What language did Jesus speak?

[Mary of Bethany]

Since Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Empire he would have had to deal with government officials on a regular basis. Outside of the city limits of Rome the language of the government was Greek, so surely Matthew spoke Greek. And when Peter and the other fishermen went to the market to sell their catch they likely used Greek as well. The same goes for Jesus and Joseph whenever they had to sell their carpentry products. I cannot think of the name right off but Nazareth was just a stone’s throw from a major Greco-Roman city that was built while Jesus was growing up. He and Joseph likely worked in this city so it is practically impossible that Jesus didn’t use Greek regardless of whatever other language He may have used.

Are you thinking of Capernaum? Thanks for the reply. It makes sense.

Mary

 

[flaja]

Are you thinking of Capernaum? Thanks for the reply. It makes sense.

Mary

The city I am thinking of is Sepphoris. As far as I know this city is not known from the Bible, but it is well-known from Josephus and archaeology.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/sepphoris.htm

 

[Caduceus]

Since Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Empire he would have had to deal with government officials on a regular basis. Outside of the city limits of Rome the language of the government was Greek, so surely Matthew spoke Greek. And when Peter and the other fishermen went to the market to sell their catch they likely used Greek as well. The same goes for Jesus and Joseph whenever they had to sell their carpentry products. I cannot think of the name right off but Nazareth was just a stone’s throw from a major Greco-Roman city that was built while Jesus was growing up. He and Joseph likely worked in this city so it is practically impossible that Jesus didn’t use Greek regardless of whatever other language He may have used.

Capernaum is in Galilee, which was an independent client kingdom ruled by Herod Antipas from 4 BCE until 39 CE. 'Matthew' was therefore collecting taxes for the Tetrarch, not for the Roman Empire. References in the Gospels to soldiers [στρατιωται] and centurions [έκατονταρχοι] serving or residing in Galilee must of necessity refer to men employed in the military forces of Herod Antipas not in the Roman imperial army.

Client rulers at this time were not subject to any regular tributum and were allowed to levy their own internal taxes and to raise and maintain local military forces. These were for the enforcement of security only within the ruler's domains. Treaties with external powers and the waging of war were, on the other hand, inevitably dependent on Roman approval.

Client states were useful to the administration of the Empire, as they provided valuable strategic support and reduced the need for stationing Roman garrisons.

The eastern Mediterranean littoral had, from remote antiquity, always been an important land bridge between Asia and Egypt. The largest concentration of Legionary forces in the east were in Syria and Egypt, with Armenia (another important client kingdom) functioning as a buffer against the threat of Parthia.

Roman governors, including legates and proconsuls along with prefects (in Egypt and Judaea), exercised their functions by virtue of imperium, meaning the legal power to command armies, and exercise judicial authority [including the infliction of capital punishment] within their provinces.

Client kings ruled and exercised their powers only with the patronage, approval, and personal favour of the emperor. Herod Antipas fell into disfavour with Gaius (Caligula) in 39 CE. His territories were bestowed on his nephew Herod Agrippa I, a friend and favourite of Gaius. After reigning for nearly forty three years Antipas was banished and sent into exile in Gaul where he died.

Galilee was the least Hellenised area of Palestine. Apart from the Hasmonaean foundation of Sepphoris and the Hellenistic/Roman city of Tiberias, built by Antipas c. 20 CE and named in honour of the emperor Tiberius, the knowledge and usage of the Greek language was almost certainly minimal.

Jesus and his disciples were Aramaic speaking peasants and fishermen, people of the countryside, and as such would probably not have been conversant with Greek. They were always more at home in Jewish villages and small towns rather than in large cities with a high proportion of Gentile inhabitants.

Indeed, Jesus admonishes his disciples to: Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt. 10, 5-7)

It should also be remembered that the Roman tribune on duty in the Antonia fortress, adjoining the Temple at Jerusalem, is surprised when Paul (a Jew) speaks to him in Greek. (Acts 21, 37)

 

[Caduceus]

The city I am thinking of is Sepphoris. As far as I know this city is not known from the Bible, but it is well-known from Josephus and archaeology.

Tiberias is the alternative candidate, being situated on the western side of lake Gennesaret, and could easily have been reached by boat from Capernaum. Sepphoris is however much closer to Nazareth but its date of foundation was probably during the Hasmonaean period on the site of an earlier Iron Age settlement.

 

[Iefan]

Since Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Empire he would have had to deal with government officials on a regular basis. Outside of the city limits of Rome the language of the government was Greek, so surely Matthew spoke Greek. And when Peter and the other fishermen went to the market to sell their catch they likely used Greek as well. The same goes for Jesus and Joseph whenever they had to sell their carpentry products. I cannot think of the name right off but Nazareth was just a stone’s throw from a major Greco-Roman city that was built while Jesus was growing up. He and Joseph likely worked in this city so it is practically impossible that Jesus didn’t use Greek regardless of whatever other language He may have used.

Matthew states Matthew, but Mark and Luke say Levi in the same situation. Interesting info, regardless.

 

[ChristianHorror10]

Um....I thought he spoke swahelee, Or maybe He spoke Islamik? Wanst everyone living in isreal and in the middle eastern places before man made the babylon tower? Casue when they tried that, Jesus made everyone speak other languages, the ppl got scared and went to other parts of the world, which is why theres countries today!

 

[Tweek]

I think he definitely spoke Aramaic. I think that many Jews in that time read and spoke Hebrew, since so many texts were probably written in those languages, but their main language was probably Aramaic. There is no guarantee that, just because there were a few Greek speaking Gentiles around, Jesus would've been fluent Greek. People in that area would've only spoken a foreign language if it was absolutely necessary. I do find the conversation between Pilate and Jesus interesting, as either Pilate would've had to known Aramaic or Jesus, Greek. I think the former is more likely. Another interesting note is that there's certain parts of the gospels were the authors specifically point out that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, ie, when he was praying and when he was on the cross. Therefore I think he could've been speaking to everyone in Greek. He may have been saving Aramaic only for special ocassions. He also was raised in Egypt, and I wonder what langauges they were speaking there...

Does anyone know if most of Jesus' sayings translate well into Aramaic, or just some, or if there's any possibility that, based on the Greek translation, he was actually speaking to people Greek?

Matthew was supposedly written in Hebrew, but Mark and Luke were written in Greek, but they were probably for a Greek speaking audience. Although John was Jewish he wrote his gospel for a Greek audience, in Asia Minor, which is why it's in Greek.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I do find the conversation between Pilate and Jesus interesting, as either Pilate would've had to known Aramaic or Jesus, Greek. I think the former is more likely.

Pilate was a Roman aristocrat with a relatively low level of practical experience who was placed in charge of a province that was considered the armpit of the empire.

It is very doubtful he was exceptional individual and very doubtful he'd bother to know Aramaic.

In fact Pilate's actions in the area (from non-biblical sources) shows he didn't think much of the locals, and was prone to violent reactions against them.

The conversation would have had to be in Greek or Latin, or else there was a translator present who isn't mentioned explicitly in the text.

 

[Touma]

You are all wrong! Jesus obviously spoke Shyriiwook, the language of Chewbacca.


Kidding aside, I believe that Jesus probably spoke a mixture of the three languages that everyone else has said, but I wonder if there is any room for him to have spoken syriac,or did that language come later?

-edit- evidently syriac is a form of Aramaic. Silly me

 

[artybloke]

I think that many Jews in that time read and spoke Hebrew

Many Jews, in common with about 95% of the population, would not have "read" or "written" anything. They would have been functionally illiterate in any language.

Even in a society that valued learning, education was expensive and simply not available to the poor, and even the relatively well-off would not have generally felt the need for reading and writing. This is something we can barely imagine, yet a largely literate society is barely 100 years old.

There is no solid evidence that Jesus was educated, though if the traditions are right he probably was. Most of his audience would not have been. They would have heard, not read, the scriptures; which in any case were hardly portable, being written largely on parchment scrolls. The idea of everyone having their own copy was at least 1600 years away!

If my knowledge of African language-use is anything to go by, he would have spoken at least two languages - Aramaic (or the local variation of it, most likely) and Hebrew. Latin was uncommon in the Eastern Roman Empire, and he may have picked up some Greek simply because it was the lingua franca of the Hellenistic half of the empire. Personally, I suspect he spoke largely Aramaic to the crowds, and maybe disputed in Hebrew with the priests. In Africa, people often have three languages: a tribal language, a major African language like Swahili or IsiZulu and English or French. That's if they're educated, that is. I use Africa, because it's closer in parts to the non-literate society that the ancient world was.

 

[cubanito]

Jesus was a carpenter from a tiny town near Joppa. He is almost certain to have worked in the rebuilding of this and other Greek style cities. The ligua franka of commerce was Greek.

He certainly also spoke Aramaic, and He read from Isaiah, which likely was in Hebrew (the Septuagint was mainly used in the Diaspora.

The fact is, people of that area for millenia are typically polyglots. Jesus was almost certainly quite fluent in at least these 3 languages.

This is very relevant beacuse Jesus could easily have preached to crowds and spoken in private in Aramaic. however, He could very well have had enough Greek to have chosen that language when making a play on words (such as the Petra vs Petros of Matt 16). I am fully bilingual (having grown up in Cuba until 6m and then coming to the US). I dream, think and talk in both languages to such an extent that sometimes I forget which language I am speaking to someone. I have a friend who spekas 5 languages fluently but almost no Spanish. He looks Latin. Despite years of knowing him, on occasion he has to remind me I have slipped from English to Spanish without noticing. It is an unconcious habit that I speak English to gringo appearing people, and Spanish to Latin looking ones. It is also true that on speaking with other bilinguals, like my wife and kids, I will often choose whichever language "feels" the best for the subject. Sometimes some jokes are just way better in one than the other.

Jesus was very, very likely to have been a polyglot, especially as a Galilean tradesman with most work coming from Greek port cities and His devotion to the Scriptures pulling Him to Hebrew.

JR

 

[marktheblake]

They would have heard, not read, the scriptures; which in any case were hardly portable, being written largely on parchment scrolls. The idea of everyone having their own copy was at least 1600 years away!

In an oral tradition society, they dont need written scriptures.

When Jesus spoke, he didnt say "now turn to your bibles.....". No he used terms like "you heard what Mose said, now i say to you...."

He is of course assuming that his audience already knows the Law and the Prophets"

Little Jewish kids had to learn to recite Leviticus by the time they were 6. If they could they got into Rabbi school, if they make it to age 12 they would now be able to recite the Torah.

No need to Carry around parchment scrolls at all

 

[artybloke]

Little Jewish kids had to learn to recite Leviticus by the time they were 6. If they could they got into Rabbi school

You really think that a bunch of poor farmers would actually pay for their children to got to school? Or take them away from the fields just to learn to read? The only people who could afford to educate their children were already rich.

They would have heard the scriptures read to them, in the temple, or the synagogue (if they went). Rabbinical schools would have largely been for the privileged. The vast majority would not have such opportunities. They would hear the stories, they might even remember the stories, and they might have been able to retain the stories better than we do in our literate culture, but there's no way that most of them would hear the scriptures and remember them exactly, word for word. Even the manuscript copies we have are full of errors, words missed out etc; until the development of printing, even a totally accurate transcription of a manuscript was well nigh impossible.

 

[marktheblake]

You really think that a bunch of poor farmers would actually pay for their children to got to school?

How much would it have cost to attend the Beth-Safar?

Or take them away from the fields just to learn to read? The only people who could afford to educate their children were already rich.

So you reckon only rich people became Rabbis?

Rabbinical schools would have largely been for the privileged.

you have being saying 'would have' quite a lot. Sounds like you just made some assumptions to me.

 

[artybloke]

How much would it have cost to attend the Beth-Safar?

Who else would pay the teachers?

So you reckon only rich people became Rabbis?

I'm sure there were quite a few itinerant rabbis not attached to the official schools, just as there were lots of "faith healers" and peddlers of religion all over the Roman empire. But as it would cost money (and take children away from earning from a crust for their family), yes, the more educated you were, the more privelaged you would be. There may have been some patronage of the poor by the rich, but not much.

This would be true right up to the provision of universal education, by the way. Until the invention of printing, when access to the written word became more and more affordable, most people would never see books. Parchment was expensive, paper unknown until the middle ages, scrolls were unwieldy and books as we know them (in codex form) were actually an invention of the early Christian period. Imagine how long it would take to copy, meticulously, word for word, a copy of, say, the Book of Genesis. Many professional scribes were themselves only functionally literate. Scrolls and manuscripts of the scriptures are littered with mistakes, deletions and erasures.

We're talking about a completely different world. An oral world, not a literate world. There is no evidence of universal schooling in any part of the Roman empire.

In a highly stratified society like the ancient world, nobody cared for the poor or slaves. They were the bottom of the heap, they did they dirty work so that the rich could dispute theological points in synagogues.

It's highly unlikely later practices like the Beth-Safar were being practised with the kind of rigour that they may later have been practised. Look at England even a couple of hundred years ago; there were more readers per head of population then than in the ancient world.

The Bible was not written to be read in the privacy of one's home. It was written to be spoken aloud, in the Temple or in the church.

 

[artybloke]

“In Greco-Roman antiquity generally literacy was narrowly limited and heavily concentrated in the aristocratic classes. Although the levels and extent of literacy may have varied somewhat with period and region, in no ancient society was there mass literacy. Book culture was similarly limited, being contingent not only on literacy but also on the cost and availability of hand-produced books.”

“Literacy in the ancient world is difficult to estimate, owing both to different definitions of literacy and to the incidental nature of available evidence. Literacy can be understood to mean anything from signature literacy (the ability to write one’s name), to the capacity to puzzle out a brief and pointed message, to the functional literacy of craftpersons, to the developed skills of reading and comprehending lengthy literary texts. Granting varied types and gradations of literacy, if literacy is understood as the capacity to read with comprehension a text of average complexity, then it seems to have been possessed by relatively few.”

Harry Y. Gamble. “Literacy and Book Culture” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 644.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God bless google!

 

[marktheblake]

Who else would pay the teachers?

The Hebrews gave 1/40th of their income direct to their religious leader (Rabbis/Priests) and also the 1/10th to their church/temple.

With all these extremely rich people you refer to, the Rabbis were loaded, thats why they got to wear the flash robes and designer sandals

Why would you assume that Rabbis school is fee paying for private students only?

I'm sure there were....

This would be true ...

It's highly unlikely...

You are guessing.

In a highly stratified society like the ancient world, nobody cared for the poor or slaves.

You talk as if all but the extremely rich were destitute. Wrong. Fisherman, Tax Collecters, Potters, and even Carpenters were gainfully employed, many of these even had houses, boats, and even donkeys.

In the first century, if you had a trade, a house, and a donkey (or a boat) you were doing alright!

The Bible was not written to be read in the privacy of one's home. It was written to be spoken aloud, in the Temple or in the church.

ah yes. this is very obvious and thank you for reaffirming that anybody that was well learned in the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets had a decent education.

 

[artybloke]

The Hebrews gave 1/40th of their income direct to their religious leader (Rabbis/Priests) and also the 1/10th to their church/temple.

Maybe the few people who lived in cities did. How much of this was enforced, do you think, in remote areas of Gallilee? How many people actually went regularly to synagogue anyway?

You talk as if all but the extremely rich were destitute.

No I don't. But education was expensive, and it took your smallest and most agile workforce away from you. (Go to India, and look up sweatshops full of children, for a contemporary example. That's a nation with an ostensibily universal education system, unlike the ancient world.) And I'm not just guessing. I don't know one expert of ancient history that would presume that more than (and I'm being generous here) 10% of the population were able to read. Some commentators say that no more than 1 in 50,000 could read with the kind of comprehension required to understand a really complex text like the Torah. Personally, I think that's rather over the top; but it makes the point. There are levels of literacy, from being able to write your own name to understanding a complicated text. Some people would be able to understand business documents and contracts, but that doesn't make them able to understand complex writings.

this is very obvious and thank you for reaffirming that anybody that was well learned in the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets had a decent education.

Of course they did. But in a synagogue of 1000 people, maybe 10 were able to stand up in front of the congregation and read the scrolls. The rest listened.* That's why they had cantors. And, considering the fact that most people in the ancient world lived far from the nearest town where there would be a synagogue, a rabbinical school etc, you can add in transport costs to that of actually paying for the teaching. As well as the cost of finding somewhere for their children to stay. And labour costs for the additional labour you'll need when your child who did the winnowing goes off to school... No, they weren't destitute, but that's the reason why: because their children were a large percentage of their workforce.

*And outside of Jerusalem, probably to the Aramaic targums not the Hebrew too, just as early Gentile Christians probably heard the Old Testament in Greek rather than Hebrew. I suspect that Jesus probably had access to the Aramaic targums too.

 

[joelhall]

jesus was a 'working class' jew. given his hometown and status he would certainly have spoken an aramaic dialect, though as a good jewish boy would know hebrew to understand the tanakh, which he would study. given also the range of peoples in the areas, he could have picked up various languages, such as latin, as many do surrounded by different speakers with lots of exposure. languages were more important then, as dialects could change according to for instance tribe, which people would have to have contact with. one reason so many of the languages are of the same families, and that there are many different dialects in a comparatively small area.

therefore its likely he knew more than one dialect of or aramaic language too.

this is as much as i remember from school however so cannot tell you much more as yet.

god be with you.

 

[christianmomof3]

So, if Jesus spoke Aramaic and his disciples were illiterate Jews, then how could the gospels have been written in Greek by them?