September 26, 2008

What Language Did Jesus Speak?

This week we leave the Culture Wars behind and return to some basic apologetics…well, some interesting information about the Scriptures that informs our apologetics.

I once had a discussion with a person who insisted that Our Divine Lord spoke only Hebrew. The conversation had begun centered around the word “rock” in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 16:18), but quickly devolved into a debate about ancient languages. My friend held that the word “rock” couldn’t possibly refer to St. Peter because the Gospel was written in Greek, and the Greek words used in that passage are “petros” and “petra,” which mean “rock” and “small rock,” respectively. I pointed out that Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for rock is “kepha,” which means “big rock” or “boulder.”

My friend was thunderstruck, he had never considered that a Jew in that time would speak any other language but Hebrew.

By the time Christ arrived on the scene, the Jewish people had been through a series of calamities that fundamentally altered their society. The Jewish state, Judah, was a rump of Israel’s former glory under King David, having been invaded and imprisoned a number of times by the Persians, the Greeks, the Assyrians, and the Romans. During the Babylonian Exile and the subsequent occupation by the Assyrians (700-330 BC), the Imperial Language of Aramaic became the common language of the Jews. In fact, the books of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic. Similar to the way that the Church’s official language is Latin even today, the Rabbis and Temple officials maintained the Hebrew language of worship and the Scriptures, but the people spoke Aramaic in their daily lives.

The linguistic patchwork of first century Judea was complicated by two more civilizations…Greek and Roman. Greek was the common language used by the Roman elites in the conduct of business in the Empire. Latin, of course, was the official language of the Empire spoken by Roman officials and military forces, as well as the Roman citizens.

History aside, how do we know from the Scriptures that Christ spoke Aramaic? Simple. In several places He is quoted speaking Aramaic. In St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, some of Christ’s words are rendered in the language the people spoke. “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34), “Talitha cuom” (Mk 8:41), and “Ephphatha” (Mk 7:34) are all Aramaic phrases. Even the word “Abba” which Christ uses often to refer to the Father is the Aramaic word roughly translated as “Daddy.” Incidentally, the Arabic word “Abu” has the same meaning… so “Abu Sulieman” means “Father of Solomon.”

Why is all this language study important to defense of the Faith? Just this: properly translating the Scriptures leads to proper interpretations. For example, when the “brothers of Jesus” are referred to in Scripture, it’s important to know that they are cousins, not children of Mary. We know this because Aramaic has no word for “cousin” and Semitic cultures usually consider all male relatives as “brother” or “uncle.” In fact, not to refer to a male relative as “brother” or “father” or “uncle” is a way of distancing oneself from them. If we try to go with the English word, or even the Greek one, then we run the risk of drawing the wrong conclusion from the word “brother” or “rock,” and that weakens our personal understanding of the faith.

The Church recognizes the need for linguistic variety in her worship. It’s also a reason the Latin Rite uses Aramaic (Amen), Greek (Kyrie), Latin (Sanctus, Gloria, Angus Dei), and the vernacular (mostly English or Spanish in the USA) during Holy Mass. Words have power and real meaning…how else could we believe what someone tells us if words do not mean real ideas?

So the language Jesus Christ spoke on earth is important, both for our heads and our hearts. If words were not important, then the Father wouldn’t have spoken the Eternal Word. We are thankful He did.

“We do know God did not choose to preserve it or to include it in the canon.”

“What is the proof of this?”

..... there are no copies in existence that prove the claim. The claim rests on the brief statement of one man, 180 years after the fact. He believes he saw it. It is not corroborated by history, by archeology, etc. If it ever is, we’ll have something other than speculation to speak about.

“Given the area and times it is almost certain that copies of both translation existed. Aramaic for the Jewish community, and Greek for the Gentiles.”

..... But to be frank, when we have to use the phrase, “almost certain,” we are admitting there isn’t certainty.

“Of all the Gospel writers Matthew had the most education and had been a public servant. As a tax collector he was an intermediary between both communities.”

..... This is likely true, yet isn’t evidence that there was ever an original aramaic manuscript, or that it was inspired. We are left with massive evidence of a Greek original and can easily construct a copy that matches the original, word-for-word.

In the end, that is what we have. The rest is intriguing, interesting and fun to think about. It remains that God did not transmit it or preserve it or work to in include a single aramaic scroll in the canon.

As I said, maybe He has it tucked away in another cave in Quorum, waiting like a time capsule to explode someday. Until then, we have a cracking good story, but little else.

Best.

It is true that we cannot say with certainty that there is an original aramaic manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew. It is also true that we cannot say with certainty who wrote Matthew, when it was written, or where it was written. Nor do we know the source of all of the material in Matthew.

The majority view among modern biblical scholars is that Matthew was written sometime around A.D. 70 by an unknown author; that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and was a major source for both Luke and Matthew; and that Matthew was probably written in Antioch, the Capitol of the Roman province of Syria. Another source, called “Q”, represents oral and written tradition that is not in Mark but can be found in both Matthew and Luke.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains oral and written tradition, called “M”, that can only be found in the Gospel of Matthew.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.