Did Jesus speak Aramaic and why does it matter?

[calmthesea]

I realize the idea of churches that trace their origins back to the apostles that were also not part of the Greco-Roman world/culture (and thus were not Greek or Latin speaking) can be extremely upsetting to Catholic apologists. I obviously struck a nerve.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the best representatives we have of what languages were prevalent in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Among the scrolls there are only a few tiny fragments of Greek texts.

Aramaic speakers were clearly important to the mission of the early church that was outside of the Roman Empire; the Peshitta and the influence of the Targumim are important testimonies to that fact. If you’re interested in the topic, a good book to start with is Philip Jenkins’s (a Catholic by the way) The Lost History of Christianity. You might also consider the writings of church fathers such as Aphrahat (270-345), Ephrem (306-373).

BTW, BAR has always been considered sort of the “National Enquirer” of Biblical Studies because of their sensationalistic articles, and especially so after the James Ossuary debacle. If you use BAR as a source, people aren’t going to take your points seriously.

David,
The Dead Sea Scrolls are about the silliest “National Enquirer” styled argument that you could present. They most certainly are not the best example of the languages in Palestine; they would be the worst example. That’s like saying the billboards found in “Little Haiti” neighborhoods are the best example of languages in Miami.

I’ve got an idea, or all the Jewish sects in the Judaen Province at the time of Christ, let’s pick the one that would have been most tied to Aramaic. Then we’ll say see everyone! Everyone already expects the dead sea scrolls to contain more Hebrew/Aramaic. That’s not an argument. Your just trying to sway the uninitiated with hardly half-truths. The half-truths mean nothing.

The Essenes stayed to themselves. Very Pious and very traditional, of the Jewish sects, they would have been the ones who maintained their culture and language. They essentially lived a monastic life and they did not agree with the changes to their “nation” and “Temple”. They spoke Aramaic.

First, I’m not a Catholic Apologist. Second, You present your ideas as fact, and they are not. They are your opinions. You fill your “truths” with qualifiers like “arguably” or “probably”.

The problem with many Christians today is, they all think they know the truth. They practice what I call “religious deconstructionism”. They support anything that agrees with their belief, and they deconstruct (falsely) other points of view. It is most certainly not the work of the Holy Spirit. And, It is not the “Lords” work.

Rather than learn, you obviously believe you have arrived. Many people fall into the trap of reading some “new” book and say “ah ha” I finally Know the truth. Too bad everyone else doesn’t. Then, it’s condescending in your posts. There is a self-righteousness to your posts, that’s what I defend.

You suggest an obscure book that supposedly has some new revelations (that I am most certainly not interested in) and then call once again create a “straw man” in BAR in an attempt to discredit them. Why don’t You share some of the revelations from the book, and some of the critics of BAR. I would be interested.

Undoubtably, people who share your perspective, or taught you, would be the ones who agree with you. It seems your world may be small. Can’t teach someone who “already” knows. So, attack and discredit others scholarship.

Professor Van Der Horst was the important figure and not BAR, he wrote the article that was quoted. Your opinion of BAR is another red herring. It means nothing. The Professor had relationships with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; in conjunction with Jewish American Professors Daniel Elezar, and Stephen Cohen.

I am certain that the Eastern Church has their Hero’s, and you can promote them. But, not at the expense of reality.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

In my humble opinion it does not really matter if Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Mishnah Hebrew in Matthew 16. One needs only study through the book of Acts to see how church government among the apostles worked.

Amen, Missian You are right.

I posted a rhetorical question. Why does it matter? I came from Protestantism. Most arguments that defend Protestantism need to ignore a great deal of the bible and just focus on a verse here and a verse there. I know I was a part of it.

Then, when I came back to the Church, the Church I very much believe in, I found a group of Catholic Apologists who were essentially doing the same thing that I just left. I poured myself into study. I sent CA an article. I wrote a book.

It matters to Catholic Apologists because they needed to defend the "Petros/Petra argument in Matthew 16. The Catholic defense of Matthew 16 was built in much the same way that we see so many Protestant defenses are. That has bothered me. My God, Our God is bigger than that. Man is not sovereign.

I see the argument of Cephas and Petros to be very problematic. It seems like the “enemy of our souls” is more active in the division than we all like to admit. That’s leads us on what I like to call “rabbit trails”. It get’s us off the path.

Mark Brumley wrote a new book that brings to light some of the same things that have bothered me. The New Evangelization needs new critics of our old methods. The book “7 deadly Sins of Apologetics” has given me courage and insight to my direction. (Getting people to realize that faith is not stubborn pride; and that we need to “study to show ourselves approved” is difficult. Especially, with all the shrapnel laying around.

A poster named Dave keeps trying to get us off the subject. I think he thinks he is defending the faith. A mentor of mine used to ask me if it was faith or stubborn pride.

Matthew, or his translator, could have said Cephas if he wanted. He didn’t. Cephas is used in other parts of the Greek New Testament. Paul used Cephas because he was a Pharisee.

This is how uncomplicated Matthew 16:18 is, the word rock is obviously a metaphor, why I don’t know. That’s another story. Here’s how Matthew 16:18 could read…

…Thou art Leitourg(os) (Petr(os)) and on this Leitoug(ia) petr(a) I will build my Church.

Both Leitourgos and Petros are masculine, and Leitougia and Petra are feminine. Greek and Hebrew there are grammatical gender of nouns. In many languages the ‘office’ is Alaways feminine. Always.

In the Biblical Greek lexicon, the word Leitourgia(feminine) which means a public office; the office of a public minister; the office of the servant of the state. The grammatical gender of the word Leitourgia, the public office, is feminine. The noun Leitourgos [masculine] is a public servant, a holder of the office.

Here’s a better modern example… thou art ‘el presidente’ and on ‘la presidencia’ I will build my church …thou art president and on the presidency I will build my church.

The ‘rock’ metaphor…hmm. I have ideas…

Best, Patrick

 

[Maryann_C]

David,
First, I’m not a Catholic Apologist. Second, You present your ideas as fact, and they are not. They are your opinions. You fill your “truths” with qualifiers like “arguably” or “probably”.

The problem with many Christians today is, they all think they know the truth. They practice what I call “religious deconstructionism”. They support anything that agrees with their belief, and they deconstruct (falsely) other points of view. It is most certainly not the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not the “Lords” work.

Rather than learn, you obviously believe you have arrived. Then, it’s condescending in your posts. There is a self-righteousness to your posts, that’s what I defend.

Best, Patrick

Dear Patrick , I hate to say this but:
1st I think every Catholic is called ot be an apologist - after all isn’t that what Peter tells us to do when he said that we should all be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies in us? Now I am NOT a Bible scholar and I don’t have scripture and verse on my tongue but I know that is pretty much what Peter said. .

2nd to say " the problems with many Christians" statement comes across as about as condescending as you call others . I realize that David calls himself Christian - indicating he is not Catholic but he may well be Catholic. As Catholics the point is we DO have the truth , just because we may not have it on the tip of our tongue ready to give immediately we do have the magisterium and the promise that Jesus gave His apostles that a) the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that b)He would not leave His apostles alone and c) that He would send them a helper- the Holy Spirit.

Finally else where you talk about Catholics needing to rely on the Petros /Petra argument Well before I was Catholic one of the main things I learn’t during a Beth Moore ( protestant ) Bible Study on Daniel was something about authority and keys that I later heard from a Priest who used to run adult Bible studies Sunday am after Mass- The example of the keys of authority being given by the King to his Prime minister is the FULL authority of the King as if the King himself were there - this is in Daniel and frankly is a much stronger argument for the primacy of Peter than the language issue . In the same way as the OT Queen Mum sets the example for Mother Mary’s position.

 

[calmthesea]

Dear Patrick , I hate to say this but:
1st I think every Catholic is called ot be an apologist - after all isn’t that what Peter tells us to do when he said that we should all be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies in us? Now I am NOT a Bible scholar and I don’t have scripture and verse on my tongue but I know that is pretty much what Peter said. .

2nd to say " the problems with many Christians" statement comes across as about as condescending as you call others . I realize that David calls himself Christian - indicating he is not Catholic but he may well be Catholic. As Catholics the point is we DO have the truth , just because we may not have it on the tip of our tongue ready to give immediately we do have the magisterium and the promise that Jesus gave His apostles that a) the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that b)He would not leave His apostles alone and c) that He would send them a helper- the Holy Spirit.

Finally else where you talk about Catholics needing to rely on the Petros /Petra argument Well before I was Catholic one of the main things I learn’t during a Beth Moore ( protestant ) Bible Study on Daniel was something about authority and keys that I later heard from a Priest who used to run adult Bible studies Sunday am after Mass- The example of the keys of authority being given by the King to his Prime minister is the FULL authority of the King as if the King himself were there - this is in Daniel and frankly is a much stronger argument for the primacy of Peter than the language issue . In the same way as the OT Queen Mum sets the example for Mother Mary’s position.

Maryann,

I agree that we are to proclaim the truth like you said. But us American Christians whether Catholic or Protestants are all over the place on truth. It’s not ‘all’ true and not ‘all’ by the Holy Spirit.

I do get frustrated and can come across as condescending. (I guess they say it takes one to know one.) I don’t know how to always approach so many inaccuracies. I don’t proclaim to know everything, but I can smell pseudo-reasoning. I know God is teaching me patience and for ways to dialogue without pushing people away. I think I come off better in person or when I just write a point of view (as in books and articles) That’s why I say I wasn’t an Apologist. (Like debating) I lose my patience.

Feel free to admonish me and keep me in line. I’ll take some deep breaths. Over my computer I can see my copy of Beth Moore “Get out of that Pit” so we’ve come from some of the same places.

I have been dialoguing with a non-denominational seminarian who is working on her master’s degree. She has been confused as to why anyone would go “Catholic” and has tried to reconvert me. However, my responses and logical points frustrated her.She gets convicted with some things I say and gets defensive. She wants me to say that her church and the Catholic Church are the same, like validating her church as equal. When things in her mind become so convicted, she wants a hug and reassurance of her position. Sometimes she says she feels threatened but I can see it’s conviction.

So, God is working on helping me move beyond the years of what seems like isolated study and writing.

I just fall to easily into frustration. I think American Christians are hard to have a conversation with… Joyce Meyer used to say…"even if there is only a little dog poop in the brownies, it still spoils the whole batch

You said their are other examples. Yes, there are. I spent about 7 years, off and on, researching and writing a book about the Israelites and their socio-political life relating it to Jesus ministry, and the world into which He was speaking. In the book, there is a clear picture of the Pope all the from Genesis to Samuel, and then on to Jesus. It is indisputable. You would see the Papcy in all it’s splendor.

Then you tell me about Daniel, I don’t recall that in my studies for the book, but I wasn’t doing a verse to verse, per se, style. (Thru much prayer, I was shown that we tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees.) So, share the Daniel thing.

Best to you and yours, Patrick

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Bob,

1. The majority of the second temple period
2. The Greek occupation
3. The Hellenization of the Jews
4. The Jewish diaspora during the Hellenization period
5. The Sepuagint because they were losing their culture and their language
6. The entire time period of the books of Maccabees
7. The Macabean revolt
8. The persecution of the Greek speaking Jews by other Jews
9. i Maccabees written in Hebrew; 2Maccabees written in Greek.
10. The rise of the Sanhedrin council
11. The Sadducees who embraced Hellenizing
12. The Pharacees who were more scepticle

I could go on.

That doesn’t include:

1. the dispersion of the Northern Kingdom
2. The possibility of the Samaritans to be 1/2 remnants, or potentially half breeds of the Southern Kingdom. (God said many wouldn’t even know they were descendants.

…

No Bob, it’s not that simple. 5-6 hundred years is a long time.

… I tried to summarize a great deal, I hope the point is not lost.

Best, Patrick

Obviously you’ve studied the period in considerable detail. My contribution was basically just a link to another source.

I have read the two Maccabees books, and I find them depressing, with a constant theme of immense violence running right through them. I’m not surprised the Jews were looking for a Messiah after all the trouble they’d been through in those times.

However what intrigues me about all this is that the (common) Jews still seemed to speak Aramaic, as Christ clearly did, rather than having reverted to their native Hebrew, which obviously was still in use in official circles, or it wouldn’t be around today. As you said, 5-6 hundred years is a long time.

Which emphasises my point - they were in captivity long enough that the Aramaic language they imbibed during that time did not easily disappear from their linguistic vocabulary, hundreds of years later, despite Hellenisation and the later Roman Empire.

Today’s Jews though would hardly be likely to speak Aramaic. I suppose some of them don’t speak Hebrew either, if they live in foreign lands.

You might be able to inform me about this - at what point did they stop using Aramaic and revert back to Hebrew as their regular language? Aramaic still exists in a modern form, but is dying out from what I can gather.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

If you really want to influence people, don’t call them names, stop the hate, and love like Jesus did.

Jesus lived only a few miles from a Greek Gentile city. As part of trade, he had to speak Greek. As a tax payer, he must have understood some Latin too. Graves have Greek markers in the area at the time.

On the Cross was a sign in various languages — giving me the impression of people being multi lingual to some degree.

Be kind to each other.
Be Adult and agree to disagree.

Daniel

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the best representatives we have of what languages were prevalent in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Among the scrolls there are only a few tiny fragments of Greek texts.
.

This statement does not make any sense to me:

1. It is not likely that every manuscript they wrote survived 2,000 years or so – some may not of even been stored for safe keeping from invasion.
2. If every manuscript they ever wrote did survive, then it would only show what language disciples were enforced in that sect itself, not necessarily what languages were available to the general public of that time.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Each side please make a bullet list of your main arguments and what you are arguing for.

Thanks, brain damaged
Daniel

 

[SyroMalankara]

Liturgical Aramaic is still widely spoken by Orthodox Jews and Syriac/Assyrian Christians within Catholic and Orthodox Churches worldwide. Interestingly, outside of the Middle East, it is most widely used in South India by the St. Thomas Christians who are part of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (west syriac), the Syriac Orthodox Church (west syriac), the Malankara Orthodox Church (west syriac), , the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (east syriac), the Chaldean-Syrian Church (east syriac), and the protestant Marthoma church (Anglican Communion, west syriac).

In the Middle East, in addition to the above mentioned Churches, Chaldean Catholic Church (east syriac), the Assyrian Church of the East (east syriac), the Ancient Church of the East (east syriac), the Maronite Syriac Catholic Church (west syriac), and the Syriac Catholic Church (west syriac) - also regularly pray in Aramaic. In some regions, it is still the spoken language.

There are also some non-Christian sects like the Manicheans, Mandaens, and some Muslim and tribal Kurds who also speak Aramaic dialects.

 

[KEYM]

Maybe translations, euphemisms and figures of speech would be different if looked at through the Aramaic language and not the Hebrew. Of course Jesus read and spoke Hebrew because he went to the synagogues and read the scriptures. The parables and teachings that he gave could have different meanings if translated from Hebrew or from Aramaic to other languages.