What language did Jesus speak

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.

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)."

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.

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.

The return of the Jews in such large numbers, coming from all parts of the world, and speaking some 70 languages, imposed upon Israel the necessity that there should be one official language common to all. Obviously the revival of the pure Hebrew language was the best and happiest solvent of the difficulty. So we read, "The most vital factor in this new cultural integration is Hebrew, the tongue of Biblical Israel, which was revived as a modern language during the last decades of the nineteenth century, and became the spoken language of the Jewish community of Palestine during the last generation." Is this not a deeply interesting fulfilment of a prophecy, which reads, "Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent" (Zeph. 3:9)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whilst all this had been taking place the daughter of Jairus had died, and some came from the house of sorrow to acquaint the father with the sad news. He heard their tidings, and apparently was silent. The Lord heard them also, and immediately spoke to encourage him, "Be not afraid, only believe." He who could raise the dead would first encourage the drooping spirit. Entering the house with Peter, James, and John, and proceeding to the chamber of death, He in the presence of the parents raised the dead, speaking to her, as Mark informs us, in Aramaic, not in Greek, "Talitha, cumi:" which is, being interpreted, "Damsel, I say to thee, Arise." The effect on all is noticed: "And straightway they were astonished with a great astonishment" (5:42).

From him therefore we learn that our Lord was six hours upon the cross, being crucified at the third hour (ver. 25); the three last hours being distinctly marked out from the first three, not only by being mentioned separately by our Evangelist, but especially by the darkness which then shrouded the earth (ver. 33); and at the close of them our Lord's memorable cry was heard, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" — uttered in Aramaic, which is interpreted for us, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"*

Matthew gives us but a part of the superscription put over the cross, while Luke and John tell us it was written in the three languages then spoken in Palestine — Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

The ancient Syriac was one of the languages akin to Hebrew, and is the more interesting because it would seem to have come very near to the dialect employed by our Lord and the Apostles, 'the Hebrew dialect' or Palestinian Aramaic, which very possibly was, as Professor Roberts amongst others thinks, a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac; some accordingly call it 'Syro-Chaldaic.'