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 ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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]
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.