adios," "ciao," "aloha," and probably a few more. But would you use that evidence to say I know Spanish, Italian, and Hawaiian?

In Quebec, the same thing happens, quite a few Quebecois speak both English and French.

I forgot...I also know "adieu!" and "au domaine!"

Greek truly was the lingua franca of the region.

As English is the lingua franca of the US. That doesn't mean that it's a forgone conclusion that everyone residing within its borders speaks it.

I think the only "given" we can assume is the Aramaic. Some Hebrew maybe, but it's not like he's going to have his own copy of the Torah back at his work-shed.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that Hebrew was alive and well in Palestine. Whether that's true for Galilee is to be debated. But if the gospels are accurate on his travels to Jerusalem, I believe they are, then most likely he could manage with the Hebrew speakers there, especially if the Context Group is right, which I also believe they are, about Jesus' predispositions.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that Hebrew was a possible written language from which there were a few to choose. There's a great difference in the ancient world between language choices when speaking and when writing. Those can be the same, but they can also be radically different. If we were to assume, for example, that documentary evidence from 11th century Europe mirrored the spoken languages of the day, then you would assume that in the year 1066 everyone in Europe still spoke Latin and knew a bit of Greek as well as a smattering of local dialects.

Cicero, one of the best educated orators of about the same time, spoke Latin and Greek. You wish to assume that someone without any formal education spoke three or more languages? I think it's a huge assumption just to say he was literate...let alone a walking Berlitz guide.

I believe Julius Caesar was said to have spoken more than merely Latin and Greek. I know Colleen McCullough repeated the claim in The Grass Crown (I think it was that book).

My point again was that if the best educated of Romans rarely knew more than two languages, what do you think the linguistic capabilities of a carpenter in Jerusalem, know matter how affluent, are going to be? Also, McCullough is a fiction author and is probably not the best source for accurate historical information. I read "I, Claudius," and all Claudius knew was English...so there!

[quendidil]

You might be surprised how much illiterates can learn of each other's languages, here in Singapore, many of the older generation can speak Mandarin, at least 2 dialects of Chinese (which could be further apart than Spanish and Italian are) and Malay. Most of them can read some Chinese but others are completely illiterate

Edit

Though of course you did say educated Romans, and full literacy is no doubt a more difficult task than just speech, but seeing as no claims have been made so far about Jesus being literate in each language, I think it is still very possible for him to have spoken 3 or more languages.

[Chris Weimer]

cdm,

I'd appreciate it if you quit the deliberate fallacies.

I wasn't making a point about migrants, I was making a point about myself. I think the only Spanish I know is "ola," "adios," and "donde esta la bano?" The bilingual signage simply says people of the time period can read one or another or both...no sure-fire conclusions as to which.

If you had read my latest post to Kasper, you'd realize that I positively affirmed that I was not giving support that I thought Jesus had to know those three languages, but that given the probability that he was immersed in a culture where those three languages were dominant, we can probably conclude that there's a good chance he knew them.

If the question is whether or not Jesus knew a few words in Greek or Hebrew or even Latin, then yeah...probably...as I can say "adios," "ciao," "aloha," and probably a few more. But would you use that evidence to say I know Spanish, Italian, and Hawaiian?

Is Spanish, Italian, and Hawai'ian very prominent languages where you live with hundreda of years of tradition?

The only newcomer on the scene was Latin, being the imperial language of relatively recent conquerers, and certainly not infused with the natives yet. There's no reason to think that Jesus could have, should have, or would have spoken Latin. But of the other three, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, there are in fact good reasons.

I forgot...I also know "adieu!" and "au domaine!"

Whatever you may know is totally irrelevant to the point of discussion. You're not a first century Galilean, now are you?

As English is the lingua franca of the US. That doesn't mean that it's a forgone conclusion that everyone residing within its borders speaks it.

If you look at my last quote to Kasper, I stated that clearly that I didn't think that everyone could speak it.

But given the probabilities, you'll find that most people in America can actually speak English. Sometimes you also find those who speak an English dialect on top of that, and sometimes you see migrants speaking both English and their native language. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most migrants can speak English at least to some degree, more than your two phrases of French and three of Spanish.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that Hebrew was a possible written language from which there were a few to choose. There's a great difference in the ancient world between language choices when speaking and when writing.

This is ignorant of recent scholarship on the Hebrew of the scrolls. Try Steve Weitzman's "Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1999), pp. 35-45.

In the footnotes on the first and second pages he lists plenty of articles whose authors also agree with him, with some even arguing this position before the scrolls were found.

Those can be the same, but they can also be radically different. If we were to assume, for example, that documentary evidence from 11th century Europe mirrored the spoken languages of the day, then you would assume that in the year 1066 everyone in Europe still spoke Latin and knew a bit of Greek as well as a smattering of local dialects.

This is a strawman and wholly ignorant on the exact linguistic analyses used to determine that Hebrew was a living language still.

My point again was that if the best educated of Romans rarely knew more than two languages, what do you think the linguistic capabilities of a carpenter in Jerusalem, know matter how affluent, are going to be? Also, McCullough is a fiction author and is probably not the best source for accurate historical information. I read "I, Claudius," and all Claudius knew was English...so there!

Some of the most educated Americans only know English - does that mean that all Americans only know English, or that non-educated Americans cannot know more than English?

Finally, I didn't say I got the information from McCullough, but only that she repeated what I heard. I'll look around to see if I can find the original claim, not that it really matters all that much. Caesar and Jesus are from two different worlds, even two different time periods. They weren't even contemporaries of each other, nor did they dare live in the same area.

Josephus knew Greek and Hebrew and apparently Latin. Might we assume he perhaps knew Aramaic as well, given the propensity for inscriptions and documents to be in that language?

[nostos]

See Here

[Chris Weimer]

Another great example from antiquity in similar circumstances was Ennius, said to have had "three minds" since he knew Latin, Greek, and Oscan. The first because he lived in Rome, the second because it was the lingua franca of the region, and the last because that was his native language.

[Bert]

cdm,

I'd appreciate it if you quit the deliberate fallacies.

Actually I found myself thinking: "Is Chris arguing for the sake of arguing or is he realy missing their points!"

[IreneY]

Can we agree that it is possible that Jesus spoke Greek and leave it at that? Even in 90% of the population spoke Greek we can't know for certain that he did too. Even if 90% of the population didn't that does not mean that he didn't either. We can be sure that he didn't speak e.g. Mayan unless of course we take the view that he was/is (the son of) God and as such could speak all the languages if that was what He wanted.

[Chris Weimer]

cdm,

I'd appreciate it if you quit the deliberate fallacies.

Actually I found myself thinking: "Is Chris arguing for the sake of arguing or is he realy missing their points!"

Please, Bert, what possible point can he be saying that isn't a deliberate mischaracterization of what I said?

What he said:

"As English is the lingua franca of the US. That doesn't mean that it's a forgone conclusion that everyone residing within its borders speaks it."

I had already stated quite clearly that I didn't think that everyone knew those languages, it was a matter of probability.

Prithee, where did I go wrong?

Edit: I know we've had it out in the past, Bert, but I just realized that you could have been talking about cdm as well, as I understand he is also Chris. Please clarify whom you're charging, si tibi placet.

[Chris Weimer]

Can we agree that it is possible that Jesus spoke Greek and leave it at that? Even in 90% of the population spoke Greek we can't know for certain that he did too. Even if 90% of the population didn't that does not mean that he didn't either.

Yes, anything is possible, but I think we're more interested in what is probable. Well, I can't speak for everyone, but historians generally go for what is probable, or, with probabilities equal or unknown, plausible.

All cdm has done is complained that something is possible. Yes, cdm, we got that. Let's move on now, shall we? What is probable...

We can be sure that he didn't speak e.g. Mayan unless of course we take the view that he was/is (the son of) God and as such could speak all the languages if that was what He wanted.

We could say the same thing about David Koresh; doesn't make it true.

[IreneY]

But to really go into the argument will mean, for example, start guessing what "tekton" should be translated to, how noble the bloodline of Jesus was and how important that can be and all sorts of things that will make the probability factor go up or down. Maybe not concerning the question of whether he spoke Greek or not, but most certainly (as I see it) concerning the how well he spoke this language. Well enough to preach using it? That's a completely different thing from actually getting along in a language even if you speak well enough for everyday chitchat and/or buiseness purposes.
Let us suppose that we come to the conclusion that it was highly probable that he spoke Greek. How do we determine his level of fluency then? Isn't this important?
While I do find it an interesting question I also think that it impossible to really answer or at least answer in a way that will satisfy most.

[Chris Weimer]

But to really go into the argument will mean, for example, start guessing what "tekton" should be translated to, how noble the bloodline of Jesus was and how important that can be and all sorts of things that will make the probability factor go up or down.

Before any of that, though, the more important question is what can we rescue from the gospels. I'm starting this with the a priori stance that the text is like every other text in antiquity - that is, I have no preconceived notions that this text is somewhat different on account of divine intervention. If you start with that bias, then we cannot go further.

Maybe not concerning the question of whether he spoke Greek or not, but most certainly (as I see it) concerning the how well he spoke this language. Well enough to preach using it? That's a completely different thing from actually getting along in a language even if you speak well enough for everyday chitchat and/or buiseness purposes.

I doubt that he would speak it well enough to preach, especially in lieu of the work of the Context Group.

Let us suppose that we come to the conclusion that it was highly probable that he spoke Greek. How do we determine his level of fluency then? Isn't this important?

Ultimately, there won't be a way to determine this, I don't think, unless we can show for sure that the authentic sayings of Jesus were uttered in Greek, and then go from there.

While I do find it an interesting question I also think that it impossible to really answer or at least answer in a way that will satisfy most.

Agreed. But then again, I'm not in it for most.

[Bert]

cdm,

I'd appreciate it if you quit the deliberate fallacies.

Actually I found myself thinking: "Is Chris arguing for the sake of arguing or is he realy missing their points!"

.........


Prithee, where did I go wrong?

Edit: I know we've had it out in the past, Bert, but I just realized that you could have been talking about cdm as well, as I understand he is also Chris. Please clarify whom you're charging, si tibi placet.

(I can't recall having had it out with you in the past.)

It is not so much what you said to cdm but your style in general.

John the Evangelist surely wasn't writing from Palestine! None of the gospels seem to emanate from Palestine.

Who said that John wrote from Palestine.

You cannot trust Luke on this matter. The story is apocryphal at best.

Why not Luke but Streeter (and the others you referred to?)

I have no doubt that Jesus could read scripture in Hebrew, but I seriously doubt that the story of him doing so at 12 is reminiscient of the youth stories of him that started to appear in the second century onwards.

Who said he read at 12?

Actually, quite a few hispanic migrants do speak both languages. It's only the native-born American populace that isn't bilingual.

Yeah? So? That was not his point at all.

Maybe I came across hostile. That was not necessary and I appologize. I was expressing surprise at your charge that cdm was lying while I had the impression that you were being antagonistic.

[Chris Weimer]

(I can't recall having had it out with you in the past.)

Then remember it not.

Who said that John wrote from Palestine.

You did. Well, you said Israel. Considering that there was no Israel at the time, I merely assumed the best on your part.

Actually, it was your implication from John writing in Greek bearing on the language of "Israel" at the turn of the millennium. Why else would John have any influence on the matter if he were not writing there?

Why not Luke but Streeter (and the others you referred to?)

Lack of evidence for the former? Better scholarship for the latter? Those who don't come into this discussion with the bias that Luke must be right, usually don't think that Luke is always right.

Who said he read at 12?

Luke did.

Actually, quite a few hispanic migrants do speak both languages. It's only the native-born American populace that isn't bilingual.

What was his point then?

Maybe I came across hostile. That was not necessary and I appologize. I was expressing surprise at your charge that cdm was lying while I had the impression that you were being antagonistic.

I didn't say he was lying.

[IreneY]

If however we don't believe what the gospels tell us well it's a moot point isn't it? I personally, being an atheist, don't believe what they tell us. However the New Testament is the only account/record we have of Jesus' life and acts and words really. If therefore we are to examine if Jesus spoke Greek we have to take into account what the Gospels tell us don't we? I mean we have established that there was a number of Jews that spoke Greek. How possible or probable is that Jesus was amongst those? To determine this we have to examine a) how wide-spread the knowledge of Greek was at that time in Palestine b) the economic, social and whatever status of Jesus.
The first we can do without really taking the gospels into consideration. For the second we can't do without the gospels and how do we determine what is truth and what is a lie in their narrative apart from those things that can be juxtaposed against other primary sources?

[Chris Weimer]

If however we don't believe what the gospels tell us well it's a moot point isn't it?

No.

I personally, being an atheist, don't believe what they tell us.

They say much - you throw away everything?

However the New Testament is the only account/record we have of Jesus' life and acts and words really.

Not entirely true. Actually, not true at all.

If therefore we are to examine if Jesus spoke Greek we have to take into account what the Gospels tell us don't we?

Absolutely.

I mean we have established that there was a number of Jews that spoke Greek.

Yes.

How possible or probable is that Jesus was amongst those?

That's the question, isn't it?

To determine this we have to examine a) how wide-spread the knowledge of Greek was at that time in Palestine b) the economic, social and whatever status of Jesus.

Yes.

The first we can do without really taking the gospels into consideration.

Right.

For the second we can't do without the gospels

Yes...

and how do we determine what is truth and what is a lie in their narrative apart from those things that can be juxtaposed against other primary sources?

Lie is a harsh word. Do you intend to say, "What actually happened and what didn't happen?"

There are slews of studies, books, and methods for determining what happened. They are the same methods we use on Suetonius, or the Historia Augusta.