Did Jesus Christ only speak in Aramaic ?
(Acts Ch2 vv 5-24)
Roman Catholics and Liberals alleged that Jesus only spoke in Aramaic; and the true impact of His words in the Bible can only be realised in Aramaic.
D: There is the assumption that Jesus spoke in Aramaic while working and living in Judea, where Greek was the predominant language at the time.
D: Another assumption is that Aramaic was not understood by the Greek speaking public, and that the gospels need to have the words of Christ translated into Greek.
D: Scholars assumed that Aramaic grammar must be alien to the Greek language of the time.
D: The disciples of Christ and the multitude were assumed to understand aramaic, while Jesus could not even speak Greek.
Just a reading of the 4 gospels and the Acts of the Apostles would quickly debase such assumption.
In Acts 2v5, we read that there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And in verse 9 -11 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and Cretans and Arabs heard the apostles speaking in their own tongues.
This passage shows that the languages known to the district were more than just Greek and Aramaic. And if the words of Peter recorded in Acts are in Greek, would not all these people know the words of Peter by Greek?
And would Jesus abstained from Greek preaching to the multitude when Greek was the common language?
If Aramaic was understood by the multitude, our history books have failed to record that.The discovered Dead Sea Scrolls show us that a number of languages were in common use in those days.
Would Jesus be ignorant to the common and most popular language - Greek - of the day?
And would Jesus be ignorant of Hebrew?
In the gospel of Mark, only in a few instance was Jesus mentioned to be speaking in Aramaic. ( Mk 5v41, Mark 9v43, Mark 15v34 ) It(this record) is a strange overdoing if all Jesus cared to speak in his days was Aramaic.
Also there has been a custom of borrowing/absorbing Aramaic into Hebrew, such as [qetal]slay. Having some Aramaic words does not necessarily represent a monopoly of Aramaic.
In Mark 9v43, the ( place ) Valley of Hinon was named in Aramaic Greek; showing that Aramaic flavor in Greek was well accepted in His days. Even a name of famous place can be in Aramaic while written in Greek.
In Matt16v18 - Jesus is recorded to have used 2 Greek terms to clarify the name and position of Simon/Peter. The 2 terms give support to the occurance in Jn1v42 that Petra is not the intended meaning for Cephas. It is extremely rare for any person to use 2 different terms from the same language to mean the same thing within 1 sentence. Such case is very weak, and is not supported by synoptic recordings.
In John 1v42 - Jesus used Cephas rather than the Aramaic Cepha for Peter, and used petros to represent its meaning. Although the Aramaic Cepha could be translated to large rock and small stone, Christ[the Word of God] and the recorder/John made it clear that Petros is the intended meaning for Cephas/Peter here.
By what authority is the Popes and scholars challenging that of the Lord Jesus/God and His oracle recorder John, and the recognised, canonised scripture? Just this point alone is showing that the Popes and their councils and the Roman Catholic is not infallible, but bearing falsehood.And Paul used the same term ( Ga 1v18 ) rather than pure Greek or pure Aramaic.
In John 20v16 - Mary turned and said to Him (Jesus) in Hebrew (Jewish Aramaic), "Rabboni!" This shows that Aramaic was naturally spoken by some follower of Jesus. It would be natural for Jesus to communicate with them in their own dialect and vice versa. However, it is strange that all multitude everywhere coming to listen to Christ would only communicate in Aramaic.
Would Pilate speak only in Aramaic? He wrote Latin and Greek and Hebrew for the script above the cross.(Matt27v37, Luke23v38, John19v19) Interesting to read that Pilate wrote in Hebrew (Jn19v20) rather than in Aramaic. There is no mentioning that Pilate spoke to Jesus in Aramaic; and why not? Isn't that obvious? No translator?
The recording of Jesus calling Simon Peter/Petros(eg: Lk22v34) as well as Cephas shows that He is capable of voicing both Greek and Aramaic.
In Acts 22v2 - Paul addressed the mob and the Roman soldiers (in Acts 21vv37,38 in Greek and Aramaic) in Aramaic, and they became even more quiet. This shows that Paul and the Roman soldiers were capable of both languages and there were the Hebrews who would be more attentive to Aramaic. Paul gained more Jewish attention by speaking to them in Aramaic. By the same token, Jesus would also gained more Jewish attention by speaking in Aramaic. This does not make an exclusively Aramaic Jesus.
Paul appeared to be satisfied with the adequacy of his translation of actual words spoken to him from Greek to Aramaic; believing the essence of the messages do not suffer loss under translation.And Paul likewise received words from the spiritual Jesus in Aramaic as he is Jewish ( Acts 26 vv 14,15 ). And Paul also translated the words into contemporary Greek for King Agrippa in their conversation ( Acts 26 v 19 ). Who doubts the adequacy of his translation?
In terms of evidence of transliteration and precedence, much example can be found in the LXX.
Eg: Adonai being used instead of Kurios, Adonai Jehovah; Jah, El, and Elohim are also used while Theos is also used. Both Greek and Hebrew terms were known, and co-exist in the same LXX. They write of emotion and conviction, rather than just basic translation.
I, David Lim, am using Chinglish (Chinese-English) in writing these articles. you can see/read the English characters and words; but the English Grammar is off from time to time. No Chinese words in Chinese character is found between the lines. Right? Occasional Chinese words do not turn the articles into Chinese, although these words are definitely Chinese. You cannot say I am writing in Chinese. You cannot say you know Chinese just by understanding my English words and expression, and bad English Grammar.
I have this format of expression because it is very much me. It is like a signature. Communication does not depend on pure language and accurate Grammar.
The same argument applies here, that Jesus could be using a peculiar Greek with Aramaic Grammar.With so much internal and external evidence, the case of An Aramaic only Jesus is shown to be a mislead.
Do not boast with your academic degrees, or the fame of somebody else. Use your intelligence, if perhaps it could make some sense of the reality.
Academic qualification depends on personal achievement, not vice versa.
...
Just War and Love of Christ || Infant Baptism || Marrying non-believers ||
A Failed Prophesy on Tyre? || Another Failed Prophesy on Tyre? ||
Why 4 Gospels? || Answering Errancy Allegation ||
Hebrew Matthew and document Q || Census in Luke Ch 2 ( Anachronism? ) ||
A Christian Witness ||
Similarity warrants Recognition and Unity? || Freewill and pre-destination ||
Dynamic Equivalence and Propitiation ||
Photography || Photo Gallery || Portrait Gallery || Architecture ||
Design Consultancy || Preacher || Herbalist || Cool Sites ||