Did Jesus Speak Greek?

The Heart Language of Jesus

Aramaic – the language of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians (cf. Ezra 4:7; 2 Kings 18:17, 26) – was adopted by the Jews during and after the 70-years’ Babylonian exile. While the majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, large portions of Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (2:4b–7:28) appear to have been penned in Aramaic. By the time of Christ, although Hebrew continued to be used among the rabbis in Jerusalem, Aramaic had replaced pure Hebrew as the everyday vernacular of the Palestinian Jews (cf. Acts 1:19). Jesus could read and understand Hebrew (Luke 4:16-21), but he apparently spoke Aramaic (cf. Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:34; Acts 26:14).¹

Koinē Greek and the Hellenization of Palestine

The Greek term koinē, meaning “common,” is used to describe hē koinē diálektos (“the common language”) or the lingua franca of the 1st-century Greco-Roman world. From the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, Koinē Greek developed and spread throughout most of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of post-classical Greek literature, the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and most early ecclesiastical writers.

The Hellenization of Jewish territory started when Judea surrendered to Alexander’s forces in 332 BC and it continued under the dominance of the Ptolomies and the Seleucids through the 2nd century BC. Herod the Great, who controlled Judea from 37 BC to 4 BC, made deliberate attempts to further Hellenize the region.

Once known as “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isa. 9:1; cf. Matt. 4:15), the district where Jesus spent his formative years was saturated by Greek influences. Within its borders were Hellenistic centers, such as Tiberias and the township of Sepphoris – only 6 km/3.7 miles northwest of the Lord’s hometown of Nazareth. As Jesus worked in the carpentry trade (Mark 6:3), any tradesman in the area would presumably need a working knowledge of the accepted language of commerce.

Koinē Greek was widely used in 1st-century Palestine and most of the populace appear to have been bilingual.² Hellenistic Jews of the diaspora made frequent visits to the homeland, bringing with them Greek culture and language (cf. Acts 2:5; 6:9). Among the Lord’s immediate disciples, Andrew and Philip had distinctively Greek names, while Matthew,³ John, and Peter contributed documents to the New Testament in the Greek language.

Evidence of Jesus Speaking Greek

          Except for the transliteration of a few Aramaic words and phrases, the record of all that Jesus said has been preserved in Greek translation. Nevertheless, in his conversation with a Syro-Phoenician Greek woman (Mark 7:24-30), it is interesting to note that the term kunárion (“little dog”) was employed. There was only one word for “dog” in Hebrew and Aramaic speech, referring to an unclean animal (Lev. 11:27), viz. a dirty, mangy, flea-infested scavenger (cf. Ex. 22:31; 1 Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:19; etc.). In the Greco-Roman world, in contrast to the Jewish aversion, dogs were common pets. There are two words for “dog” in NT Greek: (a) kuōn, equivalent to the Jewish concept and thus derogatory (Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2), and (b) kunárion, referring to a house dog, pet, or puppy. Jesus’ use of the latter term (Matt. 15:26; Mark 7:27), for which there is no Aramaic equivalent, demonstrates that he was apparently speaking in this Greek woman’s native tongue (see What Great Faith Looks Like).

          When Jesus stood before the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, there is no indication that an interpreter was used in the dialogue (Matt. 27:2, 11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-3; John 18:33-38). While Latin was the spoken-language of Rome, educated Romans used Greek as a second language and had little tolerance for those in their provinces who spoke neither Latin nor Greek.⁴ The most natural reading of the Gospel accounts is that Jesus and Pilate understood one another as they conversed, and the common (koinē) Greek language would have made this possible (cp. Acts 21:37-40). Jesus’ comparatively brief responses may be indicative of one for whom Greek is a second language and therefore not spoken as fluently.

Conclusion

          Jesus lived in a Jewish environment that was controlled by the Romans and heavily influenced by Greek language and culture. Although his local vernacular was Aramaic and there is no specific reference to him speaking Greek, the evidence suggests he would also have been conversant in the Greek language.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ When Hebraisti (the “Hebrew” language) is mentioned in the New Testament, it most likely refers to Aramaic as the spoken language of the Hebrew people at this time (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Rev. 9:11; 16:16). The respective Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John employ Aramaic expressions (Matt. 5:22; 6:24; 16:17; 27:33, 46; Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:22, 34; John 1:42; 20:16). Mark and John go on to translate the words into Greek, while Matthew mostly leaves these words untranslated. See Aramaic.

     ² A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 5th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934): 26-29; cf. also D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005): 240, 624, 644-45; J. D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991); J. M. Ross, “Jesus’ Knowledge of Greek,” IrBibStud 12 (1990): 41-47; G. R. Selby, Jesus, Aramaic and Greek (Doncaster, UK: Brynmill, 1989). In contrast to the ancient eastern convention of sitting on the floor at meals, Jesus and his disciples appear to have adopted the Greco-Roman custom of reclining (cf. Luke 7:36-37; 22:27; 24:30).
     ³ See Original Form of Matthew's Gospel.

     ⁴ Michel Dubuisson, “Some Aspects of Graeco-Roman Relations: The Attitude of Roman Administration Toward Language Use. Xenophobia and Disparaging Words in Greek and Latin,” Prudentia 15 (1983): 35-47.

Related Posts: Hebrew, Aramaic, The Education of Jesus the Rabbi

Image credit: https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/what-language-did-jesus-speak.html

The Original Form of Matthew’s Gospel

     Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140?) reported: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able” (as quoted by Eusebius [ca. 263-339], Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16; translated by C. F. Cruse). An alternate translation is offered by W. J. Harrington: “Matthew, in Aramaic, grouped in order the sayings, and each translated them according to his ability” (Explaining the Gospels 40-41). This idea of the original composition of Matthew’s Gospel in the language of the Hebrew people was also propagated by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1-2), Origen (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.4), Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6; cf. 5.10.3), John Chrysostom (Hom. Matt. 1.7), and Jerome (Epist. 20.5). 

     This statement, however, is not as simple as the above English translations suggest. Does sunetazeto suggest this was something Matthew purportedly “composed,” “collected,” “compiled,” or “arranged”? What is meant by ta logia: “history,” “sayings,” “oracles,” “gospel”? What is intended by Hebraidi (“Hebrew,” “Aramaic,” “Semitic,” “Jewish-Christian”)¹ dialektō (“dialect,” “language,” “style,” “literary form”)? Does hērmēneusen mean this was something “translated,” “interpreted,” or “transmitted”?

     Perhaps ta logia is used by Papias in reference to the sayings/teachings of the apostles about the words and deeds of Jesus, i.e., the substance of Matthew’s Gospel. Compare Papias’ previous statement regarding Mark: “… being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy … he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary” (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15). Alternatively, if ta logia is limited to “the sayings” of Jesus, it is interesting to note that in Matthew’s Gospel the Lord’s sayings are arranged in five long discourses (with no such arrangement in Mark or Luke).

     Since the Greek of Matthew does not read like a translation and no early Hebrew or Aramaic text of the Gospel has ever been found,² how is Papias’ allusion to Hebraidi dialektō to be understood? Suggestions include the following:

o   The canonical Matthew was possibly based on a Greek translation of the Semitic original (W. J. Harrington, Explaining the Gospels 41-42).

o   Matthew could have constructed his Gospel around an Aramaic collection of the Lord’s teachings (F. F. Bruce, The NT Documents 34-38).

o   Matthew’s Gospel may have been written in the Greek language with a Semitic style or form, i.e., according to Semitic linguistic patterns (R. H. Gundry, Matthew 619-20).

o   Perhaps Papias (and later writers influenced by him) simply made a mistake, confusing Matthew’s Gospel with an Aramaic narrative³ or making a misguided assumption based on the Jewish context of the early Christian movement (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 146).

Conclusion:

     At the end of the day, we know the Gospel according to Matthew has been preserved through the centuries in the Greek language of the New Testament. Any questions, concerns, or debates about an alleged earlier form or similar writings do not detract from the inspired truth it conveys.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “The author here, doubtless means the Syro-Chaldaic, which sometimes Scripture and primitive writers called Hebrew” (C. F. Cruse, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 436 n. 8; cf. W. J. Harrington, Explaining the Gospels 180 n. 2). Cf. John 5:2; Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2.

     ² This does not count medieval Hebrew forms of Matthew that appear to be translations from the Greek (see R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT 210). The numerous OT quotations in Matthew’s Gospel reflect more than one text-form, i.e., LXX, translations from a Semitic original, and other less conventional compositions. This suggests someone knowledgeable of and writing in Greek but acquainted with Semitic languages (cf. D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 143-44; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 21-22).

     ³ A work known as “the Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which circulated among Jewish-Christian groups in Transjordan and Egypt (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.25.5; 3.27.4), apparently bore some affinity to Matthew’s Gospel (see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; Jerome, Matt. 1, 2, 4; On Illustrious Men 2; Micah 7.6; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.9.4; 30.3.7; Origin, Matt. 19; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6; 5.10.3; 6.25.4). Jerome’s allusions to “the Gospel of the Nazarenes” may have been in reference to the same work (cf. On Illustrious Men 3; Isa. 30; Ezek. 6; 16.3; Against Pelagius 3.2) or possibly even to an Aramaic translation of Matthew’s Gospel. In disputes between orthodox Pharisees and Jewish Christians around the turn of the 2nd century, discussions focused on Christian writings referred to as Euangelion, which F. F. Bruce suggests “was most probably an Aramaic form of the Gospel according to Matthew, the favourite Gospel of the Jewish Christians in Palestine and the adjoining territory” (NT Documents 104).

Related Posts: Authorship of NT Gospels, Matthew's Audience

Image credit: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/western-manuscripts-miniatures/lot.20.html

The Aramaic Patronymic Bar-

     A patronymic is an identifying designation derived from the name of one's father or other male ancestor (e.g. Johnson = son of John). Corresponding to the Hebrew בֵּן (ben), the Aramaic בַּר (bar) is a patronymic prefix meaning “son of” (cf. Ezra 5:1, 2; 6:14; Dan. 3:25; 5:22; 7:13).¹ With reference to one’s paternity or other distinctive features, this prefix helped to differentiate among those who bore the same name in ancient Aramaic-speaking communities. For example, the name “Jesus” is the English transliteration of the Greek Iēsous, which is equivalent to the Hebrew Yehoshuah and its abbreviated form Yeshua (“Joshua”). Seeing that this was a fairly common name among first-century Palestinian Jews,² our Lord would have been known in his home community as bar Yosef or “son of Joseph” (cf. Luke 4:22; John 6:42).

Bar- as a Family Surname

     Bartholomew is listed among the 12 apostles in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke 6:14 but is unnamed in John. While Bartholomew is paired with Philip in the Synoptic Gospels, John mentions Philip in association with Nathanael (1:43-49). Even though Nathanael is identified in the company of the apostles (John 21:2) and among the eyewitnesses of the risen Lord (John 21:3-14), he is unnamed in the Synoptics. Since the name Bartholomew is actually an Aramaic patronymic (bar Tôlmai = “son of Tolmai”) and would have normally been added to a given name, it stands to reason that the apostle known as Bartholomew was actually Nathanael bar Tolmai.³

     Two of the Lord’s original apostles shared the personal name Simon (Matt. 10:2, 4). To distinguish between them, Jesus not only gave one the nickname “Cephas” (Aramaic) or “Peter” (Greek) (Mark 3:16; John 1:42), he also used the patronymic bar Iōna (bar Jonah) in Matt. 16:17, meaning “son of Jonah.”⁴ The same designation would have also applied to Simon’s brother Andrew.

     Near the end of his earthly ministry the Lord encountered a blind beggar outside of Jericho called Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), an appellation meaning “son of Timaeus.” We don’t know what this man’s given name was, as he was apparently more commonly known among the residents of Jericho (and/or Mark’s readers) in relation to his father’s name.

Bar- as an Ironic Play on Words

     Barabbas was the notorious criminal whose death sentence was repealed as the Lord Jesus took his place at Golgatha (Matt. 27:16-26; Mark 15:7-15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The name Barabbas is the Graecized form of the Aramaic bar abbâ, which is a combination of bar (“son of”) and abbâ (“father”), meaning “son of [the] father.” The irony is that Jesus was the legitimate Son of the heavenly Father (John 8:16-29), treated and executed as a criminal, whereas the infamous Barabbas was set free though he manifested a very different spiritual paternity (cf. John 8:44).⁵


     Bar-Jesus is the patronymic surname of Elymas, a Jewish false prophet and sorcerer mentioned in Acts 13:6-8. He opposed the preaching of Barnabas and Paul in Paphos on the island of Cyprus. As noted above, the Greek Iēsous (“Jesus”) is equivalent to the Hebrew Yeshua (“Joshua”) and was a common name among the Jews at the time, apparently worn by Elymas’ father. For Paul, however, this name had special significance,⁶ and instead of using it in reference to this deceitful antagonist, the apostle seems to make a play on words by addressing the sorcerer as “son of the devil” (v. 10).

Bar- as a Nickname with Special Meaning

     Barnabas is the nickname given by the apostles to Joseph (or Joses), a Levite-Jewish convert from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and cousin of John Mark (Col. 4:10). This moniker is a combination of the Aramaic bar (“son of”) and naba (to “prophesy”). Since prophesying involved communicating “edification and exhortation and comfort to men” (1 Cor. 14:3), the Greek rendering of the name signified “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36).⁷



     The designation Barsabbas is a patronymic description meaning “son of [the] sabbath,” perhaps indicative of the day of birth of the one to whom it was applied. In the Acts narrative two Christians shared this name, viz. Joseph Justus Barsabbas and Judas Barsabbas.

     Joseph Justus Barsabbas was a devoted follower of Jesus throughout the Lord’s entire earthly ministry and was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:15-23). He was assembled with around 120 fellow-believers in Jerusalem a few days before Pentecost, and he was one of two disciples considered to replace Judas Iscariot as an apostle but not the one chosen.

    Another follower of Jesus who wore this name was Judas Barsabbas. He was a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), a skilled writer (vv. 22-23),⁸ a prophet (v. 32), a teacher (vv. 27, 32), and an encourager (v. 32b). When the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision controversy, reaching a consensus through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the decision was put into writing, and it was Judas Barsabbas and Silas who penned the document and subsequently delivered it to Gentile Christians in Syria (Acts 15:22-32).

Conclusion

     The name a person wears is important, functioning to describe, distinguish and identify. And there is no greater honor than to be called the children of God (1 John 3:1) by wearing the name that is above all names (Phil. 2:9).⁹ May we live in a manner that is worthy of the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This Aramaic prefix is not part of the Hebrew names Barachel (Job 32:2), Barachiah (Zech. 1:1), Barak (Judg. 4:6), Bariah (1 Chron. 3:22), Barkos (Ezra 2:53), Baruch (Neh. 3:20; 11:5; Jer. 32:12), Barzillai (2 Sam. 17:27; 21:8; Ezra 2:61), Barachias/Berechiah (Matt. 23:35), or Barhumite (2 Sam. 23:31; cf. 1 Chron. 11:33).

     ² Cf. Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Josephus, War 6.5.3. This name has been found by Israeli archaeologists no less than 71 times in ancient burial caves (see Ed Pilkington and Rory McCarthy, “Is this really the last resting place of Jesus…?” The Guardian [27-02-2007], <Link>).

     ³ See “Bartholomew,” <Link>.

     ⁴ An alternative reading in John 1:42 and 21:15-17 is [huios] Iōannou (“son of John”) (cf. B. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 172, 220). But remember that in Matt. 16:17 Jesus was originally speaking in Aramaic to fellow-Aramaic speakers, and Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking Jew writing to fellow-Aramaic-speaking Jews (see Matthew's Audience). In contrast, John was writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles (see John's Audience). Seeing that Aramaic expressions have been translated (or transliterated) into Greek by these different authors in different settings for different audiences, which in turn have been copied by hand plethoric times and then translated again into English, the difference in spelling of a couple of letters is hardly significant. See “Simon Peter,” <Link>. Further, there is only a two-letter difference in the Greek spelling of these two names. Matt. 16:17 is a Greek transliteration of a single Aramaic word. John 1:42 is a translation involving the three-word phrase ho huios Iōna OR ho huios Iōannou, while John 21:15-17 translates the repeated genitival Iōna OR Iōannou. Seeing that these expressions would have been passed down orally long before they were put into written form, slight variations of pronunciation would have led to natural variations in phonetic spelling. At the end of the day, the exact pronunciation or precise spelling of the name is not vital to understanding what the respective passages convey.    

     ⁵ See “Barabbas,” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Acts 9:20, 22; 13:23, 33; 15:26; 16:18, 31; 17:3, 7, 18; 18:5; 19:4, 5, 13; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 25:19; 28:23, 31; Rom. 1:1, 3, 6, 8; et al.

     ⁷ See also Acts 9:27; 11:22-30; 12:25; 13:1-2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12-20; 15:2, 12, 22, 25, 35-39; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; 4:10.

     ⁸ The term graphō in Acts 15:23 literally means to “write.” See “Biblical Authorship 4,” <Link>.

     ⁹ Acts 2:38; 4:2, 10-12, 17-18; 5:28, 40, 41, 42; 8:5, 12, 35; 9:15, 27, 29; 10:43; 11:26; 26:28; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 3:11; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 1:20-21; Phil. 1:18; Col. 3:4; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 3:11, 17; 1 Pet. 4:16; James 2:7.

Related Posts: Aramaic, The Son of Mary

Image credit: Photo of a 1st-century ossuary inscribed in Aramaic “James, son of Joseph [bar Yosef], brother of Jesus,” <http://hhenry47.home.insightbb.com/JamesOssuary.JPG>.