1. Introduction
There are three major questions that may be posed in regard to the language or languages that Jesus may have spoken: What are the languages that Jesus could have spoken? What is the New Testament evidence regarding the languages that he spoke? And what, from a linguistic perspective, can we say regarding the languages that Jesus may have spoken? Numerous articles and books have recently recounted and discussed the various types of evidence available to make estimates regarding the likelihood that Jesus may or may not have spoken any given language. Most of this research presents itself in terms of documenting the types of material remains, such as inscriptions, papyri, and other documentary and literary evidence available. I myself have presented and discussed such evidence on previous occasions.1 Rather than rehearse this evidence again, in this article I wish to place the question of the language or languages that Jesus may have spoken within a number of larger contexts implicated by the questions posed above. These contexts include the possible languages that Jesus could have spoken as a Jew of first-century Galilee and Palestine, the New Testament evidence regarding the languages that he spoke, and linguistic considerations regarding the languages that Jesus may have spoken. Before these tasks can be addressed, however, a number of useful preliminary definitions should be offered.
THE LANGUAGE(S) JESUS SPOKE
Stanley E. Porter
1 See, e.g., S. E. Porter, “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluating the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 123–154; idem, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals, JSNTSup 191 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), esp. 126–180; and idem, “Greek Language,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld, vol. 2: D-H (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 673–681, among a number of sources. Pertinent bibliography is cited in these sources, as well as in my chapter in volume 1 of this series on Greek Language Criteria.
2456 stanley e. porter
2. Preliminary Definitions
To facilitate the ensuing discussion, it is useful to recognize the complexity of language acquisition and production, especially in a multilingual context such as that of the Greco-Roman world.2 As a result, it is worth differentiating several sets of terms.
3 On these and related issues, see P. Fletcher and M. Garman, eds., Language Acquisition: Studies in First Language Development, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); W. Klein, Second Language Acquisition, CTL (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); K. Hyltenstam and L. K. Obler, eds., Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); H. W. Seliger and R. M. Vago, eds., First Language Attrition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
4 See H. Baetens Beardsmore, Bilingualism: Basic Principles, 2nd ed. Multilingual Matters 1 (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1986) 1–42; cf. F. Grosjean, Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
The first set of terms attempts to characterize language acquisition and production by means of various times of acquisition and types of competence. One set of terms involves diachronic categories, such as first language acquisition versus second or subsequent language acquisition. This is sometimes also described in relation to primary or secondary language facility. This set of categories does not necessarily say anything about language competence, but about the order and age of acquisition, and the possible attrition of a first language.3 Thus, one might well say that a person born in Rome in the first century might have first language acquisition of Latin if the person was a citizen of an eminent family and second language acquisition of Greek, and be fully bilingual. Government officials may well have had such linguistic competence, such as Pilate. Another set of terms involves synchronic categories. This involves distinguishing between active or productive versus passive or receptive multilingualism. This type of linguistic competence constitutes variable points along a cline or continuum, rather than constituting a dichotomy. Active multilingualism means that the speaker has the ability to understand and to express himself or herself in a given language, but passive multilingualism means that the speaker is able to understand but not to express herself or himself in that language (the question of how well one expresses oneself might be further parsed, if necessary).4
2 See B. Spolsky, “Bilingualism,” in Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. IV. Language: The Socio-Cultural Context, ed. F. J. Newmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 100–118.
A second term that needs to be defined is lingua franca. There has been some misunderstanding of this term in recent discussion. A lingua franca is defined as follows: “Where a mixed speech community uses a natural language as a convenient general medium it is known as a lingua franca . . .”5 Note that it is a natural language, such as was Greek, used in a multilingual or mixed speech community so as to constitute a common medium.6 It is well established, and will not be argued further here, that Greek was the lingua franca of the Greco-Roman world, and especially of the eastern Mediterranean and Roman east.7
A third term is that of prestige language.8 A variety of sociolinguistic factors, such as power, economics, social hierarchy, and education, push toward one variety of language constituting the prestige language. In the environment of Alexandrian multilingualism, the prestige language would have been koine Greek, the lingua franca of the dominant economic, political and educational powers, first the Greek rulers and then the Romans, and it would have been the first language especially of those in positions of institutional control, as well as of others with important social positions. In the multilingual environment of Palestine, the prestige language (while still koine Greek, the lingua franca) was probably a second language for many more people than in Egypt.9
5 B. Comrie, “Languages of the World: Who Speaks What,” in An Encyclopaedia of Language, N. E. Collinge (London: Routledge, 1992), 956–983, here 982. Comrie notes that Latin has often served as a lingua franca (hence the use of Latin for the terminology), such as in the medieval church.
8 See E. Haugen, “Problems of Bilingualism,” Lingua 12 (1950): 271–290, esp. 278; R. Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed., CTL (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 30–34; W. Downes, Language and Society, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 185–196. Cf. S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, SBG 1 (New York: Lang, 1989), 154–155.
6 M. Casey, “In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?” ExpTim 108.11 (1997): 326–328, here 326; idem, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel, SNTSMS 102 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 78, contends that Aramaic was the “lingua franca of Israel.” No one is denying that Aramaic was a first language for many, probably most, Jews born in Palestine, but this fails to fit the definition above.
9 A number of scholars have been confused on the issue of prestige language. Hebrew may have been the prestige language in relation to Aramaic, but Greek was the prestige language of Palestine in relation to the Semitic languages, Aramaic included. See Porter, Criteria, 175.
Press, 1982); J. F. Hamers and M. H. A. Blanc, Bilinguality and Bilingualism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
7 See G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London: Longmans, 1997), 72.
the language(s) jesus spoke 2457
The world in which Jesus lived was one of linguistic diversity. Discussion of the languages of Jesus typically attempts to limit the number of languages by only examining a limited number of possibilities: Aramaic ostensibly because he was Jewish, Hebrew possibly because he was Jewish, perhaps Greek because he lived in Roman-controlled Palestine, and Latin because of Roman occupation.11 This characterization typically overlooks the full range of possible languages with which Jesus would have come into contact—even if it is unlikely that he would have spoken them.
10 There has been a variety of opinion on whether Jesus could write. On the basis of his being a teacher, and in the light of his indicated reading competence, it is plausible that he could write. This is not the place to explore this topic.
This linguistic diversity is revealed both synchronically and diachronically. In terms of synchrony, there were numerous local languages that were possibly available for Jesus to speak.12 Many if not most of these were Afro-Asiatic languages that were spoken in the northeast of Africa, across Palestine and into Arabia.13 The Afro-
3. The Possible Languages that Jesus May have Spoken
Therefore, asking the question of the languages spoken by Jesus involves potentially a complex of issues. He may have had first language active ability in one language, but active or passive abilities in a number of second or subsequent languages. The question of which languages Jesus spoke seems to imply a moderately active competence, that is, more than passive competence such as would be indicated by being able to understand a spoken language, yet not necessarily as much competence as would be required to actively and regularly teach in the language, although this might be the result indicated (to say nothing of whether Jesus could write or not).10
11 See, e.g., most studies, including the excellent one by J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD,” originally published in CBQ 32 (1970): 501–531; repr. in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays, ed. S. E. Porter, JSNTSup 60 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 126–162. In terms of the title of his essay, Fitzmyer is probably correct to restrict his article to the four languages.
2458 stanley e. porter
12 Jerusalem was a world-city and attracted people from all over the Mediterranean world, as Acts 2 indicates. I am not discussing all the possible languages that would have come to Palestine, but the ones in contact with Palestine with which Jesus could have come into contact.
13 See, e.g., A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. J. Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 25–27; M. Hadas-Lebel, Histoire de
the language(s) jesus spoke 2459
On the basis of his contact through living and travel, there are six possible languages that Jesus may have spoken: Palestinian Aramaic, Hebrew, koine Greek, Latin, Ancient Egyptian and Nabataean. Jesus is not recorded as having passed through or spent any time in Nabataea, and so it is unlikely he spoke Nabataean, though it was a possibility. If the account of Jesus traveling to Egypt is to be taken seriously (see Matt 2:13–21), there is the possibility that Jesus would have at least come into passive contact with speakers of ancient Egyptian, over the course of what would have been at most two years in Egypt. However, the Jewish community in Egypt would have had Greek or Aramaic as
14 Katzner, Languages, 158–159.
15 See L. T. Stuckenbruck, “An Approach to the New Testament through Aramaic Sources: The Recent Methodological Debate,” JSP 8 (1991): 3–29; cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Phases of the Aramaic Language,” in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 57–84.
16 See G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 12–27, 59–75, 90–109. Nabataean has now been found in some of the Nahal Hever documents.
Asiatic language family can be divided into a number of subgroups and subbranches. In ancient times, these included the Egyptian language, written with Demotic characters (and which later under Christian influence was developed into Coptic).14 The Semitic subgroup of languages would have been the most widespread in Palestine and the surrounding areas. Many of these languages would have been regional varieties of Aramaic, which resulted once the influence of the Persian Empire had been curtailed in the fourth century BCE. Examples of Aramaic dialects would include Palestinian Aramaic spoken in Palestine,15 and Nabataean spoken in the Nabataean region that stretched from east of the Jordan to the Negev.16 Hebrew, if it were a spoken language of the time (see below), would also have been one of these Semitic languages. Besides the Afro-Asiatic languages, there would have been several languages from the Indo-European family that may have been spoken by Jesus as well, in particular the koine Greek of the first century and Latin. There were of course other possible languages throughout the Roman Empire of the first century, but these would have constituted the major languages that Jesus may have spoken on the basis of contact with native speakers.
la langue Hébraïque: Des origins à l’époque de la Mishna (Paris: Peeters, 1995), esp. 8–9, 12–21; K. Katzner, The Languages of the World, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002), 7, 27–28; cf. Comrie, “Languages of the World,” esp. 958–959, 973.
its first language,17 and so Jesus’ learning Egyptian would have been unlikely. There is little doubt that Jesus heard Latin on numerous occasions, as it was used by those in authority in the Roman Empire, but again it would have been a passive use as he would not have needed it for any regular communication. The question regarding Hebrew (see below) is whether Hebrew was a ritual language, or whether it was an active language. In any case, as a Jewish man with religious interests there is at least the opportunity for Jesus to have learned Hebrew. On the basis of what has been noted above, Jesus no doubt had active contact with users of Greek and Aramaic, with the likelihood that Aramaic was the first language of his home.
2460 stanley e. porter
4. New Testament Evidence for the Languages that Jesus Spoke
4.1. Direct Evidence
17 For Aramaic Egyptian evidence, see Fitzmyer, Wandering Aramean, passim; for Greek Egyptian Jewish evidence, besides documentary papyri and translation of the Old Greek Bible (Septuagint), see V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (New York: Atheneum, 1975 [1959]), 347, who states that “Jews outside Palestine spoke, wrote, and generally thought in Greek,” citing evidence including Philo, Conf. Ling. 129, who refers to Greek as “our language” (524–525). It is worth noting that the vast majority of Jews who lived in the Greco-Roman world lived outside of Palestine and Greek was their first language, whether they learned Aramaic or Hebrew as a second language or not. See S. E. Porter, “The Greek of the Jews and Early Christians: The Language of the People,” in In Search of Philip R. Davies: Whose Festschrift is it Anyway?, ed. D. Burns and J. Rogerson (London: T&T Clark, forthcoming).
The evidence from the New Testament regarding languages that Jesus spoke provides a variety of direct and indirect evidence, as well as what might best be called inferential evidence. There are no direct statements regarding Jesus’ knowledge of language in the gospels, so far as I can tell.
Direct evidence involves an episode or episodes in the New Testament in which Jesus is depicted as either actively using or passively understanding a given language. There is direct evidence of various kinds that Jesus actively used Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
4.1.1. Greek
19 See my chapter in this set of volumes on Greek Language Criteria for a recent survey of this evidence.
4.1.2. Aramaic
the language(s) jesus spoke 2461
18 For options, see L. M. McDonald and S. E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 297–298.
All four of the gospels are written in Greek. Papias says that there were logia of Matthew in a Semitic language (according to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16), but scholars on this point are undecided what this passage means and how it relates to our canonical Gospels.18 The extant literary evidence is that the gospels as we know them were in Greek from the earliest records that we have. This means that Jesus is clearly depicted in the Gospels as speaking and understanding Greek in virtually all of his conversations. This means that he is recorded as speaking in Greek with his closest associates, such as the disciples and other close followers, his opponents such as the Pharisees and other religious leaders, those he encounters in the everyday routine of life, extraordinary people that he encounters, and religious and civic authorities. On the basis of this appearing to be an unrealistic possibility, earlier scholarship at one time posited that the gospels must have been translated documents out of the Semitic language that Jesus spoke on all such occasions.19 However, no such earlier documents have been discovered. More to the point, however, even many who hold to Jesus primarily speaking a Semitic language do not take the gospels as translated documents but as literary documents in Greek.20
The direct evidence for Jesus speaking Aramaic consists of a number of instances where Jesus is recorded as citing a few words in Aramaic. Sometimes these are phrases, but sometimes they are simply individual words (see section 5 for lists of the words). It is worth noting that in every instance where Jesus is reported as using an Aramaic phrase (Mark 5:41; 7:23; 15:34//Matt 27:46), a translation of the Aramaic is offered by the author. This does not necessarily have relevance to whether Jesus used Aramaic, but may well indicate that the author believed that the audience would not understand Aramaic without a translational gloss.
20 See, e.g., M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 274.
Direct evidence regarding Jesus speaking Hebrew is very limited, and consists of his possibly speaking Hebrew when he calls out to God while on the cross: eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani (Mark 15:34; see discussion below). There is dispute among scholars over the language of this cry in the two New Testament passages.
Thus the direct evidence is strong that Jesus spoke Greek, because he is recorded as speaking Greek, while there is also direct evidence that he spoke some Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew.
Indirect evidence consists of situations and circumstances, including conversational partners, where the evidence, while not directly evidencing the language used, would indirectly indicate that a particular language was spoken by Jesus. The indirect evidence is much more difficult to assess, because of the diachronic linguistic developments of the Jewish people. Even though the Jewish people spoke Hebrew when they went into exile in 586 BCE, when they emerged from exile after only a relatively short amount of time in 537 BCE, they spoke Aramaic, the lingua franca of the extensive Persian Empire. Those who resettled in Palestine continued widespread use of Aramaic. For those Jews who relocated to other places in the wider Mediterranean world, the evidence indicates that by the time of the first century CE the vast majority of the Jews of the Mediterranean world, and especially the vast majority living outside of Palestine, spoke Greek as a first language. As a result, the indirect evidence seems to indicate that Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, and possibly Latin.
In previous research, I have investigated contexts in which the various factors, such as conversationalists and subjects, may have indicated the use of Greek on a given occasion. These occasions include (others have been explored as well): John 12:20–28, Jesus’ discussion with certain Greeks; Matt 8:5–13//John 4:46–54, Jesus’ conversation with the centurion or commander; Luke 17:11–19, Jesus’ conversation with a Samaritan leper; John 4:4–26, Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman; Mark 2:13–14//Matt 9:9//Luke 5:27–28, Jesus’ calling of Levi/ Matthew; Mark 7:25–30//Matt 15:21–28, Jesus’ conversation with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman; Mark 12:13–17//Matt 22:16–22//Luke 20:2–26, Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees and Herodi-
4.1.3. Hebrew
4.2. Indirect Evidence
porter
stanley
4.2.1. Greek
2462 e.
ans regarding the Roman coin; Mark 8:27–30//Matt 16:13–20//Luke 9:18–22, Jesus’ conversation with his disciples near Caesarea Philippi; Mark 15:2–5//Matt 27:11–14//Luke 23:2–4//John 18:29–38, Jesus’ trial before Pilate.21
the language(s) jesus spoke 2463
21 See Porter, Criteria, 141–164; idem, “Luke 17:11–19 and the Criteria for Authenticity Revisited,” JSHJ 1.2 (2003): 201–224.
4.2.2. Aramaic
There is significant and noteworthy indirect evidence that Aramaic was spoken by Jesus on a number of occasions. Even though the vast majority of the Jews worldwide may have spoken Greek even as a first language, probably the numbers were larger who spoke Aramaic in Palestine as a first language. Nehemiah 8:8 indicates that when Nehemiah read the law to the Jewish people who had returned to Palestine from exile, they could not understand the sacred text in Hebrew, and he had to translate into their language, which would have been Aramaic (hence Targums were developed). Similarly, the Jewish people of Palestine in the first century, including the religious leaders—regardless of whatever other language they may or may not have known— continued to use Aramaic as their first language. Thus, when Jesus spoke with various Jewish people he encountered, such as the local Jewish population up to Jewish religious leaders—even though he is recorded as using Greek22—he would have used Aramaic.
The indirect evidence for continued use of Hebrew apart from religious contexts is not strong. Even though many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew, this does not necessarily indicate the widespread use of Hebrew by the local population, or by Jesus. Nevertheless, it is still possible that there is indirect evidence that Jesus used Hebrew, especially when he was in a specifically liturgical context. One of these occasions may have been the episode in Luke 4:16–21 in the Nazareth synagogue, when he is handed the scroll of Isaiah to read. Jesus reads a passage that combines Isa 61:1 with Isa 58:6. The composite nature of his quotation may raise the question of whether Jesus was reading a paraphrase or even an Aramaic paraphrase, but the
22 The exception would be those contexts noted above where the evidence indicates that Jesus used Greek.
4.2.3. Hebrew
4.2.4. Latin
The inferential support for Jesus actively using Greek is severalfold. One is that the vast majority of Jews in the Mediterranean world used Greek as a first language, and if not as a first, as a second language. Another is that there were numerous Jews, even within Palestine, who used Greek, as is indicated by a range of evidence (e.g., Acts 6:1, which refers to Greek-speaking Jews;23 the further evidence is summarized below in section 5). A third is that bilingualism, or perhaps better, multilingualism, was a much more widely accepted and understood phenomenon in the ancient world, especially among oppressed peoples in the midst of the Roman Empire, than we usually recognize. As a fourth, the nature of the trade that Jesus was involved in, and the trades of his closest companions, would have required that he have a level of communicative competence in Greek to sell his products to Porter, Criteria, 141 n.
23 See
33.
Roman officials who were stationed throughout the Empire made virtually no attempt to become linguistically acclimatized, especially in a relative frontier posting such as Palestine. Instead, they carried on much of their local business by using the lingua franca of the Empire, Greek, and by using the official language, Latin, when official circumstances warranted it. As noted above, it is entirely possible and even most likely that Pilate spoke to Jesus (as well as the Jewish leaders) in Greek. However, Pilate knew Latin, and so the conversation between Jesus and Pilate provides the only possible indirect evidence that their conversation may have been in Latin. This evidence is weak.
presumption would be that he read in Hebrew from the biblical scroll, perhaps interpreting it as he read.
Inferential evidence is evidence where there is not either direct or indirect evidence, but where inferences can be draw on the basis of the contexts presented in the gospels regarding the languages that Jesus may have spoken. The inferential evidence is that Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew.
2464 stanley e. porter
4.3. Inferential Evidence
4.3.1. Greek
4.3.3. Hebrew
The inferential support for Jesus actively using Aramaic is also manifold in nature. One is that it is the language that one would have expected a Jew to use in first-century Palestine. A second is that Jesus was a religious teacher and so he was in constant contact with those who were most closely associated with the traditional Jewish establishment, one that especially wanted to maintain many of its cultural and religious characteristics, even in the face of near-overwhelming external cultural influence from Greco-Roman society. A third is that the nature of Jesus’ discussions and those with whom he conducted these conversations in many, if not most, instances fits an Aramaic language context. For example, Jesus was known and widely recognized as a teacher of parables, and the parables that he used were often associated not with philosophical concepts but with situations in day-to-day life (e.g., sowing, managing land, etc.).24 A fourth is that there are glimpses throughout the gospels, by means of the citations of Jesus speaking Aramaic, especially at crucial times (such as during a healing), that he regularly spoke Aramaic, even if the gospels are in Greek for a later Greek-speaking audience.
the language(s) jesus spoke 2465
those who traded in the area, some of whom could have come from Decapolis cities. A fifth is that Jesus came from a region, the Galilee, where there was significant influence of Greek language use. A final argument is that Jesus encountered a number of situations, involving both people and circumstances, in which it is implausible to believe that he spoke with them in another language except Greek (see the indirect evidence above).
4.3.2. Aramaic
There is some inferential evidence that Jesus spoke Hebrew. While this evidence is not nearly as strong as it is for the active use of Greek and Aramaic, nevertheless, the arguments are worth recounting. One is that there are a select number of episodes where it makes more sense to infer that Jesus spoke Hebrew than it does any other language. These episodes would include some of his religious encounters (e.g., with the religious leaders, such as the Sanhedrin) and the episode in
24 See, e.g., J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke (London: SCM Press, 1972), 21.
5.1. The Evidence
5. Linguistic Considerations Regarding the Languages that Jesus Spoke
2466 stanley e. porter
Before entering into more detailed linguistic considerations regarding the languages that Jesus spoke, it is worth summarizing the material evidence for the use of the major languages: Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin.25
5.1.1. Greek
25 In what follows, I freely paraphrase material that I first presented in Porter, “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee,” 123–129; idem, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” repr. in Studies in the Greek New Testament, SBG 6 (New York: Lang, 1996), 139–171, esp. 140–144; idem, Criteria, 164–180. A fuller bibliography is included in those publications.
Luke 4 in the Nazareth synagogue, among possibly others. Another is that Hebrew was the traditional, historical and scriptural language of the Jewish people, and it is plausible that those who were intent upon preserving the essentials of Judaism, as Jesus claimed to be (Matt 5:17–19, where he uses an example from Semitic language features), would also be interested in preserving the traditional language of the Jewish people, especially in the face of Roman oppression. A third is that there is other evidence from outside of the gospels, such as the Dead Sea community, that indicates a plausible linguistic background, and possible widespread use, at least by one group, of Hebrew.
Scholars have long recognized the role that Greek played in Palestine, including among the indigenous Jewish population there, with recent scholarship often noting the potential multilingual environment. This is legitimated by the fact that Greek, on the basis of the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent establishment of his Greek Empires, which the Romans usurped, was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and especially of the eastern portion of that Empire. This influence of Greek as a language of trade included both Galilee in the north and major cultural centers such as Jerusalem further to the south. The evidence for the widespread use of Greek, including the possibility that Greek was a language of Jesus, entails the following considerations. There is widespread and significant epigraphic, docu-
27 See J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1971), 7 n. 4, for an argument for this probably as Aramaic.
26 Fitzmyer, “Languages of Palestine,” 149.
mentary and literary evidence of the use of Greek. This includes there being more Greek than other inscriptions in most significant regions of Palestine, with Greek inscriptions roughly equaling those in Aramaic in Jerusalem. Documentary evidence includes the many preserved papyrus documents from Egypt that arise out of similar linguistic contexts, finding correlation in the Bar Kokhba Greek epistolary evidence. The literary evidence includes original Jewish works composed in Greek (e.g., 1 Esdras, 2 Maccabees, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Eupolemus, Jason of Cyrene, and possibly some testamentary literature) or translated into Greek (e.g., 1 Maccabees, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations and Qoheleth) in Palestine. Further, the New Testament itself, as noted above, has been transmitted from its earliest documents in 5.1.2.Greek.
the language(s) jesus spoke 2467
Scholars have long agreed—since at least the late nineteenth century— that Aramaic constituted the predominant first language of the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine, including Galilee, and hence the primary language of Jesus, in which he had active first-language competence. The direct evidence, as noted above, is not as strong for this position as some scholars would like to think; nevertheless, this hypothesis regarding Aramaic rests securely upon a number of established facts. These include the observation that, even though Greek clearly constituted the lingua franca of the Greco-Roman world of the first century, Greek in Palestine never fully replaced Aramaic, which had become the predominant Jewish language of Palestine since the return from the exile. The claim of Aramaic to be the predominant Jewish language, in terms of primary language usage by Jews, includes the following: Aramaic portions of the biblical writings of Daniel and Ezra and non-canonical 1 Enoch, a large amount of inscriptional evidence (some may be Hebrew, and most is proper names),26 including ossuaries, and epistolary, papyrological and literary evidence (some late, however), both from Qumran and from other Judean Desert sites such as Murabba‘at, Masada and Nahal Hever. The direct evidence for Jesus’ use of Aramaic, as indicated above, includes Mark 5:41 with talitha koum, 7:34 with ephphatha,27 and 15:34//Matt 27:46 with
Aramaic
28
29
See Jeremias, Theology, 35–36.
31
Throughout discussion regarding the strength of the Aramaic evidence, there have been some scholars who believed that Aramaic was in a period of decline in the two centuries on either side of the time of Jesus Christ. However, in the last fifty years or so, this theory has receded in the light of a plethora of important language-related discoveries that have confirmed the place of the Aramaic language within Palestine, and hence in Jesus’ ambit.
H. Birkeland, The Language of Jesus (Oslo: Dybwad, 1954).
5.1.3. Hebrew
Aramaic used in Mark and possibly a composite Hebrew/Aramaic quotation used in Matthew,28 for complete clauses (even if only one word in length), and a number of other Aramaic words: e.g., abba (Mark 14:36), amen (used 59 times in the gospels);29 bar/bene (Matt 16:17; Mark 3:17), be‘el (Matt 10:2; 12:27//Luke 11:19; but see below); gehinnam (Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Matt 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Luke 12:5); kepa (John 1:43); mamona (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:9, 11, 13); pasha (Mark 14:14//Matt 26:18//Luke 22:7; Matt 26:2; Luke 22:8, 15); reqa (Matt 5:22); sabbeta (Mark 3:4; Matt 12:5, 10–12); sata (Matt 13:33//Luke 13:21); satana (Mark 3:23, 26; 8:33; Matt 12:26; 16:23; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31).30
2468 stanley e. porter
Jeremias, Theology, 5 n. 2.
M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), 5–19.
32
30
By comparison to those who argue for the use of Aramaic by Jesus, there is a relatively small group of scholars that maintains that some form of Hebrew—either biblical or Mishnaic—was an important language in first-century Palestine and used actively by Jesus, possibly as a first and certainly as a second language. According to Birkeland, Jesus, being from the lower classes and not the elite, would have used Hebrew as opposed to Aramaic.31 Segal, on the other hand, on the basis of the rabbinic writings, suggests that Mishnaic Hebrew was the predominant Jewish vernacular for Jews of all social levels from 400 BCE to the middle of the second century CE.32 The evidence on which such conclusions as Segal’s rest includes: the Hebrew Judean Desert documents, such as those from Qumran and the Bar Kokhba letters; a
All of the above are taken from Jeremias, Theology, 5–6. I exclude proper names and place names. Some have suggested that “son of man” is Aramaic, or at least distinctly Semitic. This is questionable. See Porter, Criteria, 167–168 n. 113.
Though apparently Inchofer proposed in the seventeenth century that Jesus spoke Latin, this view has not been widely held.34 The use of Latin has usually been attributed to the Roman officials who were placed in Palestine and elsewhere and who were functioning in an official capacity.35 This would account for much of the official evidence for Latin use at the time, which consists of inscriptions such as for public declarations (including the trilingual titulus on the cross; see John 19:20, where this Latin term is used), and on buildings, aqueducts, tombstones, milestones, and legionary tiles. Nevertheless, there is some evidence to summarize regarding non-official uses of Latin in Palestine during this time,36 some of which may indicate a possible use by Jesus. This evidence includes: some common inscriptional evidence, such as storage jars with Latin on them; and some documentary evidence, such as a fragment of Vergil found at Masada and Latinisms in some Bar Kokhba letters. There are also a number of Latin words used in the gospels. While some of these are easily dismissed regarding their significance (e.g., units of measure, coins, etc.), others have some significance. Such words include: census, custodia, praetorium, sudarium, and flagellium. Some of the Latin words appear in Greek texts for the
5.1.4. Latin
34 A. Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, trans. W. Montgomery (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 270.
33 Jeremias, Theology, 7.
35 Fitzmyer, “Languages of Palestine,” 129. See 129–133 for evidence.
the language(s) jesus spoke 2469
small number of Hebrew inscriptions, including ossuaries; and numismatic and literary evidence, such as the writing of Ben Sira. Although Jesus is not recorded as reading anything aloud in Luke 4:16–30, the evidence may include at least part of what he uttered from the cross (see above), the use of amen (if this has not been taken over into Aramaic), ephphatha (Mark 7:34; probably taken over into Aramaic), korban (Mark 7:11), and zebul (Matt 10:25; 12:27//Luke 11:19), only the last two actually Hebrew.33
36 See A. Millard, “Latin in First-Century Palestine,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 451–458; summarized in S. E. Porter, “Latin Language,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 630–631.
5.2. The Analysis
A linguistic analysis of the evidence indicates that Aramaic was probably a first language for the majority of Jews born and living in Palestine, with the likelihood that Greek was a second language for many of them, with at least passive competence if not active competence. Latin may have been an active second language for a limited number in strategic positions, and a passive second language for others (e.g., some tax collectors or possible religious leaders). The evidence is significant and strong that Greek was a second language for many indigenous Jews in Palestine, and a first language for some of them, and especially for those who were born and reared outside of Palestine (whether Aramaic was a first language or not), an example of such a person being Paul the apostle (born outside of Palestine, with Greek as a first language, and probably Aramaic and Hebrew as second languages, though with active competence). For those born outside of Palestine Latin too could have been an active or, probably more likely, passive second language depending upon one’s social, political and economic status. Hebrew appears to have been a second language for Jews from both within and outside of Palestine in a limited number of cases, especially those connected with the religious hierarchy (e.g., Pharisaism, or as liturgical leaders).
37 H. D. Betz, “Wellhausen’s Dictum ‘Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew’ in Light of Present Scholarship,” ST 45 (1991): 83–110; repr. in his Antike und Christentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze IV (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 1–31, here 15.
The answer to the question of where Jesus fits within this analysis appears to be that Jesus had active multilingual competence in at least Greek and Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew. As a native-born Jew in Galilee, and closely associated with maintaining Jewish tradition, he probably learned Aramaic in his home as a first language, and continued to use this language throughout his life, both for casual conversation and for formal teaching. The evidence also indicates, however, that “a knowledge of Greek can no longer be denied to Jesus.”37 In his business as a tradesman in Galilee, he would have needed to be able to converse in Greek. He probably acquired this as a second language but developed an active competency, certainly enough to con-
first time in the first century. However, few of these words are used by Jesus, only by the gospel writers.
2470 stanley e. porter
the language(s) jesus spoke 2471
6. Conclusion
The question of the languages that Jesus spoke raises a number of issues. These issues include matters of evidence and of method. Rather than simply summarizing and discussing the kinds of material evidence that have been treated elsewhere, in this essay I attempt to put this kind of evidence within a context of what linguistic situations would have been confronted by a Jewish man born in Palestine in the first century. By framing the analysis in this way, I believe that a number of questions have been opened up in terms of the kinds of evidence, the languages that need to be considered in such an analysis, the means by which such evidence is scrutinized, and the types of conclusions that can be substantiated. The multilingualism of the first century, including Palestine, indicates a much more complex linguistic scenario than is often presented, and points toward Jesus, along with many others of his time, having multilingual competence, including at least Aramaic and Greek.
38 Betz, “Wellhausen’s Dictum,” 12–16.
verse with first-language Greek speakers, and possibly even to teach in Greek (e.g., Matt 4:25–7:23). This conclusion is supported by the direct and indirect evidence in that it fits completely with the evidence from the gospels themselves and the evidence from the early church. Jesus is depicted in the gospels as being able to converse with those from within Palestine and those from without, including such people as the Syrophoenician woman, the Samaritan woman and Pilate, among others. The early church does not seem to know of a message or teaching of Jesus that was not in its earliest form recorded in Greek.38 As for his knowledge of Hebrew, this is more difficult to say. However, the evidence seems to indicate that he had at least some active knowledge of Hebrew, enough to read from a scriptural text. It is highly unlikely that Jesus had active competence in Latin, perhaps possible that he had passive competence, but most likely that he conversed with Pilate in Greek.