SPLIT: Jesus spoke at least 4 languages

[supertubos]

supertubos;8061492:

Jesus Christ spoke at least 4 languages.

/QUOTE]

Evidence?

He was in the Roman Empire where Latin was used and also Greek, the language of the erudits and Hebrew and Aramaic, of which some of his words come in the Gospel. At least…

 

[paperwight66]

paperwight66;8061499:

He was in the Roman Empire where Latin was used and also Greek, the language of the erudits and Hebrew and Aramaic, of which some of his words come in the Gospel. At least…

Ummm… it really doesn’t follow that He spoke all those languages, although He might well have understood a little.

Could you give some proper evidence from the Gospels? Don’t forget that the languages in which the Gospels were written would have been those of the authors and those of the intended audience.

The Romans were hated occupiers and oppressors. It is unlikely that a faithful Jew would have studied their language, for a start.

 

[JM3]

Any thoughts?

zenit.org/article-13546?l=english

The Liturgy of the Eucharist, and especially the Eucharistic Prayer, should not mix languages as this would distract from the solemnity of the moment and is generally unprecedented as a practice. Usually either Latin or the most common tongue should be used.

With respect to the use of Latin, it is always allowable to use it in chanting the common of the Mass and this would not be considered as mixing languages in the sense used above.

Thus, even if the Mass were in English, nothing prevents the singing of the Kyrie, Gloria, Sequence, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei and final blessing in Latin.

I believe the wise thing is to ask the diocese about the case. The Ordinary is the authority in such questions.

Correct.

 

[ProVobis]

The Romans were hated occupiers and oppressors. It is unlikely that a faithful Jew would have studied their language, for a start.

The Germans were occupiers of parts of Poland and many Poles learned German, whether they liked it or not. I know, because my mother was one of them. She spoke very fluent German.

But not all Romans were hated; it was probably the military that you are referring to. In fact, the Romans accepted a lot of the Greek philosophy, sciences, etc. It shows in the Roman writings.

Also we don’t know what original languages the Gospels were written or dictated. There’s even a possibility that the letters to the Romans were originally in Latin but later transcribed into Greek. In any case, the earliest records we have of the New Testament are in Greek.

 

[supertubos]

supertubos;8065233:

Ummm… it really doesn’t follow that He spoke all those languages, although He might well have understood a little.

Could you give some proper evidence from the Gospels? Don’t forget that the languages in which the Gospels were written would have been those of the authors and those of the intended audience.

The Romans were hated occupiers and oppressors. It is unlikely that a faithful Jew would have studied their language, for a start.

Jesus was a smart guy, ok?
Evidence: at 12. everybody was surprise in the Temple for his wisdom
Aramaic and Hebrew he spoke because there are words of him in the Gospel.
The Hated Romans? Where is the Evidence when He told us to forgive our enemies?
Greek? I tell you, I am a teacher and my smartest kids catch languages in the air. They are very good at it.

But I am being mean: being God, He could understand ans speak all the languages of the world.

 

[Petergee]

supertubos;8065233:

Ummm… it really doesn’t follow that He spoke all those languages, although He might well have understood a little.

Could you give some proper evidence from the Gospels? Don’t forget that the languages in which the Gospels were written would have been those of the authors and those of the intended audience.

The Romans were hated occupiers and oppressors. It is unlikely that a faithful Jew would have studied their language, for a start.

He spoke Aramaic (His native language. I hope you’re not going to dispute that.)

He spoke Hebrew which He read from the Scriptures and quoted to the Scribes and Pharisees.

He had no trouble communicating with people in non-Jewish regions such as Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia (where the common people spoke Punic, and the ruling classes spoke Greek).

He conversed easily with Pontius Pilate and the Roman centurion whose native lanuage was Latin.

He probably picked up some Egyptian (Coptic) when he was living in Egypt as a child.

There are probably more proofs from the Gospels, these are just the ones I can think of straight off.

 

[ProVobis]

paperwight66;8067285:

He conversed easily with Pontius Pilate and the Roman centurion whose native lanuage was Latin.

And He certainly would have known of Roman law (“Render to Caesar…”,contracts(workers in the field), etc), to which this day many countries can trace back their governmental origins.

It is hard to imagine anyone who spends 33 years under a government doesn’t know a single word of that government.

 

[supertubos]

This is highly inappropriate and highly inaccurate.

Boy, it was joke! Maybe of bad taste, but a joke…

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Muze]

Greek is likely, as this was the language of commerce, and clearly the apostles knew and wrote in koine Greek.

Hebrew and Aramaic are almost certainties, as they represent the language of the day and the language of the Torah. Since Jesus read from the Torah, He would have needed to know Hebrew.

Latin is almost certainly NOT a langauge Jesus learned. There is simply no basis for fluency, there. It was the language of the Romans for official Roman business, with whom Jesus had no need to engage in.

 

[steve_b]

Greek is likely, as this was the language of commerce, and clearly the apostles knew and wrote in koine Greek.

Hebrew and Aramaic are almost certainties, as they represent the language of the day and the language of the Torah. Since Jesus read from the Torah, He would have needed to know Hebrew.

Latin is almost certainly NOT a langauge Jesus learned. There is simply no basis for fluency, there. It was the language of the Romans for official Roman business, with whom Jesus had no need to engage in.

It’s clear, Jesus spoke Aramaic, MK 5:4, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34 No where in scripture, do we see Him speaking any other language.

As for working languages of the day
Jn 19:
19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and*** it was written in Hebrew***, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

 

[ProVobis]

Latin is almost certainly NOT a langauge Jesus learned. There is simply no basis for fluency, there. It was the language of the Romans for official Roman business, with whom Jesus had no need to engage in.

That’s a little bit of a stretch. One of His followers was Matthew, a tax collector, who very much was involved in Roman law. Also contracts and debts. And Christ had to have known the procedures that were being followed in His own trial and execution.

 

[Muze]

It’s clear, Jesus spoke Aramaic, MK 5:4, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34 No where in scripture, do we see Him speaking any other language.

As for working languages of the day
Jn 19:
19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and*** it was written in Hebrew***, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

Seeing as this was a part of a Roman legal proceeding, the inclusion of Latin would not necessarily indicate that this was a common language in that region, especially given that Pontius Pilate was a Roman leader.

 

[Muze]

That’s a little bit of a stretch. One of His followers was Matthew, a tax collector, who very much was involved in Roman law. Also contracts and debts. And Christ had to have known the procedures that were being followed in His own trial and execution.

Well, just because Matthew would have known some Latin because of his profession doesn’t mean Jesus would have spoken it.

And I am fairly sure that legal proceedings had been explained and disseminated culturally in Aramaic many times. Jesus wasn’t the first to be prosecuted by the Roman government.

 

[steve_b]

Seeing as this was a part of a Roman legal proceeding, the inclusion of Latin would not necessarily indicate that this was a common language in that region, especially given that Pontius Pilate was a Roman leader.

It’s a Roman legal proceeding, because it’s the Roman empire, and Judea of which Jerusalem was a part, was under the rule of Pilate the Roman procurator. Since Pilate had the saying written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, THOSE languages then, were common languages of the day.

 

[Muze]

It’s a Roman legal proceeding, because it’s the Roman empire, and Judea of which Jerusalem was a part, was under the rule of Pilate the Roman procurator. Since Pilate had the saying written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, THOSE languages then, were common languages of the day.

That’s fine, but you’re ignoring the function of each, and who would have needed to know them.

Aramaic was the local language. Hebrew the language of the Torah. Greek was the language of the market place, and the common language. Latin was really only the language of the Roman government in Israel. Thus, it is unlikely that most Jews would have known Latin.

 

[steve_b]

That’s fine, but you’re ignoring the function of each, and who would have needed to know them.

Aramaic was the local language. Hebrew the language of the Torah. Greek was the language of the market place, and the common language. Latin was really only the language of the Roman government in Israel. Thus, it is unlikely that most Jews would have known Latin.

So iow,

• Jews don’t know the language of their own government?
• And if Aramaic is the local language, why not put it on the plack. Afterall, Jesus had alot of followers.
• Why use a language nobody supposedly knows? Unless of course, your objectivity regarding Latin is being compromised.

Here’s the order of languages on the plack

1. • Hebrew
   • Latin
   • Greek
   Obviously, THESE are the MOST common languages at the time, that’s why these languages are used.

 

[Muze]

So iow,
*]Jews don’t know the language of their own government?

The language of the “government” that the Jews would have interacted with most often was Aramaic… which would have been the Sanhidren. If you’ll note in Jesus’ trial, most of the proceedings took place there (with a side trip to Herod). However, because the Roman government hadn’t given the local Jewish government the ability to use capital punishment, they had to appeal to the (name removed by moderator) to get that approved.

So, you clearly do NOT have a good view of what the Jews’ government was like.

*]And if Aramaic is the local language, why not put it on the plack. Afterall, Jesus had alot of followers.

Because they all knew Hebrew and Greek?

*]Why use a language nobody supposedly knows? Unless of course, your objectivity regarding Latin is being compromised.

I would suggest because of the RCC’s investment in Latin that the reverse is true.

The text would be written in Latin to indicate the Roman Government’s stamp of approval. (You do realize that this is the same Roman government that became intertwined with the RCC, right?)

Here’s the order of languages on the plack*]Hebrew
*]Latin
*]Greek
Obviously, THESE are the MOST common languages at the time, that’s why these languages are used.

It is only obvious to the biased. First, there is no indication of the ORDER in which they were written. Only that they were written in these three languages. Second, the order in which they were written can indicate any number of things, and not necessarily the most common languages. If you’ll note, Hebrew and Latin represent the two governmental bodies that approved the killing of Jesus (with the third indicating the crowd that demanded He be crucified.)

So, what is obvious to the biased isn’t so obvious to those who can think critically.

 

[ProVobis]

(You do realize that this is the same Roman government that became intertwined with the RCC, right?)

Actually the Roman government (Senate, Cabinet, two parties, etc.) system formed the basis of many governments, including the United States government. You do realize that even the British English was Latinized quite a bit (honor instead of honour, etc.) to make it American English and the US dollar bill and legal system still maintain some Latin and Roman principles.

But bottom line there is NO reason to think Jesus didn’t speak 4 languages. He started teaching at a very early age. I think all the four mentioned languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew) are easy on the ears, unlike the barbaric languages such as German and English, at least before half of it was Latinized.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

many children in Africa speak like four languages without proper education. If you are born in an environment where speaking is beneficial, you will pick up the languages.

Jesus definitely spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Maybe Latin.