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).
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?
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.
“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.
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
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!
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.
cdm,
I’d appreciate it if you quit the deliberate fallacies.
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?
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.
Actually I found myself thinking: “Is Chris arguing for the sake of arguing or is he realy missing their points!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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?
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.