What language did Jesus Christ speak?

23 Mark 1:22. — For the scribes, see art. s. tit. in the American "Jewish Encyclopaedia," vol. xi. A stupendous fact of the Lord's life on earth is that He had no education commonly so called, although Josephus ("Contra Apion," ii. 25) tells us that "Moses gave commandment to instruct children in the elements of knowledge (γράμματα)." Graetz ("History of the Jews," ii. 148) quotes from the Talmud that "a fatherless child was not brought to be taught" in any synagogue school. Indeed, "there is no evidence," writes Fairbairn, "that in the time of Jesus any schools existed in Nazareth. The wonder both at Nazareth (Mark 6:2) and Jerusalem (John 7:15) how He knew His letters proves that He had not been educated in any school" ("Studies in the Life of Christ," p 52; cf. his "City of God," p. 226). The Lord spoke the Aramaic dialect of a Galilean peasant, but Fairbairn goes probably too far in saying that He did not know Greek ("Manchester Lectures on the Miracles of Christ," p. 17). If so, how did He communicate with the Greek woman of Mark 7:26? Sepphoris, a Greek city, was within five miles of Nazareth, and Greek was spoken throughout that region. Even so, His would be only colloquial Greek, like that which we meet with in the Gospel of Mark. See, further, note 56.

H. J. Holtzmann ("New Testament Theology," p. 129 f.) speaks of the importance of students of the Gospels being acquainted with the vernacular of JESUS. Cf. Burkitt, p. 5 f., where reference is made to Wellhausen's application of such knowledge to the interpretation of the Gospel records, the Cambridge Professor stating that things imperfectly understood by students knowing only Hellenistic Greek are "immediately clear" to those so further equipped. As far as the German Professor's "Commentary on Mark" is concerned, we are not struck with the result as profitable. His treatment of "Son of man" is based on a view of the Aramaic background which Dalman, the leading expert in this branch, rejects (see note on Mark 2:10). Is it helpful to anyone to be told by Wellhausen (on Mark 1:4) that the Aramaic equivalent of a Greek passive is an active intransitive (reflexive), illustrated in baptism by "the one baptized" of the classical language being equivalent to "the one dipping (himself)" in the vernacular of Christ? Leaving eccentricities or tricks of language alone, we may recall a solemn question of the Lord at Jerusalem, and His own answer (John 8:43): "Why do ye not know My speech (λαλίαν)? Because ye cannot hear My word (λόγον)."

This leads us to a subject which has received less attention from the learned world than it deserves. The reader has probably often asked himself, What language did the Lord and the Apostles use? It is a question not easily answered. Scholars have for the most part assumed that Aramaic was the language that underlies the discourses of the Lord in the Gospels; and of the Apostles in the Book of the Acts; but some have held that Greek was the usual language they employed. Of the first view Professor Sanday may be taken as a recent representative; Professor Roberts is an exponent of the other. The only solution of the difficulty is to suppose the Lord and his immediate followers were bilingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek; employing the one language in the midst of the less cultivated portion of the community, the other ofttimes in parts of the country such as 'Galilee of the nations,' or in intercourse with Hellenist Jews even in Jerusalem. There is a modern analogy familiar to English people acquainted with Wales or the Channel Islands, where a host of the upper grade addressing his guest will use the English tongue, and afterwards may turn to address his servant in the vernacular of the lower orders. Who could suppose that in Luke 2 the angels addressed the shepherds in any language but Aramaic? It is as little likely such could speak Greek as English peasants in olden time would speak Norman-French. That Greek was not in the time of our Lord the usual language of the common people in Syria (at least), would lie in the fact of the need being early felt amongst the Christians of an Aramaic translation of the New Testament as much as the Old. The translation then made we possess substantially in the Peshito version. It is a fact that the Lord spoke from heaven to Saul of Tarsus in 'the Hebrew dialect' (Acts 26:14) which Paul himself used, as well as Greek, according to the circumstances in which he was placed, or according to his object: cf. Acts 21:37, 40. Greek — like modern French in diplomacy — was the medium of communication between at least the upper classes of the Jews and their rulers. On the other hand, when Peter conversed in the hall of judgment, he must have used Aramaic, because of the reference to his provincial accent.

The only other language that remains to be noticed, is the Greek, in which, the whole of the New Testament is written: a peculiar dialect of which prevailed in Western Asia and Egypt, in consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Its chief locality was Alexandria, where the first Ptolemies had transplanted most of the arts and sciences which used to flourish before in Athens. This dialect is therefore called Alexandrian Greek, and is distinguished from the language of the classics, by having engrafted on it, many Hebrew and other Oriental modes of expression; no doubt partly in consequence of the great numbers of Jews, who, from an early period, dwelt in Alexandria.

Even in Palestine, although Hebrew retained its place as the sacred language, and Syrian or Aramaic was spoken in the country parts, there is every probability that Greek was the ordinary speech of intercourse; and that it stood in the same relation to the native Aramaic, that English does to Welsh in Wales at the present day.

In this Alexandrian Greek is written the whole of the New Testament; the ancient Septuagint translation of the Old; and the works of Josephus and Philo. As it was the common language of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, it became necessarily the common language of all early Christians, who for some years were confined to that part of the world. And even when Christianity had reached Rome and the West, there is evidence that Greek (and not Latin, as might have been supposed) was, for a long time, the ecclesiastical tongue.

It is a matter of discussion whether our Lord and his Apostles spoke Greek or Aramaic; and it does not seem possible to pronounce a decided verdict on the question. It is likely enough that all the people of Palestine, except the most retired or the most ignorant, understood and used, both forms of speech. Hence the threefold inscription on the cross. In Aramaic and Greek for the people: just as public documents in Wales might be in Welsh and English:— and in Latin, because that was the official language of Pontius Pilate, and the government servants.

When our Lord was here on earth the common language of the Jews was Aramaic. When the Jews were scattered among the nations their Hebrew tongue was practically lost. In modern times a bastard language, Yiddish, became prominent. It was a strange combination of very corrupt Hebrew, and ancient and provincial German, spoken by the commoner Jews in Europe.

When the ten tribes were carried away, the colonists, who took their place, brought the Aramaic language with them. The Jews also who returned from Babylon brought many words of the same language. And, though it doubtless underwent various changes, this was the language commonly spoken in Palestine when our Lord was on earth, and is the language called HEBREW in the N.T., and is the same as the Chaldee of the Targums. In the ninth century the language in Palestine gave way to the Arabic, and now Aramaic is a living tongue only among the Syrian Christians in the district around Mosul.

The language that took its place was much more widely spread: it is called Syrian in the English translation of the Bible, as at 2 Kings 18:26, Dan. 2:4. But it is usual now to call it Aramaic, since Aram is the real biblical word for Syria, and seems to have designated the country North and East of the Euphrates, from which Abraham had originally emigrated, and where afterwards arose that fierce and conquering race which founded Nineveh and Babylon. It used to be called Chaldee, but erroneously; as the only place, where the tongue of the Chaldeans is mentioned, is at Dan. 1:4; and there it manifestly means a language peculiar to a priestly caste at Babylon, not to the whole people.

At the time of our Lord, this was the native language of Palestine; and occurs in our Testaments, in the words Ephphatha, Talitha Cumi, Eli Eli lama Sabacthani, etc. This was also the language of the inscription on the cross, and of St. Paul's speech as recorded at Acts 22. Although in both these instances the Hebrew is mentioned, there is no doubt that it is the modern, not the ancient, language that is meant.

When we come to the death of the blessed Servant, we find all in appropriate keeping with the gospel. It is as the sin-offering that we see our Lord here. There is the cry of anguish, given doubtless in the very words our blessed Lord used, and not the Hebrew as in Matthew. These are in Aramaic, the vernacular language used in Palestine at that time.

From the fact of some few Aramaic words of our Lord being preserved, we might conclude that he did not always speak in that tongue; and it must have been observed that when St. Paul addresses the people from the castle stairs in Hebrew (i.e. in Aramaic), they were pleased by this mark of respect to their native tongue; and had expected that he would rather speak Greek, which they understood equally well. On the other hand the question of the chief captain, "Canst thou speak Greek?" would seem to have originated the second question, "Art thou not that Egyptian?" as Greek was certainly the language of Egypt at that time; and therefore the chief captain supposed he was not an inhabitant of Palestine.

At any rate, there was certainly a distinction between Greek-speaking Jews, and others. For we notice in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 6 etc.) that some are called Hebrews and some Grecians. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the distinction consisted in the speech they used; or in the version of the Bible that they read. For while the Jews of Palestine, and eastward of that country, constantly used the original Hebrew Scriptures, only rendered into Aramaic at the very moment they were read; the Jews of Alexandria, and generally in the countries west of the Holy Land, seem not to have known the Hebrew, even in the synagogues, and to have used only the Greek Septuagint translation.

As Greek was the tongue of their Syrian oppressors in the time of the Maccabees, the Rabbis looked upon it with aversion, as being especially a profane tongue, fit only for entirely worldly business, but never to be intruded into the synagogue. This feeling was aggravated by the fact that the Jews of Alexandria — where chiefly Greek-speaking Jews abounded, — had not only a translation of the Scriptures, which they advanced almost to the same rank as the original: but even a temple of their own, which in some respects was permitted to rival the holy building in Jerusalem.

But, anyhow, Greek was the current language of the world at the time of the appearance of Christianity:— the language with which a man might travel from end to end of the Roman Empire. And there appears a special providence in the circumstance that the Gospel was sent forth at the very time when there was thus a universal language, in which to convey it. It was necessary to the free circulation of the message, that it should be written in the speech of the Empire, not in some local dialect. And the Grecians or Hellenists, though despised by the Palestine Jews, appear certainly, by means both of their more common tongue, and also of their greater enlightenment, to have been the part of Israel that most generally embraced the Gospel, and carried it into distant lands, away from its original cradle in Judaea and Galilee.

The reader has probably often asked himself, "What language did the Lord and the Apostles use?" That is not easily answered. Scholars have mostly assumed that Aramaic was the language that underlies the discourses of the Lord in the Gospels and of the Apostles in the Book of the Acts, but some have held that Greek was the usual language they employed. The only solution of the difficulty is to suppose the Lord and His immediate followers were bilingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek; employing the one language in the midst of the less cultured portion of the community, the other ofttimes in parts of the country such as Galilee, or in intercourse with Hellenist Jews. There is a modern analogy familiar to people acquainted with Wales or the Channel Islands where the upper grade will address his guest in the English tongue and afterwards turn to address his servant in the vernacular. Who could suppose that in Luke 2 the angels addressed the shepherds in any language but Aramaic? It is as little likely such could speak Greek, as English peasants in olden times could speak Norman-French. That Greek was not in the time of our Lord the usual language of the common people in Syria (at least) would lie in the fact of the need being early felt amongst the Christians of an Aramaic translation of the New Testament as much as the Old. It is a fact that the Lord spoke from heaven to Saul of Tarsus in "the Hebrew dialect" (Acts 26:14) which Paul himself used as well as Greek according to the circumstances in which he was placed or his object (Acts 21:37, 40). Greek (like modern French in diplomacy) was the medium of communication between the upper classes of the Jews and their rulers. On the other hand when Peter conversed in the hall of judgment, he must have used Aramaic, because of the reference to his provincial accent! E. E. WHITFIELD (1883).

Mark only gives us the four utterances of our Lord in the actual language in which He spoke. Outstanding amongst them is the cry from the cross, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (Mark 15:34). This alone of the four is given also by Matthew, and in its English translation is found again in Psalm 22. This is thrice holy ground; and as attempting to touch such a theme we are conscious of the searching word in Exodus 29, "whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy." The many times the word "holy" is used in Exodus (God moving towards us in blessing), and in Leviticus (our movements towards God as worshippers), is surely a matter of deep significance.