Did Jesus speak Greek?

[Padrej]

I disagree. If we were writing in English about say a Dutchman called Jan van den Berg, we would write it the same way it is written in Dutch, we wouldn’t translate it into “John Hill”. Patromymic names like Simon bar Jona were used as equivalents to modern surnames. And is I pointed out, this is evidence that Jesus originally spoke the word “Kepha” in aramaic, which fact Sts Peter and James passed on to St Paul. Changing “Simon” to “Kepha” would denote just as much a spiritual change as changing Simon to Petros. The language is irrelevant. Many modern scholars conclude that the Gospel of St Matthew and perhaps one or more of the other Gospels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as ancient commentators attest. The fact that there is no ONE SINGLE word in Aramaic which can be transalted as “Hypocrite” in Greek, does not mean that Jesus could not have used a longer phrase in Aramaic to express the same meaning.

This issue was beaten into the ground on a far earlier thread. Look at this link:
catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm
Even Catholic Apologetic recognize it was a NAME CHANGE.
From the link:

Two observation must be made on the Greek and the Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. Note in the Greek that the name of Peter is Petros, and the word for rock is petra. In Latin the name of Peter is Petrus and the word for rock is petra. This follows from the demands of the respective languages. Nouns in these languages, unlike English, have gender: some are masculine (e.g., -os or -us ending to words); some are feminine (e.g., -a or -am ending to words). The word for a rock in both languages is, of its nature, feminine; Peter, being a male, could not take a feminine ending to his name. It would be like calling him “Rockette” instead of “Rocky.” Quite a difference! Hence it is only the demands of language that the gender of the words is different.

Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words–a linguistic pun–is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. “You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church.”

Try this link
gotquestions.org/name-change.html

He changed Simon’s “God has heard” name to Peter “rock” (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to Peter? Probably because Simon sometimes acted like his old self instead of the rock God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him Jacob to remind him of his past and to remind him to depend on God’s strength.

My question to you is, Have you taken Biblical Greek? As there are phrases used in the Greek that are not Greek. For example, John gives two other words in Hebrew or Aramaic (Rabbi in John 1:38 and Messiah in John 1:41) and immediately gives the Greek translation. This is interpreted as the author of John’s Gospel implying to readers: “I’m writing this in Greek, and I appreciate that most people reading this will be Greek speakers, but I’m also aware that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so I’m using some of his actual words.”
As to Matthew’s Gospel being written in in Aramaic FIRST:

1. This argument lends credence to the Jesus speaking both languages.
2. NO Aramaic version has EVER been found and many of the Early Fathers to my knowledge do not mention this as important. PROTESTANTS view this as important as they need every scrap of ammo to go against the Catholic traditions.

 

[Padrej]

You seem to be suffering from the impression that the LXX was only ever written in the Greek language.

 

[FrJohnB]

You seem to be suffering from the impression that the LXX was only ever written in the Greek language. Jesus was probably reading from a Hebrew/Aramaic tanslation of the LXX, which was the standrad version accepted and used by nearly all Jews at the time, in the Holy Land as well as abroad.

Are you saying that there was a Hebrew version of the LXX? And not those of the Torah and Tanakh? Can you cite sources that show the LXX was written in in Hebrew? If so I would like to see them. To my knowledge the LXX has only been available in Greek for centuries. The Orthodox study Bible (complete old an new Testament Version) uses the LXX as the basis of the OT although the spine says New King James that Bible uses the LXX in English.

 

[FrJohnB]

I disagree. If we were writing in English about say a Dutchman called Jan van den Berg, we would write it the same way it is written in Dutch, we wouldn’t translate it into “John Hill”. Patromymic names like Simon bar Jona were used as equivalents to modern surnames. And is I pointed out, this is evidence that Jesus originally spoke the word “Kepha” in aramaic, which fact Sts Peter and James passed on to St Paul. Changing “Simon” to “Kepha” would denote just as much a spiritual change as changing Simon to Petros. The language is irrelevant. Many modern scholars conclude that the Gospel of St Matthew and perhaps one or more of the other Gospels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as ancient commentators attest. The fact that there is no ONE SINGLE word in Aramaic which can be transalted as “Hypocrite” in Greek, does not mean that Jesus could not have used a longer phrase in Aramaic to express the same meaning.

With all due respect what you have espoused here is not lining up with even the Catholic websites that the Protestant Padrej have linked. I have heard the arguments you post here out of Protestant theologians to justify themselves as to not accepting Catholic doctrine. I do not think that this should be the intent here, to get away from the way Catholics have taught on the matter.

What you are saying here is that Jesus in using hypocrite would in Aramaic say, “one who wears two faces and says one thing and does another.” It would simply take too much time to say this in an argument with a pharisee. I can see Jesus now, “Woe to you who wear two faces and say one thing and do another, you weigh down …” The Greek word hypocrite is obviously used. Take for instance I had a friend in high school who if irritated with you would call you a “fascist,” that word is not an English word but an Italian one. He did not give the meaning of the Italian word, only used it as an insult. The same happened in Jesus’ case he would revert to a Greek word or two and go back to Aramaic. If you spoke only words that are strictly English, you would have a limited vocabulary. Foreign words are part of our language.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

With all due respect what you have espoused here is not lining up with even the Catholic websites that the Protestant Padrej have linked. I have heard the arguments you post here out of Protestant theologians to justify themselves as to not accepting Catholic doctrine. I do not think that this should be the intent here, to get away from the way Catholics have taught on the matter.

What you are saying here is that Jesus in using hypocrite would in Aramaic say, “one who wears two faces and says one thing and does another.” It would simply take too much time to say this in an argument with a pharisee. I can see Jesus now, “Woe to you who wear two faces and say one thing and do another, you weigh down …” The Greek word hypocrite is obviously used. Take for instance I had a friend in high school who if irritated with you would call you a “fascist,” that word is not an English word but an Italian one. He did not give the meaning of the Italian word, only used it as an insult. The same happened in Jesus’ case he would revert to a Greek word or two and go back to Aramaic. If you spoke only words that are strictly English, you would have a limited vocabulary. Foreign words are part of our language.

This is an interesting site that might pose of interest to this conversation.
faithfulbible.com/nt/A-aramaic.htm
The last part is what I want to cite:
“It would seem that the Gospel writers are being careful to preserve Aramaic when it occurs. The fact that they would do so doesn’t make much sense if Jesus normally spoke in Aramaic. In fact, if Jesus routinely preached and spoke in Aramaic, why didn’t the Gospel writers translate everything into Greek? The fact that the Gospel writers went to some trouble to carefully record a few instances of Aramaic—with Greek translations—would suggest that Aramaic was the exception and not the rule.”

This is another interesting site:
thesacredpage.com/2010/01/did-jesus-speak-greek.html
From it, "Stanley Porter writes,
". . . Jesus would probably be best described as productively multilingual in Greek and Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew, though Aramaic would have been his first language and Greek and Hebrew being second or acquired languages. . . He may also have been passively multilingual in Latin, although if he had any knowledge of Latin at all it is likely that it was confined to recognition of a few common words. This depiction reflects the linguistic realities of the Mediterranean world of Roman times, including that of the eastern Mediterranean, and is supported by widespread and significant literary, epigraphic, and other evidence. As a result of the conquests of Alexander III (‘the Great’), and the rule of the Hellenistic kings (the Diadochi and their successors), the Greco-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. In other words, Greek was the lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean world, displacing Aramaic. . . . "

From my training I have been trained to believe and think of Jesus being multilingual. From what I know of the Septuagint it almost mirrors what Padrej and Frjohnb have said on the matter. I would like to think from all that I have studied that Jesus spoke Hebrew in the Synagogue and a mixture of Aramaic and Greek elsewhere. IF he was fully human and fully Divine it only makes sense He would know ALL languages. I have often wondered if Jesus spoke Latin to Pilate. IF he was God, I would think He could.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

faithfulbible.com/nt/A-aramaic.htm
The last part is what I want to cite:
“It would seem that the Gospel writers are being careful to preserve Aramaic when it occurs. The fact that they would do so doesn’t make much sense if Jesus normally spoke in Aramaic. In fact, if Jesus routinely preached and spoke in Aramaic, why didn’t the Gospel writers translate everything into Greek? The fact that the Gospel writers went to some trouble to carefully record a few instances of Aramaic—with Greek translations—would suggest that Aramaic was the exception and not the rule.”

I don’t see the logic of this statement, that Aramaic was the “exception and not the rule.” As far as we know, Christ’s native language would have been Aramaic. But the writers wrote in in Greek, which was the language of the literati of the time.

When they wanted to emphasise something eg. his cry on the cross, they put it in the original Aramaic. in other words, when Christ called out in abandonment, He called out in Aramaic, his native tongue. He didn’t call out in Greek to suit the Gospel writers.

 

[Petergee]

This issue was beaten into the ground on a far earlier thread. Look at this link:
catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm
Even Catholic Apologetic recognize it was a NAME CHANGE.
From the link:

Try this link
gotquestions.org/name-change.html

My question to you is, Have you taken Biblical Greek? As there are phrases used in the Greek that are not Greek. For example, John gives two other words in Hebrew or Aramaic (Rabbi in John 1:38 and Messiah in John 1:41) and immediately gives the Greek translation. This is interpreted as the author of John’s Gospel implying to readers: “I’m writing this in Greek, and I appreciate that most people reading this will be Greek speakers, but I’m also aware that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so I’m using some of his actual words.”
As to Matthew’s Gospel being written in in Aramaic FIRST:

1. This argument lends credence to the Jesus speaking both languages.
2. NO Aramaic version has EVER been found and many of the Early Fathers to my knowledge do not mention this as important. PROTESTANTS view this as important as they need every scrap of ammo to go against the Catholic traditions.

Your combative tone puzzles me. I am certainly not denying that Christ gave Simon a significant name change. Much less arguing for protestantism! If anything, saying that St Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic (as some of the Early Fathers attest, I never claimed all of them do, much less that all of them say that that fact is important!) is an argument against those “liberal” protestants who claim that the gospels were written by a greek-speaking “community” several generations after Christ. I am not aware of any Catholic tradition which states that all of the Gospels were originally written in Greek.

 

[Petergee]

If Jesus read anything it would have been closer to the original Hebrew scrolls.

IF?? The Gospels tell us plainly that He did read from Isaiah.

If you were to visit a synagogue today the scriptures would be read from a HEBREW scroll and not the LXX. Are you saying by your post that the LXX is superior to the original Hebrew? If it is/was, why then do the Jewish people today not use it??? The LXX became the OT of the Christian church.

The Jewish people today (the spiritual descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ, and in fact of only one of the many parties in First-century Judaism, the Pharisees), are the end product of many centuries of varied history since their break with the Church. If was AFTER this break that they rejected the LXX. I said nothing about whether the LXX (regardless of which language translation it is in) is superior to the Mazoretic text used by modern Jews. Only that the evidence shows that Jesus and the Apostles used the LXX as did most first century Jews. Don’t get so hung up on the particular language which the version is in. Some people here remind me of those who think that the only difference between the OF and EF Masses is that the EF is said in Latin.

 

[Petergee]

With all due respect what you have espoused here is not lining up with even the Catholic websites that the Protestant Padrej have linked. I have heard the arguments you post here out of Protestant theologians to justify themselves as to not accepting Catholic doctrine. I do not think that this should be the intent here, to get away from the way Catholics have taught on the matter.

Your comment astounds me. Catholic doctrine has nothing to say concerning whether Jesus spoke in Aramaic, Greek, or Swahili for that matter.

What you are saying here is that Jesus in using hypocrite would in Aramaic say, “one who wears two faces and says one thing and does another.” It would simply take too much time to say this in an argument with a pharisee. I can see Jesus now, “Woe to you who wear two faces and say one thing and do another, you weigh down …” The Greek word hypocrite is obviously used. Take for instance I had a friend in high school who if irritated with you would call you a “fascist,” that word is not an English word but an Italian one. He did not give the meaning of the Italian word, only used it as an insult. The same happened in Jesus’ case he would revert to a Greek word or two and go back to Aramaic. If you spoke only words that are strictly English, you would have a limited vocabulary. Foreign words are part of our language.

I don’t claim to be a great linguistic scholar, but I do know that it is common in Aramaic as in other Semitic languages to this day, to use such circuitous phrases to express ideas, and the listeners do not forget what one was talking about because it takes an extra second or two to say it. People then generally had longer attention spans than do modern Westerners (e.g. St Paul at least once preached a homily lasting about 11 hours).

 

[Mike5575]

Can anybody make a case as to whether or not Jesus spoke Greek? It seems generally accepted that he spoke Aramaic. Does it seem reasonable that he was multi-lingual?

Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13: “I am the Alpha and the Omega.”

I’d say he did.

Gaillee itself was most certainly multi-lingual according to Frank Sheed in his book To know Christ Jesus

"There are scholars who think that most Galileans could converse in Greek as well as in their own Aramaic. It seems altogether likely that Mary and Joseph could speak Greek, and did so when talking to Gentiles or doing such shopping as could be done only in Zippori.
-Frank Sheed, To know Christ Jesus.

So if his parents knew Greek, I’m sure Jesus did too. Especially since Jesus had the same job as St. Joseph. Also, Jesus is God. He created all the Earth’s languages.

 

[Petergee]

This issue was beaten into the ground on a far earlier thread. Look at this link:
catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

Yes, this page says:
"His intent becomes clear when we examine* the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter**.

‘aph ‘ena’ ‘amar-na’ lak da’t-(h)uw ke’pha’

and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh lei(d)tiy

and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

Note that the word for Peter, ke’pha’, is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock. "*

Exactly as I said. I can’t work out why you think that saying that Jesus spoke this passage in Aramaic is, or could be used as, an argument against Catholciism.

 

[FrJohnB]

Your comment astounds me. Catholic doctrine has nothing to say concerning whether Jesus spoke in Aramaic, Greek, or Swahili for that matter. I don’t claim to be a great linguistic scholar, but I do know that it is common in Aramaic as in other Semitic languages to this day, to use such circuitous phrases to express ideas, and the listeners do not forget what one was talking about because it takes an extra second or two to say it. People then generally had longer attention spans than do modern Westerners (e.g. St Paul at least once preached a homily lasting about 11 hours).

I did not say that Catholic doctrine had anything to say in this matter ONLY that the arguments you are using are what PROTESTANTS use to NOT ACCEPT Catholic doctrine. Most Protestant Bibles are not taken from the LXX but from the Mazoretic, and it has always seemed to me that any excuse to avoid the LXX is used so that they do not have to accept any Catholic doctrines into their lives. That is all I am saying. It almost sounds like you have never debated with a Protestant or a Jehovah’s Witness for that matter, as you being Catholic should know many will come up with any silly thing to not accept a Catholic doctrine.

 

[FrJohnB]

IF?? The Gospels tell us plainly that He did read from Isaiah.

The Jewish people today (the spiritual descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ, and in fact of only one of the many parties in First-century Judaism, the Pharisees), are the end product of many centuries of varied history since their break with the Church. If was AFTER this break that they rejected the LXX. I said nothing about whether the LXX (regardless of which language translation it is in) is superior to the Mazoretic text used by modern Jews. Only that the evidence shows that Jesus and the Apostles used the LXX as did most first century Jews. Don’t get so hung up on the particular language which the version is in. Some people here remind me of those who think that the only difference between the OF and EF Masses is that the EF is said in Latin.

Petergee
I did not get that tone from Padrej. I do not think he is disputing the fact that Jesus read from Isaiah, nor do I.
What is in dispute is that most synagogues in the time of Christ were getting the LXX out in favor of the Mazoretic text. There have been cited by both, and it is clear there is division amongst scholars as to the exact DATE of the LXX falling from favor.
The real point of the discussion is that Jesus spoke multiple languages.

 

[Dokimas]

This is an interesting site that might pose of interest to this conversation.
faithfulbible.com/nt/A-aramaic.htm
The last part is what I want to cite:
“It would seem that the Gospel writers are being careful to preserve Aramaic when it occurs. The fact that they would do so doesn’t make much sense if Jesus normally spoke in Aramaic. In fact, if Jesus routinely preached and spoke in Aramaic, why didn’t the Gospel writers translate everything into Greek? The fact that the Gospel writers went to some trouble to carefully record a few instances of Aramaic—with Greek translations—would suggest that Aramaic was the exception and not the rule.”

This is another interesting site:
thesacredpage.com/2010/01/did-jesus-speak-greek.html
From it, "Stanley Porter writes,
". . . Jesus would probably be best described as productively multilingual in Greek and Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew, though Aramaic would have been his first language and Greek and Hebrew being second or acquired languages. . . He may also have been passively multilingual in Latin, although if he had any knowledge of Latin at all it is likely that it was confined to recognition of a few common words. This depiction reflects the linguistic realities of the Mediterranean world of Roman times, including that of the eastern Mediterranean, and is supported by widespread and significant literary, epigraphic, and other evidence. As a result of the conquests of Alexander III (‘the Great’), and the rule of the Hellenistic kings (the Diadochi and their successors), the Greco-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. In other words, Greek was the lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean world, displacing Aramaic. . . . "

From my training I have been trained to believe and think of Jesus being multilingual. From what I know of the Septuagint it almost mirrors what Padrej and Frjohnb have said on the matter. I would like to think from all that I have studied that Jesus spoke Hebrew in the Synagogue and a mixture of Aramaic and Greek elsewhere. IF he was fully human and fully Divine it only makes sense He would know ALL languages. I have often wondered if Jesus spoke Latin to Pilate. IF he was God, I would think He could.

When Jesus read from Isaiah, He would have read it in the Hebrew, most likely, or the Greek.

Luke 4:
18 “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

 

[Padrej]

Your combative tone puzzles me. I am certainly not denying that Christ gave Simon a significant name change. Much less arguing for protestantism! If anything, saying that St Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic (as some of the Early Fathers attest, I never claimed all of them do, much less that all of them say that that fact is important!) is an argument against those “liberal” protestants who claim that the gospels were written by a greek-speaking “community” several generations after Christ. I am not aware of any Catholic tradition which states that all of the Gospels were originally written in Greek.

The tone is not intended to be one of a combative nature.
You see in some areas I am a middle of the road Protestant. The Greek version of Matthew’s gospel is used by Protestants to say, “Ahah, you are misusing/misquoting the Greek.” The reasons Protestants cling to the primacy of Peter from an Aramaic perspective is very clear, it can make their side of the argument against the primacy of Peter. They say, “The first Peter in Greek is Masculine while petra translated rock is not the foundation stone. Even Peter in his epistles spoke of us all being living stones, (petra) that make up the church.” This is their argument, not mine. Thus far we have no manuscript evidence for an Aramaic gospel of Matthew, only that it was mentioned in other writings.

 

[GEddie]

Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13: “I am the Alpha and the Omega.”

I’d say he did.

Remember though, in Rev, HE is using the mind of HIS glorified Resurrectional Body; and would not be limited to what languages HE was able to stuff into HIS mind during HIS short life. In fact, the Risen LORD could most certainly converse with S. John mind to mind.

Gaillee itself was most certainly multi-lingual according to Frank Sheed in his book To know Christ Jesus

Indeed. That is why I believe HE knew Greek during HIS natural life. He conversed with a lot of Decapolis Greeks and Roman administrators, not all whom would have spoken Aramaic, but who would all speak Greek. The Galilee was a crossroads province.

"There are scholars who think that most Galileans could converse in Greek as well as in their own Aramaic. It seems altogether likely that Mary and Joseph could speak Greek, and did so when talking to Gentiles or doing such shopping as could be done only in Zippori.
-Frank Sheed, To know Christ Jesus.

So if his parents knew Greek, I’m sure Jesus did too. Especially since Jesus had the same job as St. Joseph. Also, Jesus is God. He created all the Earth’s languages.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[FrJohnB]

Remember though, in Rev, HE is using the mind of HIS glorified Resurrectional Body; and would not be limited to what languages HE was able to stuff into HIS mind during HIS short life. In fact, the Risen LORD could most certainly converse with S. John mind to mind.

Indeed. That is why I believe HE knew Greek during HIS natural life. He conversed with a lot of Decapolis Greeks and Roman administrators, not all whom would have spoken Aramaic, but who would all speak Greek. The Galilee was a crossroads province.

ICXC NIKA.

Excellent point about the Decapolis. The Geresene Demoniac was healed and spread abroad the news of this to the entire region of the Decapolis. Obviously the people of the region who came to Jesus must have told him get out of here in their own language after the Legion went into the herd of pigs.

 

[Padrej]

Excellent point about the Decapolis. The Geresene Demoniac was healed and spread abroad the news of this to the entire region of the Decapolis. Obviously the people of the region who came to Jesus must have told him get out of here in their own language after the Legion went into the herd of pigs.

AMEN! I like to think of this incident as the first “deviled ham.”

 

[Petergee]

I did not say that Catholic doctrine had anything to say in this matter ONLY that the arguments you are using are what PROTESTANTS use to NOT ACCEPT Catholic doctrine. Most Protestant Bibles are not taken from the LXX but from the Mazoretic, and it has always seemed to me that any excuse to avoid the LXX is used so that they do not have to accept any Catholic doctrines into their lives. That is all I am saying. It almost sounds like you have never debated with a Protestant or a Jehovah’s Witness for that matter, as you being Catholic should know many will come up with any silly thing to not accept a Catholic doctrine.

You still astound me. I am well aware that Protestants argue for the Mazoretic text. I certainly did not. All I said was that IMO the evidence suggests that Jesus spoke to St Peter in Aramaic when He gave him his new name. I have no hidden agenda.

 

[FrJohnB]

You still astound me. I am well aware that Protestants argue for the Mazoretic text. I certainly did not. All I said was that IMO the evidence suggests that Jesus spoke to St Peter in Aramaic when He gave him his new name. I have no hidden agenda.

Petergee
I am not trying to be insulting to you so if you are taking it that way please accept my apology. I do not doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic and I also do not doubt that he spoke Greek. In the primacy of Peter, it makes sense to me that he was speaking Aramaic first and switched to Greek for emphasis on the name change. In my mind if it was Aramaic spoken throughout the WHOLE conversation why didn’t Matthew use the Greek version of Peter’s Aramaic name, Cephas. The Greek is clearly Petros not Cephas as in other places.

I am not trying to accuse you of having a hidden agenda either.