Loading...Several of my recent posts have elicited comments from multiple participants (same comment, asked in a variety of ways). One of them had to do with the question of the language that Jesus would have spoken with Pontius Pilate during his trial. A number of people have asked “why not Greek”? The logic behind this question/solution is that Pilate as an educated Roman would have been fluent in Greek; and Jesus, living in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” where he probably engaged in a small business (carpentry) would have had to communicate with the non-Jews in his midst, and so probably could speak Greek as well. Moreover, he grew up in Nazareth not far from the urbane city of Sepphoris, and would have acquired Greek language and culture there.
That is a common view among many students of the Bible. And so what’s wrong with it?
As with most interesting questions, this one requires virtually an entire book to answer, so I will give only the short version, which is this: it is true that Pilate almost certainly could speak Greek, and almost certainly as true that Jesus could not.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
Bart, thanks so much for this – I had thought it at least probable that Jesus spoke some Greek, but (as a complete amateur on the subject) I’m very happy to accept that current scholarship thinks otherwise. I’m looking forward to checking out the books you reference. One of the reasons I had thought Jesus might have had some Greek was Josephus’s statement about Jesus that “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”. Assuming for the moment that this is part of an authentic core of the Testimonium Flavianum, what appeal – or even a means of effective communication – would a monolingual aramaic-speaking apocalyptic Jewish prophet have had for the Gentiles? Could the hellenized Greek-speakers also speak Aramaic?
My guess is that Josephus though this because he knew that a lot of Jesus’ followrs were in fact not Jews, and that he assumed it had always been that way. But no one knows for sure!
This raises another question: Did Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, speak Greek and would he have spoken it to Jesus as described in John 3? See “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction,” p. 222, column 2, paragraph 2. One way or the other, if Jesus did not speak Greek, he could not have delivered the Sermon on the Mount in the language of the Gospel of Matthew, and even if he could speak Greek, why would he have done so, as hardly anyone in his audience would have understood it? The only choice is Aramaic,. Was there someone or a sodality of someones taking his words down in the shorthand of the time, assuming there was such a thing and assuming that such transcription could be accomplished with the writing implements of the day? If so, then the Aramaic text would have to have been translated 50 or so years later into Greek–and who knows how accurately. The whole thing seems fishy to me.
Yes, no one thinks the Sermon on the Mount would have been delivered in Greek. But it’s implausible it was delivered at all — as you suggest, our only source for it is fifty years later, in Greek. I sometimes tell my students to recall the State of the Union address from *last year* word for word! And fifty years later??
Thank you. Another question: As you know, in Latin, abstract nouns such as virtus (which by itself means the manly qualities, although ironically the word is feminine) and tempus take their “meaning” not intrinsically as in modern western languages, but rather from the words that surround them, often resulting for clarity in hendiadys.
Is the same true for Greek and Aramaic? My gut instinct tells me yes, as the general semantic trend throughout the ages seems to be from the general to the specific, but perhaps I am mistaken. Also, do Greek and Aramaic contain the definite and indefinite articles lacking in Latin and is there a way to answer a question with a yes or no, also lacking in Latin?
I think context determines meaning in *all* languages, ancient and modern. Words never ever have “inherent” meanings So yes, that is true of Greek and Aramaic as well. Greek and Aramaic have definite articles, but not indefinite. And in Greek yes, there are words for yes and no.
Why is the reply not showing up after my last comment and your reply. Also how does one add a comment other than clicking on the reply button?
I don’t know! I haven’t heard of anyone having this problem. And I’m not sure about your second qeustion. What’s wrong with hitting reply?
Anent: I don’t know! I haven’t heard of anyone having this problem. And I’m not sure about your second qeustion. What’s wrong with hitting reply?
1. The reply link does not appear at the bottom of this response, whereas it appears in earlier responses.
2. Suppose one wants to add a new comment?
If you’re still having a problem, send me an email and we’ll look into it. No one else seems to be having it.
Anent:: If you’re still having a problem, send me an email and we’ll look into it. No one else seems to be having it.
This reply of yours above has no reply link beneath it. I’ve noticed the same thing with other posts. In addition, how do I ask you a question which does not pertain to an article? Yours is the only site of this sort I have problems with, perhaps because there seems to be no help menu. Also, Ebay and Amazon which also take payments work with Internet Explorer, I cannot understand why your site does not as well.
P.S. I have begun “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” and when I have finished this volume, I believe that I will have read all your works save “Jesus Before the Gospels.”
P.P.S. I am willing to take out a year’s subscription when my month’s subscription runs out, provided my concerns are addressed.
Sepphoris is only about 3 miles from Nazareth. I walked that far to kindergarten every day as a 5-year-old. Is it really so unlikely that Jesus may have looked for work there from time to time? Thus, I think it is at least possible that Jesus could have acquired some rudimentary Greek. That said, I’m not suggesting that Jesus spoke Greek with Pilate. I would not be surprised if Jesus had no trial before Pilate, let alone that he was provided with a translator. But, for the sake of discussion, assuming Jesus did have a trial before Pilate, maybe the tradition that he remained silent has a grain of truth to it, condemned to silence by his lack of linguistic training. Later on, such a tradition could have been interpreted theologically with reference to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant.
The way Jesus talks about “the Greeks” (to go no where among them, not to feed them before the children, etc.) it doesn’t seem likely that he’d bother to learn their language.
However I can also see a situation where the Romans so overpowered their supplicants that they didn’t care that the accused couldn’t understand the charges against them. Of course it’s less likely if you go with the fourth Gospel, but the Synoptics seem to indicate that a translator wouldn’t have done much work in that trial. What I always wondered was what the inflection would have been to Jesus’ “So you have said.” Was it “your words, not mine” or “Whatever, dude.” or a meek “If you say so.”? We don’t get enough from the gospels to be sure.
Yes, I agree it’s ambiguous. Moreover, we have no way of knowing *what* he might have said on the occasion.
Couldn’t agree more with your assessment of whether or not Jesus spoke Greek or any language other than Aramaic. I once asked Peter Flint why he thought the Septuagint was so important to our understanding of early Christianity. He responded with this question: “How do you suppose Jesus and Pilate communicated during the trial, if not in Greek?” All I could come up with was “Elizabethan English!” To my mind one is as fanciful as the other.
DCS
What is the evidence that Roman governors did not speak the local language? Is this issue specially addressed by Chancey or Hezser?
I doubt it. Governors, of course, were assigned to different provinces at different times of their lives You can read their own comments in some of the classical authors. I don’t think there’s much evidence to suggest that every time a proconsul, e.g., was offered a new province, he learned the indigenous language as part of his duties.
Bart, what you’ve described is consistent with Jesus’ trial being conducted in Greek and not Latin, with the translation being between Jesus’ Aramaic and Pilate’s Greek. Greek-Aramaic translators would have been easier to find in first century Jerusalem, and Greek was probably the language Pilate used to communicate with Jewish social elites.
As for whether Jesus could speak Greek … maybe not. But let’s ask a different question: might Jesus have spent time in Sepphoris? Sepphoris was the site of what was described as a “building boom” during Jesus’ youth and young adulthood. If this is true, some of the labor for this building must have been Jewish. Would all of these Jews have been residents of Sepphoris? Might some of these Jews have “commuted” from surrounding towns? While Jews like Jesus had no money for travel, how much money do you need to take an hour’s walk?
Nazareth was a poor and insignificant village. In such a place, how much “business” could there have been for a TEKTON like Jesus? We know that Jesus DID leave Nazareth, that he had occasion to travel to the ministry of John the Baptist, and then conducted a traveling ministry of his own. With all that travel, it’s possible that Jesus encountered Greek speakers, and even transacted business with them.
As I see it, the real question is not whether Jesus could speak Greek. The question is how Pilate conducted trials of accused Jewish peasants like Jesus. There’s no way for Pilate to have determined in advance how well an accused Jewish peasant could speak Greek. The only way Pilate could be sure to communicate with a Jewish peasant defendant would have been in translation. On the other hand, Pilate may have had no interest in communicating with accused Jews – he may have simply accepted the (Greek) word of the accusers. Jesus may not have been given the opportunity to speak at all – not in any language.
Yes, that has been a common view about jesus and sepphoris, especially among members of the Jesus seminar and those who are like-minded. I’ve never found in convincing; it has seemed like a romantic view of what life was like in rural areas of Palestine, and I think there would be a shred of evidence for it if it were in fact the case. But different people can have different views!
Did Paul speak Greek? Gerd Luedemann contrasts Jesus and his rural background against Paul and his urban background (Heresies: The Otherside of Early Christianity, p. 63). I always thought that Paul was probably Aramaic speaking, but could speak both Greek and Hebrew. About Jesus, if He could speak Greek, it would definitely have been crude and limited. In South Africa we have 11 official languages of which English is very view people’s first language, but almost all can speak it. However there are certain parts of the country where Afrikaans and Tswana or Zulu and English or Sotho and Afrikaans predominates. What I find interesting is that it seems that in a multi-lingual country, languages tend to group. I sometimes wonder how languages co-exist. Is there any data about languages that co-existed in the ancient world? Can it be interpreted? (Obviously there is, but how should one approach it?)
Yes, languages probably do group. Most of the educated elite in the empire could speak their national language and Greek. And possibly others. But only the educated elite. And, of course, knowing how to speak a language is not a guarantee that one can compose a book in that language (think of your fellow multi-lingual neighbors in South Africa: could *they* have composedthe letter to the Romans in one of their many languages?) In any event, Paul’s primary language appears to have been Greek.
Yes, thinking of ordinary letters in South Africa in English, many of them read more like Mark’s Greek than that of Paul. I do find it very interesting that Paul was probably a Greek Speaker while Jesus Aramaic. It means that very early on there had to be a “language bridge” between Greek and Aramaic. We probably find it in the gospel passages where Aramaic is transcribed and interpreted into Greek. Why does Paul sometimes use Aramaic “Abba” (Father), it is not Hebrew “Av” (sorry for the transcription)? Could he have been bilingual? (In the sense that he didn’t know which was his mother tongue? If he was a Jew, his mother was a Jew, but maybe only ethnically…)
My sense is that some Aramaic words became standard Christian usage even among non-native speakers, just as my local Maranatha Bible Chapel is not made up of Aramaic speaking believers!
🙂 It makes sense.
Bart, though I appreciate that you have made scholarship that was somewhat exclusive to academics, now accessible and palatable to the uninitiated lamens. . . I find it disapointing that we do not know more about the origins of the Septuagint. Is the Letter of Aristeas a fraud to support the authenticity/legitimacy of the Septuagint? With typology we may see how much pertains to the Hebraic tradition — and is do you think there is anything in addition that may have been employed as Roman propaganda (i.e. typology of with Josephus’ accounts of Titus and Jesus — or any other external Greco-Roman mythos)? Not to say that Jesus wasn’t a historical character. I see there are fragments of the Septuagint 2nd B.C.E.? Will you post something on the Letter of Aristeas and the origins of the Greek Old Testament? After reading this article I presume you don’t think Jesus quoted the Septuagint. With almost every book of the Old Testament, and more, having been preserved via Qumran — in either Aramaic or Greek — it’s safe to say the Hebrew Scriptures were probably accessible.
That’s not to mention that the Hebraic tradition (for lack of better terms as clearly was not Hellenized Pharasaic/Rabbinical Judaism) had a mnemonic quality. I.e. there are Hebrew puns that are inconspicuous in Greek/Latin. The style/literature may go unappreciated to the unwitting. What makes Robert Alter a great read/listen in his view of the Hebrew Bible as “literature”. And please check out the Nehemia Gordon take on Hebrew Yeshua vs Greek Jesus. At some point I presume your Greek/Latin literacy/understanding of the Bible may be inadequate in regards to getting closer to the Hebraic tradition (Judaism would be anachronistic, no? Or what is the earliest reference to Judaism in any language or any context?) at the roots of Jesus’/Yeshua’s ministry.
YEs, absolutely. To understand the nuances of the Hebrew Bible you have to read it in Hebrew. Same with the Greek New Testament. Or for that matter the French Sartre or the Russian Dostoevsky, etc.
We’r all disappointed! WE wish we knew far more. THe Letter of ARisteas is indeed almost entirely legendary in all it’s details. But there’s not really a question of the “legitimacy” of the Greek translation. The Hebrew Bible was translated many times for Jews who did not know Hebrew, just as it is translated in vernacular languages today. THere almost certainly was not ONE translation of it from which all others descended. And yes, it’s a good idea for me to write about it!
Thanks. I was disjointed there. All the more appreciation for your approach; as it seems you’ve made a vocation of making interminably complicated issues/subjects, such as this, very readable.
I heard James White say that ‘Everyone in that land did, (speak Greek) you had to as that’s what the Roman soldiers where speaking and you better know what they where telling you to do’
What do you make of that?
I think it shows, yet again, how fully ignorant he is about the ancient world in general and the New Testament world in particular. He really would be better served not to pretend he is a scholar.
Bart,
Ouch! I have read both you and James White. But being a layperson, I guess I thought he was a scholar. Caveat emptor! Why isn’t he a scholar? How can laypersons tell?
Thanks
Jerry
He’s not a scholar because he hasn’t had the training of a scholar or participated in the life of a scholar. On this blog, a while ago, I started a series of posts on The Work of a Professional Scholar. I haven’t finished the series yet (something else came up, then something else, etc), but I think I posted ten different posts describing different aspects about what it means to be a scholar. You may look at those to get an idea. I’ll finish the series soon. But you’re right, as an outsider, it’s very hard to know the difference. But not from the inside. There’s not a scholar of biblical studies teaching at any major research university or top-level liberal arts college in the English-speaking world who would mistake James White for a scholar.
Bart, in your writings, you often refer to certain biblical interpretations being the view of the “majority of scholars” or the “vast majority of scholars”. If I may make a recommendation, whenever you make this type of reference in your popular books, do add a footnote (as is the convention in Wikipedia articles in assertions entailing appeal to authorities) citing references the reader can check up for themselves. This helps readers sympathetic to your view, to cite a verifiable source in debates and discussions with skeptics. As you recognise, it is difficult for outsiders to know the difference between views of consensus scholarship and those on the peripheral. A layman reading Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence that demands a verdict” – a wildly popular apologetics book – would view it as “the Bible” on Christian apologetics. To someone who know something about biblical scholarship, the book is packed with misinformation. Similarly for works of like-minded authors such as Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler.
The real tragedy is that in the areas of biblical interpretation, source criticism and historical studies of purported events described in the Bible, the voices of conservative evangelical apologists are far louder and numerous than those of reputable scholars. Church congregations are taught week in and week out the conservative or traditional viewpoints, and never exposed to two centuries of critical scholarship. Some of your evangelical critics refer to you as a “radical biblical scholar” when the reality is in most cases, you are merely presenting consensus views of scholarship. To most lay evangelicals, it does appear this way because you tell your readers things so radically different from what their pastors and their favored authors of popular Bible commentaries and Bible study guides have been telling them. Also there are so many evangelical seminaries in America, churning graduates many of whom will become leaders in their Christian community and are most eager to evangelise rest of the world. Sometimes I feel sorry for the thoughtful and devout members of conservative evangelical churches, who are short-changed by church leadership. Despite their confident claim to the contrary, I find a lot of conservative evangelical leaders are less interested in “finding the truth wherever it leads”, rather are wielded to traditional religious positions they are emotionally comfortable with.
There is another difficulty outsiders face in evaluating claims made by evangelical apologists: some apologists are indeed reputable and well-recognised scholars authoring many articles in top journals, but their field of scholarship is in theology or philosophy. Most lay Christians don’t recognise the big differences between biblical scholarship and theological scholarship. I think some conservative evangelical views, when presented as theology, do qualify as reputable scholarship in theological journals. But the same views become peripheral and marginal when presented in academic biblical journals. The problem is that a good deal of theology are “closed-systems”.
Can you provide the dates of your posts on The Work of a Professional Scholar?
Thanks for your suggestion. I wonder if it would make any difference, though? My sense is that evangelical Christians would just assume that I happen to be listing those godless liberal scholars who happen to agree with me, as opposed to those stellar experts on all things ancient, like Josh McDowell. 🙂
On my postings: the search function works extremely well. If you still have trouble with it, let me know.
Speaking of James White, have you ever found out why he was making references to the Quran and bringing the Quran up in your debate with him? It was about whether or not the Bible misquoted Jesus, and had nothing to do anything pertaining to the Quran or Islam in general.
To make me guilty by association (in his eyes). Somehow….
Evangelical Christians are psychotically obsessed with Islam and Muslims so much so it is almost stalkerish. They talk about us waaay more than we talk about them. Not sure why exactly are we the latest obsession and they’ll move on or is it another reason? Maybe that’s really just what keeps the faith alive having some demonic forces of darkness to evangelize to while feeling very ruptured in the clouds with angels. They strike me as the type that prefers that to the “earthly” aspects of Jesus’ teachings. Like feeding the poor and looking out for the sick and so on. But I could be wrong.
(not sure what happened to my earlier post)
Would the inhabitants of the Hellenistic urban region of the Decapolis have spoken primarily in Greek? The synoptic authors refer to Jesus taking his ministry to this region.
Great question. I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure Jesus spent much time there, but if he did, it seems unlikely he learned a foregin language for the occasion (i.e. if they didn’t speak Aramaic). (I visited Poland once and tried to speak Polish while there. The first night I went to a hotel and told the young woman behind the desk (as I realized later), something like: “Hello. I am America. I am here to sleep with you tonight.”) (My point: being someplace doesn’t mean speaking the language!)
I can imagine the expression on the woman’s face (she must be delighted).
Totally playing the devil’s advocate (and I have yet to read Chancey; it will at least be interesting to see quite how much (or how little) evidence there is):
1) How does the picture you paint of an unhellenized Galilee square with Matthew Richey’s conclusions in his recent article “The Use of Greek at Qumran: Manuscript and Epigraphic Evidence for a Marginalized Language” (in Dead Sea Discoveries 19.2), specifically that:
“Manuscript and epigraphic survivals demonstrate that the Covenanters’ use of Greek can be characterized as primarily occurring in the context of day-to-day economic transactions, business, and trade. The evidence suggests that, like the Bar Kokhba rebels, the Covenanters attempted to “purify” their discourse and way of life, but economic realities nevertheless encouraged periodic communication in the Greek language.”
Was Galilee and its tradesmen peculiarly backward, even compared to the Judean desert? Or is Richey simply wrong?
2) How does the picture of limited travel square with obligations for Temple sacrifices under Jewish Law (e.g. Luke 2:24, cf. Leviticus 12:8)? Yes, the Samaritans managed to substitute Mount Gerizim for Zion, presumably at least partially for convenience; but as I understand it, no-one argues that Jesus was anything other than Jewish. Was the Law in practice widely neglected in Galilee?
3) In any event, clearly some sort of continuum existed between the good Greek of an educated elite and total ignorance of Greek. For instance, the Book of Revelation could scarcely be held to be written in anything resembling educated Greek, but it is Greek nonetheless, the sort of Greek one could well envisage an educated elite exchanging a few smiles about. The elite vs everyone else distinction seems rather oversimplistic. Or is this a case for Galilee being somehow exceptionally backward again in its social structure?
4) A point has risen in the comment thread above about Paul’s languages. As far as I know, his citations of the Hebrew Bible are overwhelmingly from the LXX or a similar Greek text, inasmuch as they are distinct and free of paraphrase. Do we have any evidence for his speaking a Semitic language other than Acts 21:40, 22:2?
Thanks for all these. I’m afraid that the answers and issues are far too complex for a quick reply here. but yes, I would differentiate the literate Qumraners from the majority of Jews in Palestine; myunderstanding is that most Jews did not participate in Temple sacrifice; even the author of Revelation was far more highly educated that 97% of the people in Palestine; and no, I don’t think Paul could speak a semitic language (i.e., Acts is probalby not to be trusted on this point.
What language would Gamaliel have taught in? Supposedly Paul studied with him.
Aramaic. The claim that Paul studied with him is in Acts — Paul never says so. I don’t think it can be historically accurate. Acts says it in order to elevate Paul’s standing and claims to be a master of the Jewish tradition.
Dr. Ehrman,
In his recent book, The Triumph of Christianty, Rodney Stark proposes that Jesus was probably educated and may have been from a well-to-do family. If educated, he would have been literate, and very possibly could speak Greek.
Stark’s position is based first on the frequent references to Jesus as “rabbi” – which implies a education in the law. If indeed he debated the law with other rabbis and scribes, he would be ill equipped to engage them were he not educated. Stark suggests that an education may have required financial support from his family. Suportting further this affluence theory, he points out that Jesus’ four brothers sometimes travelled with him (why weren’t they earning a living?) Also, 2 Cor 8:9 suggests Jesus may have abandoned the privilege into which he was born. In addition, Jesus was said to associate with some wealthy individuals, like Zacchaeus and Jairus. Jesus spoke of giving away one’s wealth – he may have been saying “do as I have done.”
Anyway, that’s his position, and some highlights from his case. It’s at odds with yours, so I’m curious what you think of this proposal.
Yes, I think this is completely implausible. Stark is always fascinating, but hte problem is that he is not a scholar of antiquity (he is a sociologist), and so makes mistakes like this with disheartening regularity. Being a “rabbi” in teh first century was not what it was in later rabbinic times. And 2 Cor. 8:9 is not talking about Jesus being a rich fellow; the parallel is Phil. 2:6-11.
Dr Ehrman,
You probably know this, but Jesus and Pilate spoke in both Aramaic as well as Latin in “The Passion of the Christ”. If I remember correctly, Pilate started off speaking in Aramaic and only switched to Latin when Jesus did first. Pilate would have lived in Judea for ten years or so – do you think it out of the question that he would have picked up the local language during this time?
I don’t remember that. I thought their entire conversation was Latin. But I haven’t seen teh movie for a while.
In “Marginal Jew: Vol1” published in 1991, John Meier – known for his meticulous scholarship – says we cannot be absolute sure of the language commonly used by ordinary Jews in Palestine. He also says scholars are divided on whether Jesus regularly spoke Greek (R.O.P. Taylor, A.W Argyle), Aramaic (Joseph Fitzmyer) or Hebrew (Harris Birkeland). My understanding is that pretty much all scholars nowadays agree on Aramaic. Has the scholarly consensus on the question of the languages Jesus could speak, changed significantly in the past 2 decades?
Is scholarship now largely persuaded by Mark Chancey’s thesis that Jesus most certainly could not speak Greek?
I had forgotten that Meier wrote that. Yes, I’d say the majority of scholars today think Jesus spoke in Aramaic. I don’t know what most think about Jesus and Greek — it might be a more even split.
I think the question that should be asked is; did the ancients believe Jesus could speak Greek? If so, what evidence is there to the positive & what evidence is there to the negative? Not that there isn’t any negative evidence, I just do not know of any. So I will list what I do know & anyone who has any to the contrary feel free to present it.
In the Recognitions of Clement 5.9, it states that while speaking in a non-native tongue Jesus used the Aramaic word “mammon” instead of the Greek word for “riches”.
Rec. 5.9 “Wherefore also the true Prophet, when He was present with us, and saw some rich men negligent with respect to the worship of God, thus unfolded the truth of this matter: ‘No one,’ said He, ‘can serve two masters; ye cannot serve God and mammon; calling riches, in the language of His country, mammon.
The other side of the coin would be, Clement did not write the Recognitions & someone else fabricated them under his name. If this be so, then what purpose would it be for this unknown author to fabricate the above citation other than to legitimize his work? The legitimation being the author knew it was well believed in his time Jesus spoke Greek.
Is there any logical reason Jesus would use a native word while speaking in a non-native language? Anyone who has spent any time around non-native people have witnessed their use of native words when speaking in a non-native tongue. Especially when referring to another native persons name, place, etc, and/or because they are not quite fluent in the non-native language they are speaking, as in those who are uneducated as Jesus & his apostles.
The above example given of Jesus using a native word while speaking in a non-native language, & the author of the Recognitions explanation of the word, would also explain why in the N.T. you have a number of verses that include an “interpretation” by the author because the speaker he is quoting used a native word instead of a non-native word.
The stories in the gospels about Pilate’s chat with Jesus aren’t credible. Jesus’ disciples weren’t witnesses to Pilate’s meeting with Jesus. So, how would the gospel writers have gotten any information about such a meeting? Jesus’ followers wouldn’t have had any information about Pilate’s encounter with Jesus. They wouldn’t even have known whether such an encounter occurred. So, it’s pointless to wonder about what language Pilate and Jesus spoke to each other.
The gospels’ accounts (all of which are different) of Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus are just story-telling — myths and legends that were fabricated later. No one could have had a clue about what happened to Jesus between the time of his arrest and his crucifixion. His followers simply filled in the details with their imaginations. I’m surprised that some scholars take all this so seriously, as if Pilate’s questioning of Jesus is a fact. I think some scholars must be rather gullible to accept these kinds of tall tales in the gospels.
Is there proof that Peshitta Aramaic New Testament manuscripts are translations of an earlier Greek text?
Linguists are confident about this one….
is there a really good book on the subject that you can recommend?
Sorry — on what subject?
the subject of greek primacy and how all the aramaic new testament manuscripts are translations of the earlier Greek manuscripts….also if the New Testament books were writtein in Greek why did the early Church fathers would believe certain New Testament books were written in what they called “Hebrew”?
Did they? Whom are you thinking of, and what did they say exactly?
/Did they? Whom are you thinking of, and what did they say exactly?/
For some reason I wasn’t able to respond back to your comment, so I am making this separate post. So to answer your question/s, here are a list of quotations from church fathers from this pdf file link: aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20History.pdf (Note: capitalization emphasis are mine):
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews IN THEIR OWN DIALECT while Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and
interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord,
who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
– Irenaeus (d. by 200)
“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned
by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of
Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he COMPOSED IT IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you,saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.””
– Origen at Alexandria (185-232)
“About that time, Pantaenus (second century), a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the
school of the faithful in Alexandria. A school of sacred learning, which continues to our day, was established there in ancient times, and as we have been informed, was managed by men of great ability and zeal for divine things. Among these it is reported that Pantaenus was at that time especially conspicuous, as he had been educated in the philosophical system of those called Stoics. They say that he displayed such zeal for the divine Word, that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in the East, and was sent as far as India. For indeed there were still many evangelists of the Word who sought earnestly to use their inspired zeal, after the examples of the apostles, for the increase and building up of the Divine Word. Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, which they had preserved till that time. After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally became the head of the school at Alexandria, and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing.”
– Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book V, CHAPTER 10
“For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel TO WRITING HIS NAME, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.” – Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, CHAPTER 24
“Since, in the beginning of this work, we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and
writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the
canonical books, and since Irenaeus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the
sacred Gospels: Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE” – Eusebius of
Caesarea, Church History, Book V, CHAPTER 8
“For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews IN THE LANGUAGE OF HIS COUNTRY; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle.” – Eusebius (4th Cent.); Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3
“He (Paul) being a Hebrew WROTE IN HEBREW, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently TURNED INTO GREEK.”
– Jerome (4th Cent.); Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V
“To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the
disputed books, — I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of
Peter. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGES but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.”
– Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book VI, CHAPTER 14
So Matthew and the book of Hebrews. Yes, that’s right. But the earliest reference is Irenaeus — a full hundred years after the fact — and then it gtoes up to Jerome at the end of the fourth century. They simply didn’t know. There’s no way that either one could have been written in Hebrew (or even Aramaic), as modern linguistic analyses have shown.
From the same online source, there is a quote from Papias:
“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he
remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him…..Matthew put together the oracles IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” – Fragments of Papias (60-130CE) VI.
Yes indeed. In several of my publications I explain why Papias almost certainly is not referring to “our” Matthew, but to something else.
Where can I find these publications? Or are you alluding to one of your books?
Sorry — I don’t know which publications you’re referring to.
/Yes indeed. In several of my publications I explain why Papias almost certainly is not referring to “our” Matthew, but to something else./
Yes Professor, and I was wondering if you could tell me what specific publications are those and where can I access them?
One place is Jesus Interrupted, pp. 107-10.
Thank you very much! I know you have a blog article titled “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”, I was wondering if you plan on writing a book on the topic? OR a book on the topic of Greek primacy?
Nope!
Does Jesus quote from the LXX? If so, isn’t that evidence enough that Jesus could (at the very least) read Greek?
No, Jesus did not speak Greek.
Hi Bart- Does the fact that a presumably culturally Jewish linguistically Aramaic man like the apostle Andrew was given a Greek name, suggest that Greek influence and presumably the language was widespread?
It’s a great question. I’ve never been completely sure how to answer it, in part because I’m not sure where he was actually from. (There were a couple of cities in Galilee that were heavily Hellenized, particularly Sepphoris and Tiberias)
Thanks Bart for the reply. New to the blog and wading through lots of stuff. Absolutely love what you’re doing!
What language did Pilate & Jesus communicate in at the trial? And what evidence is there for your answer.
My view is that it is almost impossible to imagine them sharing a language. As someone from a very small hamlet in rural Galilee, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic; Pilate would have spoken Latin and Greek. They either had a translator or they did not actually speak with one another.
Coming to this very late I agree with Dr Ehrman’s last comment and sincerely doubt there was any “trial”. An interrogation before the governor was not quite the same thing and in Roman law all men were not equal. For a man of Jesus’ background if the accused made no defence or was silent guilt was assumed, sentence was given, and execution swiftly followed.
Speaking as a geologist/geochemist who has done a fair amount of fieldwork across the world: The proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth (<4 miles) means that Jesus probably visited Sepphoris regularly, making it likely that Jesus knew Greek.
Most modern-day Americans cannot imagine walking 4 miles on an occasional basis, let alone a regular basis. But people in the ancient world (or even a century ago) would have seen a 4 mile walk as no big deal. Especially when the nearest market (or major attraction) happens to be 4 miles away. Sepphoris was that place to Jesus. And the town would have been impossible to ignore from Nazareth, given its prominent hilltop location.
When I first moved to Colorado, I would have balked at the idea of hiking 2-4 miles to get to an interesting destination for a picnic. Now such a hike would strike me as invigorating rather than as daunting. Jesus must have been similarly accustomed to hiking — if not more so. Thus the journey from Nazareth to Sepphoris would have been trivial to him. So Jesus would have regularly interacted with Greek speakers. He must have known some conversational Greek as a result.
Ok so I retract most of my previous claims. My knowledge was based on an old understanding of the stratigraphy of Sepphoris. Most of the Greco-Roman influence is 2nd century, not the 1st.
But I still have a hard time believing that Jesus wouldn’t have visited the site in the 1st century. Even though most poor people tended to stay put, we know that Jesus spent a lot of time wandering Galilee later in life. So why wouldn’t he have visited the most prominent landmark in his vicinity?