Did Jesus Speak Greek?

[John Milton]

This question arose in a friendly exchange between En Hakkore and me a few months ago on the forum in the following thread: https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...m-of-the-hebrew-bible.4663/page-4#post-314108. I hope to discuss the topic in greater detail here with any who are interested.

It is my understanding that most biblical scholars believe that Jesus's first language was Aramaic (see Mk. 5:41; 15:34) and that he may have (or even likely) had some degree of proficiency in Hebrew (Lk. 4:17-20). There appears to be much more debate as to whether or not Jesus knew Greek and, if he did, whether or not he used it in his public ministry. To the first point, there are a few places that appear to suggest that Jesus was able to speak Greek. Stanley Porter points to the exchange between Jesus and Pilate where part of Jesus's response is recorded verbatim in all four gospels.
Matthew 27:11 "Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμὼν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
Mark 15:2 "Καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει· σὺ λέγεις."
Luke 23:3 "ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
John 18:37 "εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς."
He thinks this indicates that Jesus was able to communicate in the language and that we may have a record of Jesus's exact words on this occasion.

Additionally, he mentions the exchange between Jesus and a woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon in Mark 7:26. There the text records that the woman Jesus was speaking with was Greek. Do you think these two instances are enough to suggest Jesus knew Greek? What do you think convincing evidence would look like?

 

[En Hakkore]

This question arose in a friendly exchange between En Hakkore and me a few months ago on the forum in the following thread: https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...m-of-the-hebrew-bible.4663/page-4#post-314108. I hope to discuss the topic in greater detail here with any who are interested.

Thanks JM for kicking off this thread... I look forward to the discussion with you and any others who may wish to join. While my current position and the one I will be defending here is that Jesus had minimal facility in Greek, I am certainly open to changing my mind based on a compelling case for him having more proficiency. I should also disclose my approach to the biblical text since it has been presented in the OP as one of the primary sources for considering this question. While some may view the Bible as an infallible source, I do not --- there is thus a level of historical reconstruction at work in accepting or rejecting particular claims made therein and I will defend those decisions where it seems appropriate to do so.

It is my understanding that most biblical scholars believe that Jesus's first language was Aramaic (see Mk. 5:41; 15:34)

I would concur that this is both the consensus view of biblical scholarship and a view I affirm. Mark assumes, correctly, that Jesus spoke Aramaic... to the passages you cite I would add 7:34 and 14:36. Matthew has both parallel for the cry of dereliction from the cross (27:46) and unique corroborating material in which Jesus quotes his audience hypothetically speaking an Aramaic term of derision (5:22). Aramaic phrases are placed directly on the lips of his followers or the crowds in Mt 21:9, Mk 10:51; 11:9; Jn 12:13 and 20:16. Jesus is reputed to have given nicknames to some of his disciples, both of which are Aramaic (Mk 3:17 and Jn 1:42). One final piece of biblical evidence, specific to Aramaic being the primary language spoken by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, are the Aramaic toponyms found in Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 5:2; 19:13; 19:17 and Ac 1:19 --- the latter of these is specified to be "in their own language" (τη ιδια διαλεκτω αυτων).

and that he may have (or even likely) had some degree of proficiency in Hebrew (Lk. 4:17-20).

While I'm inclined to agree that Jesus had some proficiency in Hebrew, connected specifically to the interpretation of Israel's sacred writings (which were predominantly composed in this language), the Lukan story cited is alone insufficient to establish this for two reasons. First, it rests on an assumption that the Isaiah scroll Jesus is claimed to have read from was in Hebrew. I happen to agree that if Jesus was reading from a scroll in his rural home town synagogue, it would in all likelihood be a Hebrew version of the book... but a case would need to be made for this rather than simply citing the passage. Second, it necessitates that Jesus not only could speak Hebrew, but that he could read it, too... literacy is a related but distinct issue. On the subject of Jesus' literacy, my position is that he acquired only a craftsman level and thus Luke's presentation of Jesus here embellishes his abilities in this regard in order to place him into the scribal-literate class (see Keith).

Other biblical evidence for Jesus speaking Hebrew is scant and similarly indirect. First, there are the several instances where Jesus is assumed to be and addressed as an interpreter of Jewish law using the Hebrew "Rabbi" (Mt 26:25, 49; Mk 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; Jn 1:38, 49; 3:2, 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). Second, Luke makes a point of claiming, through Paul's speech to Agrippa, that the ascended Jesus spoke to Paul "in the Hebrew dialect" (τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω; 26:14)... while this is often claimed to mean Aramaic (John uses the similar word Εβραιστι in this way), Luke is more precise in his terminology generally and the case can be made specifically here that he has Hebrew in mind, not Aramaic, based on the use of the same phrase in Ac 21:40 and 22:2 (see the discussion of Poirier, pp. 79-81).

There appears to be much more debate as to whether or not Jesus knew Greek and, if he did, whether or not he used it in his public ministry.

Agreed and to explore this question is the purpose of this thread.

To the first point, there are a few places that appear to suggest that Jesus was able to speak Greek. Stanley Porter points to the exchange between Jesus and Pilate where part of Jesus's response is recorded verbatim in all four gospels.
Matthew 27:11 "Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμὼν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
Mark 15:2 "Καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει· σὺ λέγεις."
Luke 23:3 "ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
John 18:37 "εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς."
He thinks this indicates that Jesus was able to communicate in the language and that we may have a record of Jesus's exact words on this occasion.

I think this overreaches the evidence. First, the agreement between the gospels here is limited to two words and explicable through any number of theories about literary dependence rather than suggesting we have the ipsissima verba of Jesus here. Second, suggesting that Jesus knew and used Greek to correspond with Pilate implicitly rejects either the use of a translator or Pilate's use of Aramaic --- all three possibilities would need to be explored and their relative strengths and weaknesses evaluated. At present, I have only Porter's summary comments in an essay... I will need to read his earlier expanded study, which he footnotes was a monograph published in 2000, to see if and how he addresses these counterproposals. I can pick up a copy when campus libraries reopen in January...

Additionally, he mentions the exchange between Jesus and a woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon in Mark 7:26. There the text records that the woman Jesus was speaking with was Greek.

As I believe I mentioned in our previous brief treatment of the subject, I reject the historicity of Jesus' ministry among Gentiles and so I view this story as an example of Mark telescoping later missionary efforts into the gospel narrative. This will require a significant amount of unpacking so I recommend we delay discussion on this second passage until we have exhausted the first passage...

Do you think these two instances are enough to suggest Jesus knew Greek?

No, I do not.

What do you think convincing evidence would look like?

I think the biblical evidence is ambiguous at best. A convincing argument for me would need to factor in a critical evaluation of the epigraphic evidence from first century Palestine and a solid model produced within the field of sociolinguistics... the latter of which I introduced to the earlier thread through Ong's 2015 article in the Bulletin for Biblical Research. In addition to his 2016 monograph, I am working my way through his most recent one published this year. We can look further into these two approaches (epigraphic analysis and sociolinguistics) as the thread unfolds...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Keith, Chris. Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (Library of Historical Jesus Studies 8; Library of New Testament Studies 413; T&T Clark, 2011)
Ong, Hughson T. "Ancient Palestine Is Multilingual and Diglossic: Introducing Multilingualism Theories to New Testament Studies." Currents in Biblical Research 13 (2015) 330-50
________. The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament (Linguistic Biblical Studies 12; Brill, 2016)
________. Sociolinguistic Analysis of the New Testament: Theories and Applications (Biblical Interpretation Series 195; Brill, 2021)
Poirier, John C. "The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity." Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 4 (2007) 55-134
Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 191; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)
________. "The Language(s) Jesus Spoke" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, edited by Tom Holmén and Porter (4 vols; Brill, 2011)

 

[John Milton]

I should also disclose my approach to the biblical text since it has been presented in the OP as one of the primary sources for considering this question. While some may view the Bible as an infallible source, I do not --- there is thus a level of historical reconstruction at work in accepting or rejecting particular claims made therein and I will defend those decisions where it seems appropriate to do so.

This is indeed a helpful clarification. Your approach to the text is neither unexpected nor unwelcome. For my part I do believe that the Bible is an infallible source, but I heavily qualify that assertion. I do not think, for instance, that what we deem "the Bible" contains no mistakes. Without spending too much time on the particulars, I would say that I'm convinced that what we have is a product of human and divine efforts with all the imperfections that would be expected as the result of such a process and that the Bible is a reliable guide for instruction and edification despite this.

Might I ask what your working theory is for the "synoptic problem"? That seems like it could be a helpful thing to know. I personally favor the standard Two-Source Marcan Priority.

I would concur that this is both the consensus view of biblical scholarship and a view I affirm. Mark assumes, correctly, that Jesus spoke Aramaic... to the passages you cite I would add 7:34 and 14:36. Matthew has both parallel for the cry of dereliction from the cross (27:46) and unique corroborating material in which Jesus quotes his audience hypothetically speaking an Aramaic term of derision (5:22). Aramaic phrases are placed directly on the lips of his followers or the crowds in Mt 21:9, Mk 10:51; 11:9; Jn 12:13 and 20:16. Jesus is reputed to have given nicknames to some of his disciples, both of which are Aramaic (Mk 3:17 and Jn 1:42). One final piece of biblical evidence, specific to Aramaic being the primary language spoken by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, are the Aramaic toponyms found in Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 5:2; 19:13; 19:17 and Ac 1:19 --- the latter of these is specified to be "in their own language" (τη ιδια διαλεκτω αυτων).

I have no qualms whatsoever with the assertion that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and I thank you for the expanded citations. Since I am unable to interact with much of the relevant scholarship pertaining to Hebrew and Aramaic, I will refrain from saying too much here. I only know a very limited amount of modern Hebrew (High A1 or low A2) and no Aramaic. However, I may raise some questions from my limited understanding of Hebrew or about the positions of other scholars (most notably Randall Buth) who have been challenging the status quo in this area if that's okay with you.

While I'm inclined to agree that Jesus had some proficiency in Hebrew,

Thank you for this clear statement of your position. For my part, I am inclined to believe that Jesus had at least conversational fluency in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

connected specifically to the interpretation of Israel's sacred writings (which were predominantly composed in this language),

My understanding is that the scriptures used in religious services were almost entirely composed in Hebrew.

the Lukan story cited is alone insufficient to establish this for two reasons. First, it rests on an assumption that the Isaiah scroll Jesus is claimed to have read from was in Hebrew. I happen to agree that if Jesus was reading from a scroll in his rural home town synagogue, it would in all likelihood be a Hebrew version of the book... but a case would need to be made for this rather than simply citing the passage.

This is, of course, a valid objection, though I'm not sure how it can be directly answered. It seems to me that our best guess as to what Jesus was reading relies on our knowledge of the texts the Jews used in their religious services. And it appears we both seem to think that the religious texts would most likely have been in Hebrew.

Second, it necessitates that Jesus not only could speak Hebrew, but that he could read it, too... literacy is a related but distinct issue.

They are indeed different skills, but I think it is fair to say that if he could read Hebrew he should've been able to speak it.

To me the biggest issue that you raised is nestled in your statement "if Jesus was reading from a scroll in his rural home town synagogue". This suggests doubt as to whether or not Luke's account is historically reliable. After all, our knowledge of this event is limited to this account, and it generally accepted that a chronicler might choose to convey "historical" information through a fictionalized account of what could have transpired. It's not a question we can easily answer.

On the subject of Jesus' literacy, my position is that he acquired only a craftsman level and thus Luke's presentation of Jesus here embellishes his abilities in this regard in order to place him into the scribal-literate class (see Keith).

I think it is indisputable that Luke gives information about Jesus's literacy that isn't clearly given anywhere else, but I don't see anything in the account that is different enough to justify a charge of embellishment.

Other biblical evidence for Jesus speaking Hebrew is scant and similarly indirect. First, there are the several instances where Jesus is assumed to be and addressed as an interpreter of Jewish law using the Hebrew "Rabbi" (Mt 26:25, 49; Mk 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; Jn 1:38, 49; 3:2, 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). Second, Luke makes a point of claiming, through Paul's speech to Agrippa, that the ascended Jesus spoke to Paul "in the Hebrew dialect" (τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω; 26:14)... while this is often claimed to mean Aramaic (John uses the similar word Εβραιστι in this way), Luke is more precise in his terminology generally and the case can be made specifically here that he has Hebrew in mind, not Aramaic, based on the use of the same phrase in Ac 21:40 and 22:2 (see the discussion of Poirier, pp. 79-81).

On point that should be considered, I think, both here and below is the number of potential independent witnesses that could refer to Jesus's knowledge of Hebrew. (Of course, this would require a close look at all of the passages to determine the exact figure that might be beyond our purposes here.)

Are you familiar with Randall Buth's argument in the following article?

https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf

I think this overreaches the evidence.

I think it stretches credulity; I don't think it breaks it.

First, the agreement between the gospels here is limited to two words

Yes, but how does that go beyond the evidence? It is reasonable to entertain the idea that the simplicity and the jarring impact of the pithy statement could embed itself to collective memory.

and explicable through any number of theories about literary dependence rather than suggesting we have the ipsissima verba of Jesus here.

That is true, but that is a bit harder to maintain over four different accounts of the event that vary in many other places through the accounts. And as a general rule the likelihood of independent attestation increases as the number of parallels and differences within those parallels increases, if that makes sense.

Second, suggesting that Jesus knew and used Greek to correspond with Pilate implicitly rejects either the use of a translator or Pilate's use of Aramaic --- all three possibilities would need to be explored and their relative strengths and weaknesses evaluated.

From memory, I think Porter argued that in other authors interpreters were mentioned when they were used and that the speed at which the events took place suggests that they were interacting directly. I believe he simply dismissed the possibility of Pilate speaking Aramaic as unlikely.

At present, I have only Porter's summary comments in an essay... I will need to read his earlier expanded study, which he footnotes was a monograph published in 2000, to see if and how he addresses these counterproposals. I can pick up a copy when campus libraries reopen in January...

Sounds good. I don't have access to a good University library.

As I believe I mentioned in our previous brief treatment of the subject, I reject the historicity of Jesus' ministry among Gentiles and so I view this story as an example of Mark telescoping later missionary efforts into the gospel narrative. This will require a significant amount of unpacking so I recommend we delay discussion on this second passage until we have exhausted the first passage...

Agreed.

 

[John Milton]

.

No, I do not.

I would've been surprised if you had! I was trying to open the field to any other interested parties.

I think the biblical evidence is ambiguous at best.

I don't disagree.

A convincing argument for me would need to factor in a critical evaluation of the epigraphic evidence from first century Palestine and a solid model produced within the field of sociolinguistics... the latter of which I introduced to the earlier thread through Ong's 2015 article in the Bulletin for Biblical Research. In addition to his 2016 monograph, I am working my way through his most recent one published this year. We can look further into these two approaches (epigraphic analysis and sociolinguistics) as the thread unfolds...

Sounds good. Thanks for the exchange so far.

 

[En Hakkore]

This is indeed a helpful clarification. Your approach to the text is neither unexpected nor unwelcome. For my part I do believe that the Bible is an infallible source, but I heavily qualify that assertion. I do not think, for instance, that what we deem "the Bible" contains no mistakes. Without spending too much time on the particulars, I would say that I'm convinced that what we have is a product of human and divine efforts with all the imperfections that would be expected as the result of such a process and that the Bible is a reliable guide for instruction and edification despite this.

Thanks for the clarification regarding your own approach to the biblical text... I'm glad to hear that my position is not an impediment to further dialogue.

Might I ask what your working theory is for the "synoptic problem"? That seems like it could be a helpful thing to know. I personally favor the standard Two-Source Marcan Priority.

I currently hold to a modified version of the Farrer hypothesis that factors in a sayings source and John to the solution... I understand a collection of Jesus' sayings to stand at the beginning of the gospel tradition, which was used sparingly by Mark in the composition of the first narrative of Jesus' life shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE. I believe Matthew wrote second within a decade or so of Mark, using it as a source alongside the sayings collection, incorporating the material that Mark omitted and adding other traditions. I believe John wrote third, toward the end of the first century and, while knowing the previous two gospels and the sayings source, forged his own unique version of the Jesus story. I believe Luke wrote last, early in the second century with all three of the other gospels and the sayings source at his disposal... among other intentions, his gospel was one of the first attempts at harmonizing some of their discrepancies. I use the names Mark, Matthew, John and Luke for the sake of convention without embracing the traditional identities ascribed to these authors. I agree that knowing each other's positions on the 'Synoptic Problem' will be helpful in our discussion in terms of their conjectured priority, approximate dating and direction of interrelations.

I have no qualms whatsoever with the assertion that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and I thank you for the expanded citations. Since I am unable to interact with much of the relevant scholarship pertaining to Hebrew and Aramaic, I will refrain from saying too much here. I only know a very limited amount of modern Hebrew (High A1 or low A2) and no Aramaic. However, I may raise some questions from my limited understanding of Hebrew or about the positions of other scholars (most notably Randall Buth) who have been challenging the status quo in this area if that's okay with you.

Yes, that would be fine... for the record, I am comfortable with the biblical varieties of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have passed competency exams in all three languages at the graduate and post-graduate levels.

Thank you for this clear statement of your position. For my part, I am inclined to believe that Jesus had at least conversational fluency in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

And thank you for this clear statement of your position... the primary point of contention, as expected, concerns the extent of Jesus' knowledge of Greek.

They are indeed different skills, but I think it is fair to say that if he could read Hebrew he should've been able to speak it.

This would only follow if Hebrew were still a living spoken language... I happen to think it still was in first-century Palestine, at least within liturgical settings, so I won't push the point much farther than this.

To me the biggest issue that you raised is nestled in your statement "if Jesus was reading from a scroll in his rural home town synagogue". This suggests doubt as to whether or not Luke's account is historically reliable. After all, our knowledge of this event is limited to this account, and it generally accepted that a chronicler might choose to convey "historical" information through a fictionalized account of what could have transpired. It's not a question we can easily answer.


I think it is indisputable that Luke gives information about Jesus's literacy that isn't clearly given anywhere else, but I don't see anything in the account that is different enough to justify a charge of embellishment.

This is a good example of where theories on the interrelations between the gospels come into play since I would posit that the story in question is Luke's expanded version of the rejection at Nazareth found in Mark (6:1-5) and Matthew (13:54-58) --- five verses in each of these gospels triples to fifteen in Luke. While "embellishment" may seem harsh, I believe this captures well what is happening here as Jesus' implicitly oral teaching in Mark and Matthew becomes scribal-literate skills in Luke. As noted above, Luke's reason for writing is multifaceted and one of his other intentions, in response to challenges from pagan critics rejecting Christianity as a religion of backwater origins, is to present its founder as literate and whose hometown was a city (Lk 1:26; 2:4, 39; 4:29; Greek: πολις) whereas we know Nazareth was no city according to ancient definitions of such (see Kloppenborg 103-4). Understanding Jesus to have been mostly illiterate is not to cast aspersions (his skills as an oral teacher were undoubtedly superb and would put people in our contemporary bookish culture to shame), but to anchor him realistically as one coming from a small rural village in first-century Palestine. Estimates of literacy in the Roman Empire are about 10% of the population and probably lower than this in Palestine (see Keith, 74-75).

Are you familiar with Randall Buth's argument in the following article?

Yes and I am in agreement with the general thrust of Buth and Pierce's argument concerning the specificity of the terms Εβραιστι and Συριστι in Greek literature of the period --- they even cited my own source Poirier on the pertinent passages in Acts (69-71). I think they and other contributors to the volume, however, overestimate the use of Hebrew in first-century Palestine, but where their essay seriously stumbles is in spending an inordinate amount of time (10 pages!) trying to explain (away) John's use of Εβραιστι, the simple explanation that the author used the term imprecisely seems to have escaped them.

I think it stretches credulity; I don't think it breaks it.

Yes, but how does that go beyond the evidence? It is reasonable to entertain the idea that the simplicity and the jarring impact of the pithy statement could embed itself to collective memory.

That is true, but that is a bit harder to maintain over four different accounts of the event that vary in many other places through the accounts. And as a general rule the likelihood of independent attestation increases as the number of parallels and differences within those parallels increases, if that makes sense.

From memory, I think Porter argued that in other authors interpreters were mentioned when they were used and that the speed at which the events took place suggests that they were interacting directly. I believe he simply dismissed the possibility of Pilate speaking Aramaic as unlikely.

Let's resume discussion of this passage when I've had a chance to read Porter's more detailed arguments about it... campus libraries reopen on the 4th and I'll try to get out there at some point during that first week of January to grab the book.

I would've been surprised if you had! I was trying to open the field to any other interested parties.

Fair enough... at present, it would appear we have a number of spectators, but none who want to jump into the ring with us!

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Buth, Randall and Chad Pierce. "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?" in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels - Volume 2, edited by Buth and R. Steven Notley (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 26; Brill, 2014)
Keith, Chris. Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (Library of Historical Jesus Studies 8; Library of New Testament Studies 413; T&T Clark, 2011)
Kloppenborg, John S. "Luke's Geography: Knowledge, Ignorance, Sources, and Spatial Conception" in Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know?, edited by Joseph Verheyden and Kloppenborg (Biblical Tools and Studies 29; Peeters, 2017)
Poirier, John C. "The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity." Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 4 (2007) 55-134
Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 191; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)

 

[John Milton]

I currently hold to a modified version of the Farrer hypothesis that factors in a sayings source and John to the solution... I understand a collection of Jesus' sayings to stand at the beginning of the gospel tradition, which was used sparingly by Mark in the composition of the first narrative of Jesus' life shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE. I believe Matthew wrote second within a decade or so of Mark, using it as a source alongside the sayings collection, incorporating the material that Mark omitted and adding other traditions. I believe John wrote third, toward the end of the first century and, while knowing the previous two gospels and the sayings source, forged his own unique version of the Jesus story. I believe Luke wrote last, early in the second century with all three of the other gospels and the sayings source at his disposal... among other intentions, his gospel was one of the first attempts at harmonizing some of their discrepancies.

The incorporation of John at such an early date is a detail I don't think I've encountered before, but this does help explain some of the differences in the numbers of independent witnesses.

When you say John "forged" his own gospel, did you intend a certain connotation or was it intended to vary the verbs you used (writing, using, adding, omitting, etc.)?

I use the names Mark, Matthew, John and Luke for the sake of convention without embracing the traditional identities ascribed to these authors.

I do, too.

I agree that knowing each other's positions on the 'Synoptic Problem' will be helpful in our discussion in terms of their conjectured priority, approximate dating and direction of interrelations.

My view is pretty standard; I haven't studied the matter deeply. The two source hypothesis seems to me to fit the data the best, though not perfectly. I believe that John was the last to write his gospel independently of the others near the end of the first century.

Yes, that would be fine... for the record, I am comfortable with the biblical varieties of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have passed competency exams in all three languages at the graduate and post-graduate levels.

My Greek is solid, but I am self-taught.

This would only follow if Hebrew were still a living spoken language... I happen to think it still was in first-century Palestine, at least within liturgical settings, so I won't push the point much farther than this.

That's fair enough. At a certain point we run the risk of pedantry. If one took "speak" as the ability to correct pronounce the words on the page, for example, though I note this only for fun. The interesting thing to me if one assumes that Hebrew was not a living language at the time is that Jesus would likely either be reading something something that wasn't Hebrew in a worship type setting (which I don't know of any evidence for) or reading to an audience that couldn't understand him. I have personally witnessed this latter situation in a Jewish worship service in the US.

This is a good example of where theories on the interrelations between the gospels come into play since I would posit that the story in question is Luke's expanded version of the rejection at Nazareth found in Mark (6:1-5) and Matthew (13:54-58) --- five verses in each of these gospels triples to fifteen in Luke. While "embellishment" may seem harsh, I believe this captures well what is happening here as Jesus' implicitly oral teaching in Mark and Matthew becomes scribal-literate skills in Luke. As noted above, Luke's reason for writing is multifaceted and one of his other intentions, in response to challenges from pagan critics rejecting Christianity as a religion of backwater origins, is to present its founder as literate and whose hometown was a city (Lk 1:26; 2:4, 39; 4:29; Greek: πολις) whereas we know Nazareth was no city according to ancient definitions of such (see Kloppenborg 103-4). Understanding Jesus to have been mostly illiterate is not to cast aspersions (his skills as an oral teacher were undoubtedly superb and would put people in our contemporary bookish culture to shame), but to anchor him realistically as one coming from a small rural village in first-century Palestine. Estimates of literacy in the Roman Empire are about 10% of the population and probably lower than this in Palestine (see Keith, 74-75).

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes and I am in agreement with the general thrust of Buth and Pierce's argument concerning the specificity of the terms Εβραιστι and Συριστι in Greek literature of the period --- they even cited my own source Poirier on the pertinent passages in Acts (69-71).

That's the main question I intended to ask about. Thanks for this.

I think they and other contributors to the volume, however, overestimate the use of Hebrew in first-century Palestine, but where their essay seriously stumbles is in spending an inordinate amount of time (10 pages!) trying to explain (away) John's use of Εβραιστι, the simple explanation that the author used the term imprecisely seems to have escaped them.

I thought the same thing myself.

Let's resume discussion of this passage when I've had a chance to read Porter's more detailed arguments about it... campus libraries reopen on the 4th and I'll try to get out there at some point during that first week of January to grab the book.

That sounds great. I had a bit more time this evening than I had expected to have, so I went ahead and posted a brief response here just to keep the thread active. That should garner one or two more views, anyway.

 

[En Hakkore]

The incorporation of John at such an early date is a detail I don't think I've encountered before, but this does help explain some of the differences in the numbers of independent witnesses.

My view is pretty standard; I haven't studied the matter deeply. The two source hypothesis seems to me to fit the data the best, though not perfectly. I believe that John was the last to write his gospel independently of the others near the end of the first century.

To clarify, I agree with most scholars and yourself in dating John to late in the first century... I just think there is good evidence Luke came later (early second century) and knew John (Franklin; Shellard) and even Josephus (Pervo) --- this proposed dating certainly falls within the allowable range based on earliest known citations from the two-volume work (Luke-Acts) around the middle of the second century (Gregory).

When you say John "forged" his own gospel, did you intend a certain connotation or was it intended to vary the verbs you used (writing, using, adding, omitting, etc.)?

I was just varying my terminology... while I do think the author crafted Jesus' many long-winded speeches in the gospel from his own imagination, which was standard enough fare in ancient historiography, the gospel is not overall a conscious forgery and, indeed, contains some reliable historical information, which the John, Jesus, and History group that met for several years at SBL has documented (Anderson et al. [2007; 2009; 2016]).

My Greek is solid, but I am self-taught.

Cool, nothing wrong with that... I began as an autodidact back in the late 90s with Hebrew, slogging through grammars, lexicons and my BHS, learning the language through translating --- I wound up translating the entire Pentateuch, Former Prophets (Joshua-2 Kings), Isaiah and the beginning of Jeremiah before I entered academia and had to put that project on (permanent?) hold. I tested out of the Hebrew requirements in both degrees, but my self-taught Greek was still rusty... I wound up investing nine semester hours to bring my knowledge up to par with that of Hebrew --- the advanced reading class was cool as we moved outside the New Testament into the Septuagint, Josephus and even some Herodotus.

That's fair enough. At a certain point we run the risk of pedantry. If one took "speak" as the ability to correct pronounce the words on the page, for example, though I note this only for fun. The interesting thing to me if one assumes that Hebrew was not a living language at the time is that Jesus would likely either be reading something something that wasn't Hebrew in a worship type setting (which I don't know of any evidence for) or reading to an audience that couldn't understand him. I have personally witnessed this latter situation in a Jewish worship service in the US.

I would just note that I do think a distinction must be made between speaking a language and reciting from a written text one understands... while I can do the latter (back in the days of mic-enabled CARM chat, people would get a kick out of me taking the mic to recite Hebrew texts), I wouldn't say I can speak (ie. carry on a conversation) any of the biblical languages --- that is an entirely different skill (most Israeli scholars possess it because of fluency in modern Hebrew). Recitation was an important component of my Greek and Aramaic classes.

That sounds great. I had a bit more time this evening than I had expected to have, so I went ahead and posted a brief response here just to keep the thread active. That should garner one or two more views, anyway.

Maybe even three... Just an FYI, it snowed here today and all the rain forecasted for this week has turned to snow so I probably won't be able to make it out to campus until some time next week to grab Porter's book.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, S.J., Tom Thatcher (eds). John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (SBL Symposium Series 44; SBL, 2007)
________. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (SBL Early Christianity and Its Literature 2; SBL, 2009)
________. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 3: Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens (SBL Early Christianity and Its Literature 18; SBL, 2016)
Franklin, Eric. Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 92; Sheffield Academic Press, 1994)
Gregory, Andrew. The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.169; Mohr Siebeck, 2003)
Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge Press, 2006)
Shellard, Barbara. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 215; Sheffield Academic Press, 2002)

 

[John Milton]

To clarify, I agree with most scholars and yourself in dating John to late in the first century... I just think there is good evidence Luke came later (early second century) and knew John (Franklin; Shellard) and even Josephus (Pervo) --- this proposed dating certainly falls within the allowable range based on earliest known citations from the two-volume work (Luke-Acts) around the middle of the second century (Gregory).

I understood you, even though I wasn't very clear. What I meant to convey was that I haven't directly interacted with someone who uses John at such an early stage when dealing with the synoptic problem.

I was just varying my terminology... while I do think the author crafted Jesus' many long-winded speeches in the gospel from his own imagination, which was standard enough fare in ancient historiography, the gospel is not overall a conscious forgery and, indeed, contains some reliable historical information, which the John, Jesus, and History group that met for several years at SBL has documented (Anderson et al. [2007; 2009; 2016]).

Thanks for the clarification.

I would just note that I do think a distinction must be made between speaking a language and reciting from a written text one understands...

I have been in agreement on this point the whole time. That's why I could honestly say my "objection" was raised in jest. It is refreshing to be able to interact with someone who is actively trying to understand what I am saying. I hope you feel I am extending you that same courtesy.

while I can do the latter (back in the days of mic-enabled CARM chat, people would get a kick out of me taking the mic to recite Hebrew texts), I wouldn't say I can speak (ie. carry on a conversation) any of the biblical languages --- that is an entirely different skill (most Israeli scholars possess it because of fluency in modern Hebrew). Recitation was an important component of my Greek and Aramaic classes.

Yes, but could you do it without the pointing?

The fact that text mentions that Jesus found the passage in the scroll that he was reading suggests a unquatifiable level of skill above simply being able to say the correct words (as I'm sure many beginner Greek or Hebrew students could attest trying to follow along with a sermon on a particular passage). Of course, this does not mean that he was reading a text without vowels or that it was Hebrew or that he would've been able to carry on a casual conversation in the language.

Maybe even three... Just an FYI, it snowed here today and all the rain forecasted for this week has turned to snow so I probably won't be able to make it out to campus until some time next week to grab Porter's book.

We are supposed to have the same tomorrow. No worries. The slower pace is to my benefit at the moment. I have decided to order several books to help my research on the subject. Do you have any recommendations of the resources you have direct access to in terms of value per dollar? If so, I'll order a few of them along with the ones I already have in mind.

 

[En Hakkore]

It is refreshing to be able to interact with someone who is actively trying to understand what I am saying. I hope you feel I am extending you that same courtesy.

Indeed, I do.

Yes, but could you do it without the pointing?

I could do it with a handful of texts I know like the back of my hand, but generally speaking only with extreme difficulty! The final exam in my Aramaic course was a doozy... we were given a random page-length text from the cache of Aramaic writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which of course were not pointed, and we had to (1) correctly point the text and (2) correctly translate it into English. Let's just say it was a pretty intense three hours, but I did walk away from the course with an A+

We are supposed to have the same tomorrow. No worries. The slower pace is to my benefit at the moment. I have decided to order several books to help my research on the subject. Do you have any recommendations of the resources you have direct access to in terms of value per dollar? If so, I'll order a few of them along with the ones I already have in mind.

Well, the question of whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is being primarily driven by those who answer in the affirmative and recent work in this area is primarily that of Ong with his cross-disciplinary work in sociolinguistics and multilingualism. All this material will be pricey for someone without access to an institutional account, but I've listed below what I'm currently working through... not sure what your budget is, but if you're able to score Ong and maybe one each of the sociolinguistic and multilingualism handbooks for a good price somewhere, we would have a good shared theoretical basis for our unfolding dialogue...

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Ong, Hughson T. The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament (Linguistic Biblical Studies 12; Brill, 2016)

Sociolinguistics:
Bayley, Robert et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford University Press, 2013)
Herández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Juan Comilo Conde-Silvestre (eds) The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)
Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)
Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics (3rd ed.; Routledge, 2019)
Van Herk, Gerd. What Is Sociolinguistics? (2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2018)
Wardhaugh, Ronald and Janet M. Fuller. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (7th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2015)

Multilingualism:
Bhatia, Tej K. and William C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2013)
Bullock, Barbara E. and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
Hamers, Josiane F. and Michael H.A. Blanc. Bilinguality and Bilingualism (2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2000)
Martin-Jones, Marilyn et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (Routledge, 2012)
Mullen, Alex and Patrick James (eds) Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Wei, Li (ed.) The Bilingualism Reader (2nd ed.; Routledge, 2007)

 

[John Milton]

Ong, Hughson T. The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament (Linguistic Biblical Studies 12; Brill, 2016)

Sociolinguistics:
Bayley, Robert et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford University Press, 2013)
Herández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Juan Comilo Conde-Silvestre (eds) The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)
Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)
Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics (3rd ed.; Routledge, 2019)
Van Herk, Gerd. What Is Sociolinguistics? (2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2018)
Wardhaugh, Ronald and Janet M. Fuller. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (7th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2015)

Multilingualism:
Bhatia, Tej K. and William C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell, 2013)
Bullock, Barbara E. and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
Hamers, Josiane F. and Michael H.A. Blanc. Bilinguality and Bilingualism (2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2000)
Martin-Jones, Marilyn et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (Routledge, 2012)
Mullen, Alex and Patrick James (eds) Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Wei, Li (ed.) The Bilingualism Reader (2nd ed.; Routledge, 2007)

Thank you for the recommendations. I'll see what I can find this evening. I might get a few extra in the "multilingual" category. Over the last couple of years, it has become clear to me that second language acquisition (theory and practice) is my greatest academic interest.

 

[John Milton]

I could do it with a handful of texts I know like the back of my hand, but generally speaking only with extreme difficulty! The final exam in my Aramaic course was a doozy... we were given a random page-length text from the cache of Aramaic writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which of course were not pointed, and we had to (1) correctly point the text and (2) correctly translate it into English. Let's just say it was a pretty intense three hours, but I did walk away from the course with an A+

My experience with Hebrew is mostly limited to modern Hebrew and the readings of scripture contained in "Hebrew from Scratch". What I can understand from Biblical Hebrew is filtered through this lens. In a good number of cases, there isn't much difference, but this isn't always true. I have found that when I am reading the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, I tend to ignore the pointing altogether. I will look at it, however, when I stumble by assuming the wrong word coming across a word that could otherwise be ambiguous.

Well, the question of whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is being primarily driven by those who answer in the affirmative and recent work in this area is primarily that of Ong with his cross-disciplinary work in sociolinguistics and multilingualism.

That would explain my feeling that the tide of public opinion is shifting on the issue. Often the only exposure I have to new scholarship is through the side comments of well read authors whose works I have read.

All this material will be pricey for someone without access to an institutional account, but I've listed below what I'm currently working through... not sure what your budget is, but if you're able to score Ong and maybe one each of the sociolinguistic and multilingualism handbooks for a good price somewhere, we would have a good shared theoretical basis for our unfolding dialogue...

I have a rudimentary understanding of linguistics. I already own and have read "Language Files". I'm also doing additional coursework in second language acquisition and instruction in the Spring. I don't mind spending a little additional money where the topic aligns with my research interests anyway. If you don't mind a more lethargic pace at the start, I have hopes that this could turn out to be a really good discussion.

 

[En Hakkore]

My experience with Hebrew is mostly limited to modern Hebrew and the readings of scripture contained in "Hebrew from Scratch". What I can understand from Biblical Hebrew is filtered through this lens. In a good number of cases, there isn't much difference, but this isn't always true. I have found that when I am reading the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, I tend to ignore the pointing altogether. I will look at it, however, when I stumble by assuming the wrong word coming across a word that could otherwise be ambiguous.

That would explain my feeling that the tide of public opinion is shifting on the issue. Often the only exposure I have to new scholarship is through the side comments of well read authors whose works I have read.

I have a rudimentary understanding of linguistics. I already own and have read "Language Files". I'm also doing additional coursework in second language acquisition and instruction in the Spring. I don't mind spending a little additional money where the topic aligns with my research interests anyway. If you don't mind a more lethargic pace at the start, I have hopes that this could turn out to be a really good discussion.

A slow and methodical pace is just fine, I prefer quality over speed or quantity... I can commit to the next six weeks for sure, after which I had planned to take sabbatical from CARM again until the early summer as I am presenting papers at two on-line conferences in the spring. If we are not finished by March 1, I can perhaps commit to responding only to this thread as time permits or we can resume when I return in early June. I have or have access to the bibliography I supplied... if you could let me know what other books you ordered in for the purposes of this thread, I can make sure they will be shared resources. I have secured Porter's book as promised... he also invokes the conversation between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman so we can discuss both subjects consecutively using his position as a reference point. I will need to read more than just these two short sections as they are embedded in a larger argument he makes for a new criterion of authenticity revolving around the Greek language. I should have my response to the συ λεγεις matter that is first up for discussion within the week...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[John Milton]

A slow and methodical pace is just fine, I prefer quality over speed or quantity... I can commit to the next six weeks for sure, after which I had planned to take sabbatical from CARM again until the early summer as I am presenting papers at two on-line conferences in the spring. If we are not finished by March 1, I can perhaps commit to responding only to this thread as time permits or we can resume when I return in early June. I have or have access to the bibliography I supplied... if you could let me know what other books you ordered in for the purposes of this thread, I can make sure they will be shared resources. I have secured Porter's book as promised... he also invokes the conversation between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman so we can discuss both subjects consecutively using his position as a reference point. I will need to read more than just these two short sections as they are embedded in a larger argument he makes for a new criterion of authenticity revolving around the Greek language. I should have my response to the συ λεγεις matter that is first up for discussion within the week...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I'll get my book list to you either tomorrow or Tuesday.

 

[keiw]

Jesus the son of God with holy spirit could speak any language on earth. The speaking in tongues was speaking in foreign language. It was not gibberish like teachers of darkness say it is.

 

[En Hakkore]

Stanley Porter points to the exchange between Jesus and Pilate where part of Jesus's response is recorded verbatim in all four gospels.
Matthew 27:11 "Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμὼν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
Mark 15:2 "Καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει· σὺ λέγεις."
Luke 23:3 "ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις."
John 18:37 "εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς."
He thinks this indicates that Jesus was able to communicate in the language and that we may have a record of Jesus's exact words on this occasion.

I have secured Porter's book as promised... he also invokes the conversation between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman so we can discuss both subjects consecutively using his position as a reference point. I will need to read more than just these two short sections as they are embedded in a larger argument he makes for a new criterion of authenticity revolving around the Greek language. I should have my response to the συ λεγεις matter that is first up for discussion within the week...

OK, so in his first chapter Porter surveys the so-called 'third quest' for the historical Jesus, preferring instead to see "a single multi-faceted quest..., with various modifications and adjustments in approach, some of them perhaps influenced by method and others perhaps by personality or nationality" (56). He introduces the criteria for authenticity in these pursuits, then in the second chapter offers a diachronic analysis of these criteria, observing both a "surprising amount of continuity in [their] development" (100) and "a surprisingly small amount of stringent internal criticism of these criteria" (101). In his third chapter he turns from an historical overview to more recent developments, noting there have been "few major methodological shifts" (123), which lays the groundwork for his own attempt to jumpstart such a shift in the remainder of the book.

This brings us to his proposal of a new criterion of "Greek language and its context" that will be based on "sound linguistic methodology" (126). He outlines three stages to the utilization of this criterion:

The criterion first examines an episode's participants and their backgrounds, then analyses the context and theme of discussion, and concludes with determination of whether the episode has a claim to recording the Greek words of Jesus. (127)

Porter begins with a claim concerning the linguistic situation in first-century Roman Palestine as it relates to Jesus:

Jesus, as well as many of his closest followers, who also came from Galilee, was probably multilingual. He spoke Aramaic to be sure, and Greek to be almost as sure, and possibly even Hebrew. (131)

Porter notes that an individual can have a first language plus acquired languages and introduces two types of multilingualism, then qualifying the above claim in light of this:

one distinguishes between active or productive and passive or receptive multilingualism... Active multilingualism involves the ability to understand and to express oneself in a language, whereas passive multilingualism involves being able to understand but not to express oneself in a language. (133)

Jesus would probably be best described as productively multilingual in Greek and Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew, though only Aramaic would have been his first language, and Greek and Hebrew being second or acquired languages. (134)

Porter defends this depiction as "reflect[ing] the linguistic realities of the Mediterranean world of Roman times" (134) and that this "is supported by widespread and significant literary, epigraphic and other evidence" (134-35). Important regarding the first is the following claim about Greek as the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean:

the Graeco-Roman world was one in which Greek became the language of trade, commerce and communication among the now joined (if not always united) people groups. (135)

Concerning the evidence in Roman Palestine in particular, Porter writes:

The arguments for the use of Greek in Palestine are based upon the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman empire, the specific Hellenized linguistic and cultural character of lower Galilee surrounded by the cities of the Decapolis, and the linguistic fact that the New Testament has been transmitted in Greek from its earliest documents. There is also a range of inscriptional evidence (e.g. Jewish funerary inscriptions), numerous Greek papyri, and significant literary evidence, including Jewish books being written in or translated into Greek in Palestine. From this range of evidence the logical conclusion can be drawn that in fact a sizeable number of Jews in Palestine used Greek. (140-41)

Porter thus considers it "established ... that Jesus could have spoken Greek---the question is whether he did on a given occasion" (142; italics in original). He lays out the basics of his approach to the texts he will consider:

on the basis of the events depicted and words recorded by the participants, the question is asked whether the probability would be greater that Greek would have been the language of communication used between Jesus and his conversation partners, or not. (142-43)

Porter then turns to the first stage of utilizing his new criterion, identifying the participants and their background. With respect to Roman officials serving in the east generally, he claims "Aramaic was virtually unknown (as were almost all native languages of the Roman territories among Romans)" (147). Unfortunately, his support for this claim is a solitary citation to Henri-Irénée Marrou's 1948 monograph A History of Education in Antiquity. I will follow this citation up later in the week to see if it is strong enough to support Porter's assertion... indeed, in my first post to this thread here I stated that Pilate's use of Aramaic would need to be evaluated and similarly the use of an interpreter, which possibility Porter dismisses based on the fact "no interpreter [is] mentioned in the account" (149) and, again citing Marrou, that Roman officials preferred to cross-examine witnesses without them (178). He acknowledges, however, that "I may be wrong that there was no interpreter at the trial of Jesus, but I am not alone in thinking that the scenario may be plausible as reported" (178). Lack of explicit mention of an interpreter is an argument from silence... his position thus rests on the strength of Marrou. Once I have consulted Porter's source on these two matters, I will continue with my interaction with Porter's arguments specific to the trial scene, as well as a general evaluation of his proposed new criterion...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

Once I have consulted Porter's source on these two matters, I will continue with my interaction with Porter's arguments specific to the trial scene, as well as a general evaluation of his proposed new criterion...

For those who may have been wondering why there have been no updates to this thread, my interlocutor reached out privately to say that he would be delayed in responding and so I put the brakes on --- I haven't heard from him in a while now, however, so I hope everything is alright. I will be on sabbatical from the forum beginning March 1, back in early June. If my conversation partner returns in the interim and wishes to continue then, I'd be more than happy to do so... and anyone else who would like to take the affirmative position on the question "Did Jesus speak Greek?" is welcome to jump in if the OP does not return.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Shoonra]

It may be difficult for modern Americans to imagine that someone was trilingual, but this was not so rare in Apostolic Times. Jesus could read, understand, and presumably speak Biblical Hebrew, among Jews he would speak the common language of Aramaic (which is closely related to Hebrew and used in various places in the Hebrew OT), and when speaking with Gentiles he would probably use Greek inasmuch as Gentiles probably didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

The Talmud says that all the rabbis of the Sanhedrin were multilingual, and while that may be an exaggeration I would suppose some of them were.

 

[WillowBeach]

If he was God wouldn't Jesus speak all languages?

 

[Caroljeen]

If he was God wouldn't Jesus speak all languages?

As a man, he would have had to learn them like we do.

Heb 2: 14-17 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, NRSV

 

[WillowBeach]

As a man, he would have had to learn them like we do.

Heb 2: 14-17 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, NRSV

But his brothers and sisters couldn't raise the dead, restore sight to the blind, or cast out demons.

He was the word made flesh too.