Jesus spoke Hebrew

[deardean2]

Most theologians and historians insist that Aramaic was the common language used during the time Jesus walked on earth.

I disagree and here is why.
1. The sign Pilate posted over Jesus on the cross included Latin, Greek and Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
2. Archeologists have found tombs, sepulchers and burial containers from the time of Christ. All had inscriptions in Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
3. During brief times of independence Israel minted in own coins. They all had Hebrew inscriptions.
4. Letters from Jews living in Greece from 200BC and onward were written in Hebrew.
5. A letter from a suitor in Babylon had to be translated from Aramaic into Hebrew because the woman only knew Hebrew.
6. When Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus they spoke in Hebrew.
7. When Paul was accosted by Jews near the temple in Jerusalem (leading to his trip to Rome) Paul defended himself and addressed the crowd in Hebrew.
8. There are obvious translation fundamentals that show that the book of Hebrews (written by Paul) was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.
9. There are also abundant signs that Matthew, Mark, Luke and the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts were written first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.

Those who favor Aramaic have only one inconclusive example that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This example is found in Matthew.

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth-hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

There was misunderstanding by those who heard this because some of them thought Jesus was crying out for Elias or Elijah to save him. This misunderstanding was probably due to the fact the Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar languages and share many root words.

9 points to 1. You decide.

 

[fredoheaven]

Mark 5:41 does have..

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

 

[JaumeJ]

There are two Books of the Word written down in Aramaic, Ezra, and the first half of Daniel.

The reeason the book of Daniel is only half in Aramaic is fairly simple, ; Daniel was living , held, in Babylon during the time of putting down the first hlf in Aramaic, and after returning to Israel he penned the second half.

This demonstrates much.

Had Jesus, Yeshua, taught the holy teachings in any language of the goyimor gentiles the priests and Pharisees would have had a conniption not teaching in the language of Israel...….or of the Hebrews.

 

[trofimus]

Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)
Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22)

https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-verses-in-the-new-testament-are-aramaic

 

[trofimus]

Around the turn of the century, however, the German pastor Adolf Deissmann demonstrated that the language of the New Testament essentially reflects the vernacular Greek of the Hellenistic world, i.e., the koine. He collected ample evidence to show that New Testament Greek exhibits strong affinities not with the literary works of the time, but with the vulgar language preserved in the papyri, inscriptions, and ostraca. Deissmann’s theory is now commonly accepted, even though it is equally commonly accepted that there are varying degrees of Semitic interference in the Greek of the New Testament. However, the acceptance of Semitic interference has not led to a revival of the Hebraist position. New Testament Greek is no longer seen as illustrative of a particular dialect (“Jewish Greek” or “Biblical Greek”), but rather as belonging to one particular regional variety or substandard of the Koine, i.e., the Syro-Palestinian Koine.

M. Janse: The Greek of the New Testament
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/392304/file/6799239

 

[Kavik]

You have to remember that, at this time, Jews living in Judea had what is called diglossia; the use of either two separate (may or may not be very closely related) languages or variations of one language. Typically one was considered the "high" language, whilst the other, the "low" language. The high language is typically held in much higher regard and is often considered the more politically/religiously correct or proper language to use in a given situation.

For Jews, the language of religion, and to some degree official government (such that it was), was Hebrew; with the common spoken language being Aramaic.

In most of the examples you give above, Hebrew would be the culturally/religiously correct language to use; not Aramaic.

Similar to what is seen in Switzerland today between standard/High German (Hochdeutsch) and Swiss German (Schwyzerdüütsch). Two separate (some would debate that), but very closely related languages. There are certain situations where High German can almost be said to be 'required'. Greece has this too with Demotiki and Katharevousa; the former being the everyday language, the latter being the more literary one found in newspapers, books, news/official TV/radio broadcasts, etc.

The native language of Jesus was Aramaic - like many Jews, he would have also known Hebrew (as mainly a liturgical language). It's likely he knew some Greek, and perhaps a phrase or two of Latin gleaned from Roman soldiers. I would further speculate that since most of his disciples were fishermen by trade - fish-merchants, they also would have had to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of Greek.

This was a multi-lingual landscape in the 1st century.

As other posters have pointed out - every phase spoken by Jesus copied into the gospel texts verbatim is in Aramaic; not Hebrew.

 

[Dino246]

Most theologians and historians insist that Aramaic was the common language used during the time Jesus walked on earth.

I disagree and here is why.
1. The sign Pilate posted over Jesus on the cross included Latin, Greek and Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
2. Archeologists have found tombs, sepulchers and burial containers from the time of Christ. All had inscriptions in Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
3. During brief times of independence Israel minted in own coins. They all had Hebrew inscriptions.
4. Letters from Jews living in Greece from 200BC and onward were written in Hebrew.
5. A letter from a suitor in Babylon had to be translated from Aramaic into Hebrew because the woman only knew Hebrew.
6. When Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus they spoke in Hebrew.
7. When Paul was accosted by Jews near the temple in Jerusalem (leading to his trip to Rome) Paul defended himself and addressed the crowd in Hebrew.
8. There are obvious translation fundamentals that show that the book of Hebrews (written by Paul) was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.
9. There are also abundant signs that Matthew, Mark, Luke and the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts were written first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.

Those who favor Aramaic have only one inconclusive example that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This example is found in Matthew.

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth-hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

There was misunderstanding by those who heard this because some of them thought Jesus was crying out for Elias or Elijah to save him. This misunderstanding was probably due to the fact the Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar languages and share many root words.

9 points to 1. You decide.

You might want to reconsider your closing comment on two counts: that truth is not decided by the count of instances, and that you have only presented these ten points, but no evidence that these are the only points relevant to the discussion.

If that is enough to convince you, that's fine. Nobody is obligated to use the same method of arriving at "truth".

 

[CharliRenee]

Most theologians and historians insist that Aramaic was the common language used during the time Jesus walked on earth.

I disagree and here is why.
1. The sign Pilate posted over Jesus on the cross included Latin, Greek and Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
2. Archeologists have found tombs, sepulchers and burial containers from the time of Christ. All had inscriptions in Hebrew. NO ARAMAIC!
3. During brief times of independence Israel minted in own coins. They all had Hebrew inscriptions.
4. Letters from Jews living in Greece from 200BC and onward were written in Hebrew.
5. A letter from a suitor in Babylon had to be translated from Aramaic into Hebrew because the woman only knew Hebrew.
6. When Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus they spoke in Hebrew.
7. When Paul was accosted by Jews near the temple in Jerusalem (leading to his trip to Rome) Paul defended himself and addressed the crowd in Hebrew.
8. There are obvious translation fundamentals that show that the book of Hebrews (written by Paul) was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.
9. There are also abundant signs that Matthew, Mark, Luke and the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts were written first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.

Those who favor Aramaic have only one inconclusive example that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This example is found in Matthew.

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth-hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

There was misunderstanding by those who heard this because some of them thought Jesus was crying out for Elias or Elijah to save him. This misunderstanding was probably due to the fact the Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar languages and share many root words.

9 points to 1. You decide.

Very thought provoking, tyou

 

[Miri]

I have a feeling Jesus could speak many languages, after all He
is The Word.

 

[pottersclay]

The common language in that day was aramaic. Which Jesus spoke. Hebrew was mostly spoken in and around the temple.
During the Roman occupancy it was forbidden to speak Hebrew as a common language as it might pose as a conspiracy threat.
People being bi and tri lingual was not uncommon.
I believe Jesus spoke Hebrew to capture certain audience attention. After all he was a Jew. And as we know the o.t. scriptures we're about him. The Messiah.
The cry on the cross imo was to draw attention to pslam 22 .

 

[memyselfi]

By the age of 5 a Jewish boy knows the Torah, in Hebrew. I'm confident that as a Jew Y-shua speaks and spoke Hebrew, fluently, especially because He taught in Synagogues. but I'm also just as confident He was/is bi-lingual. We have to remember the Scriptures (most of them not all) were written to Jews, it makes sense they were written in Hebrew.

 

[JaumeJ]

You might want to reconsider your closing comment on two counts: that truth is not decided by the count of instances, and that you have only presented these ten points, but no evidence that these are the only points relevant to the discussion.

If that is enough to convince you, that's fine. Nobody is obligated to use the same method of arriving at "truth".

I think you should reread his post. Also pray on the subject as most do.

Scholars? Intellectuals? Approach our Father as anything but a child and you will not get far. I realize often we all refer to what men have written, but if you always go back to the Source, you will never go astray.