Does Jesus speak Greek?

[JoeyKnothead]

I've heard it on more'n one occassion that English language bibles are faulty, 'cause they ain't written in the "original" Greek.

Which leads me to ask for debate:


Did Jesus speak Greek?

If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?

If a translation is faulty, should it be relied upon to make life impacting decisions?

[catnip]

[Replying to post 8 by catnip]

He'd have to be born under a rock not to know some Greek. But his Greek was poor, and he relied on Paul and probably others.

He didn't know Paul in life.

Evidently, I stand corrected on his Hebrew.

Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages. Hebrew, at some point, was relegated to the study of the ancient scriptures and Aramaic won out.

If we believe anything about a man who was more likely the subversive propaganda of a pagan nation, then he was a real demi-god.

I really don't know what you are getting at here. He might have become a demi-god when his story was taken up by the Greeks and Romans. But there was certainly a Jerusalem contingent that remained after him and James the brother of Jesus was the "bishop of bishops" according to Pope Clement I. I think their beliefs were persecuted out of existence later on.

Again, you have the rest of us at a disadvantage discussing with you. You seem to reject the majority of Judeo-Christianity, yet expect us to discuss those views as if they were Christian.

I don't reject Judeo-Christianity at all. I have searched long and hard in what we know and have handed down as far as the ancient past for the religion that was initially established because, by and large, it was changed early on. The various early churches in the region of Israel and the Orthodox seem to have the best hold on the early church and its point of view and teachings. The Catholic a little less so having adopted quite a number of, shall I call them, myths? The Syrian seems to be the best preserved. The Etheopian is very interesting. It was a mystical religion early on. We do have evidence of that and they collaborated with the Jews.

My problem is that what is being taught in some "churches" these days is a far cry from the original faith. If anything, I support efforts to get back to the original basic belief and doctrine of the faith. And I loathe the way so many here are fixated on the latest, most aberrant version of the Christian faith in the world today and claim that is Christianity. Y'all don't even recognize Christianity!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

Some questions are rhetorical and that is how I took your third question.

But I didn't mean it as a rhetorical question, so I'll ask again...


If a translation is faulty, should it be relied upon to make life impacting decisions?

The evidence is not at all unlikely. I can't figure out how biblical scholars can make such a claim.

I went on what you said...

...
If his father was a "carpenter" his employment was most likely provided by the Romans. (Note that evidence for an occupied town in the location of Nazareth in the early 1st Century is unlikely as it was destroyed by the Assyrians in the second century, BCE.)
...

Are you implying Jesus worked in this occupied town in the location of Nazareth (where he'd speak Greek)?

JLB just included a lot of proofs that I do agree with from the scriptures themselves.

What other references can be mustered here, other'n these scriptures?

But it can discerned by the composition of the population in the region at the time. The Greeks had been there for three-hundred years. The only very early grave-sites found in Nazereth dating from the 1st Century were all Greek. Etc. I had a long list of proofs.

I can dig that.

We still have the issue of a native speaker of Aramaic translating his own notions into Greek.

Why is it important to you in particular? What does it prove to you?

What's been proven?

All I see are assertions with absolutely no supporting documentation.

Not if he learned it in early childhood.

What does this have to do with translating the Bible, however? See, I don't see it as being related. Jesus didn't interpret the Bible for publication.

As presented in the OP, I note many folks say the English language bible can't be trusted, because it's a translation of Greek.

I then notice that most folks say Jesus spoke Aramaic, and how that Aramaic would have to be translated into Greek.

I stated several facts. Perhaps you should reread it instead of making me repeat myself. It has been more than a decade since I did the research and my notes are long gone as well as the books that I used.

What facts?

I see a bunch of assertions.

Lacking supporting documentation - such you now say are "long gone", why should we accept your assertions to be fact?

The New Testament does not claim he spoke Greek. Nor does it say he didn't. The sources to make an educated guess are found outside of scripture as far as the likelihood that Jews in the region of Galilee at the time spoke Greek.

I'll show ya what I'm getting at with supporting documentation, as I note the following references should be examined before any firm conclusions are made...

Google search for what language did Jesus speak...

Returns Aramaic at the top of the list, linked to Wikipedia.

From the wiki above...

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]

Aramaic was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722"330 BC) and remained a common language of the region in the first century AD. In spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD[3] and would remain so until the Islamic conquests in the seventh century.[4][5]

So here's my source, faulty as it may be, to say that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

In fact, that article also notes...

According to Hebrew historian Josephus, Greek was not spoken in first century Palestine. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek.[8]

Josephus wrote:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations,...
...
...

With that in mind, I challenge you to offer something in support of a Greek speaking Jesus other'n your a-swearin' up and down it's so.

The New Testament does not claim he spoke Greek. Nor does it say he didn't. The sources to make an educated guess are found outside of scripture as far as the likelihood that Jews in the region of Galilee at the time spoke Greek.

Please see my source above, and present your sources / supporting documentation for comparison.

I think I am getting the gist of what you are trying to claim. IF Jesus spoke Greek, the things he said that don't translate well to Aramaic, might still have been said by him. But it may also be true that later writers writing in Greek summed up what Jesus said in Greek. Either way, the source may still have been Jesus himself.

Which still doesn't help us to determine if his translations were accurate - even if we accept he spoke Greek - which I'm not so sure you've shown is the case.

Yes, he laughs at himself quite often for using it. Most of us know that idioms do not translate well.

Nor would it seem, does the Greek

[liamconnor]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead]

Let's use some common sense:

Every single freshman philosophy course anywhere will require you to read Plato, and you will probably be reading it in an English translation. From this we should conclude which of the following:

1) You have zero idea what Plato (or Socrates) thought. In fact, the mere fact that you read it in a translation is sufficient grounds for assuming you got the OPPOSITE meaning of everything Plato stood for. The most honest translation in English of the first line of Crito would be "blablablablabl, blablablab, ablalblaksdjfkajsd".

2) Greek and English are equivalent. Not only do you understand perfectly the gist of Plato, but all the nuances and play on words and cultural aspects are laid open before you. The difference between English and Greek is reducible to characters and sounds; nothing conceptual.

3) The gist of Plato is conveyed in the English; there are matters of definition which have escaped you. Scholars immersed in the culture and language of Plato continue to uncover and explain aspects lost in translation. You will miss puns, play on words, and perhaps come across an English word that is philosophically loaded and perhaps misleading, but you still have access to Plato in general.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 8 by catnip]

He'd have to be born under a rock not to know some Greek. But his Greek was poor, and he relied on Paul and probably others.

He didn't know Paul in life.

Evidently, I stand corrected on his Hebrew.

Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages. Hebrew, at some point, was relegated to the study of the ancient scriptures and Aramaic won out.

If we believe anything about a man who was more likely the subversive propaganda of a pagan nation, then he was a real demi-god.

I really don't know what you are getting at here. He might have become a demi-god when his story was taken up by the Greeks and Romans. But there was certainly a Jerusalem contingent that remained after him and James the brother of Jesus was the "bishop of bishops" according to Pope Clement I. I think their beliefs were persecuted out of existence later on.

Again, you have the rest of us at a disadvantage discussing with you. You seem to reject the majority of Judeo-Christianity, yet expect us to discuss those views as if they were Christian.

I don't reject Judeo-Christianity at all. I have searched long and hard in what we know and have handed down as far as the ancient past for the religion that was initially established because, by and large, it was changed early on. The various early churches in the region of Israel and the Orthodox seem to have the best hold on the early church and its point of view and teachings. The Catholic a little less so having adopted quite a number of, shall I call them, myths? The Syrian seems to be the best preserved. The Etheopian is very interesting. It was a mystical religion early on. We do have evidence of that and they collaborated with the Jews.

My problem is that what is being taught in some "churches" these days is a far cry from the original faith. If anything, I support efforts to get back to the original basic belief and doctrine of the faith. And I loathe the way so many here are fixated on the latest, most aberrant version of the Christian faith in the world today and claim that is Christianity. Y'all don't even recognize Christianity!

Your final paragraph here interests me a great deal.........could you expand on what basic doctrine you would subscribe to as the original faith?.............I'd be interested to see what that is compared to what is preached today......

[JLB32168]

That just adds on another layer of translation.

You OP asked if the NT translated Christs Aramaic correctly. His quoting of the LXX, residing in Egypt where the Jewish community spoke Greek, his easy travel through the Decapolis (Ten Cities in Greek), is ease with speaking to the Temple priests who were Hellenophiles that preferred Greek culture, norms, mores, (and language) " all of these things suggest that he didnt speak Aramaic but Greek; therefore, the NT wouldnt be a translation of his alleged Aramaic words. Instead, it would be a direct record of what he actually said since he was speaking Greek most of the time.

Youre functioning under a presupposition that is questionable " that He was a native Aramaic speaker that would have required a translator into Greek. You need to prove that his preferred language was Aramaic or that his only language was Aramaic and the evidence simply isn't on that side. Instead, the evidence suggests Christ spoke either both Aramaic and Greek, or he spoke Greek exclusively.

Your notion here goes against a lot of scholarship that says Jesus spoke Aramaic, and relies, by your own admittance, on an "apparently", which is not an objective term.

What scholarship says that Jesus spoke Aramaic exclusively or that it was his preferred language " if he spoke it at all?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

Let's use some common sense:

That wreaks of an argumentum ad populum.

Every single freshman philosophy course anywhere will require you to read Plato, and you will probably be reading it in an English translation. From this we should conclude which of the following:

1) You have zero idea what Plato (or Socrates) thought. In fact, the mere fact that you read it in a translation is sufficient grounds for assuming you got the OPPOSITE meaning of everything Plato stood for. The most honest translation in English of the first line of Crito would be "blablablablabl, blablablab, ablalblaksdjfkajsd".

This OP is concerned with translations of Jesus' teachings, not Plato's.

To accept the translations of one person's notions should not require us to accept the translations of another'ns.

>snip remainder<

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

You OP asked if the NT translated Christs Aramaic correctly. His quoting of the LXX, residing in Egypt where the Jewish community spoke Greek, his easy travel through the Decapolis (Ten Cities in Greek), is ease with speaking to the Temple priests who were Hellenophiles that preferred Greek culture, norms, mores, (and language) " all of these things suggest that he didnt speak Aramaic but Greek; therefore, the NT wouldnt be a translation of his alleged Aramaic words. Instead, it would be a direct record of what he actually said since he was speaking Greek most of the time.

While stationed in Germany, I freely travelled to multiple cities and even countries. Am I now fluent in the German, or other languages? We have nothing but assertions so far to consider whether Jesus could even speak Greek, much less translate from his native Aramaic into it.

Youre functioning under a presupposition that is questionable " that He was a native Aramaic speaker that would have required a translator into Greek. You need to prove that his preferred language was Aramaic or that his only language was Aramaic and the evidence simply isn't on that side. Instead, the evidence suggests Christ spoke either both Aramaic and Greek, or he spoke Greek exclusively.

What scholarship says that Jesus spoke Aramaic exclusively or that it was his preferred language " if he spoke it at all?

Please refer to my Post 12, where I offered a source for the Aramaic claim - no matter how faulty that source may be. I offered something.

What source/s have you offered?

[JLB32168]

While stationed in Germany, I freely travelled to multiple cities and even countries. Am I now fluent in the German, or other languages?

While living in the American SE, I travelled through multiple states. I never spoke another language. Upon moving to SW Florida and living there for only ten years, I became fluent in Spanish. According to the text, Christ lived in Egypt at the beginning of his life " three years. He then lived in an area of Judaea for 25+ years where Greek was common if not exclusively heard (Galilee bordered Samaria.) It certainly had been for the previous 200 years when the area was occupied by the Greek Empire.

We have nothing but assertions so far to consider whether Jesus could even speak Greek, much less translate from his native Aramaic into it.

I have taught special education where some of our clients had Downs Syndrome and couldnt read or write but living in SE FL, they were bilingual. If people with intellectual disabilities are able to be bilingual then certainly a businessman living for 3+ years in a exclusively Greek speaking area and 25+ years in an area were Greek was a common language, could do the same. Of course, this all presupposes that Aramaic was the home language. One might say that we have nothing but assertions so that that Jesus could even speak Aramaic.

What source/s have you offered?

As I have said (and which you couldnt bother to consider since it runs counter to your argument) Christ apparently was quite able to fascinate the Hellenophiles of the temple. He was able to converse with Pilate and several Centurions. He was able to speak with Samarians (upon whose border he lived) which had become Hellenistic Greek speakers in 332 BC when thousands of Macedonian soldiers were settled there following a revolt. You need to go back to the drawing board and look at the evidence because your point demands that Christ didnt speak a lick of Greek and that is simply an untenable assertion to make. If anything, one may argue with more success that his home language was Greek.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

While living in the American SE, I travelled through multiple states. I never spoke another language. Upon moving to SW Florida and living there for only ten years, I became fluent in Spanish. According to the text, Christ lived in Egypt at the beginning of his life " three years.

So Jesus speaks Spanish?

Our ability to learn a language does not show Jesus ever learned Greek, much less that his translation from his native Aramaic into Greek is accurate.

He then lived in an area of Judaea for 25+ years where Greek was common if not exclusively heard (Galilee bordered Samaria.) It certainly had been for the previous 200 years when the area was occupied by the Greek Empire.

My source says otherwise.

All you're doing is making assertions without providing documentary / confirmatory data in support. Granted, reasonable and logical arguments are plenty fair, but my source says you're wrong.

You've done nothing to invalidate my source.

As I have said (and which you couldnt bother to consider since it runs counter to your argument) Christ apparently was quite able to fascinate the Hellenophiles of the temple.

So you claim.

What confirmatory data / sources can you bring to the issue?

He was able to converse with Pilate and several Centurions. He was able to speak with Samarians (upon whose border he lived) which had become Hellenistic Greek speakers in 332 BC when thousands of Macedonian soldiers were settled there following a revolt.

So you claim.

What confirmatory data / sources can you bring to the issue?

You've got assertin' down like a pro, what ya ain't got down is the offering of supporting documention / data.

You need to go back to the drawing board and look at the evidence because your point demands that Christ didnt speak a lick of Greek and that is simply an untenable assertion to make. If anything, one may argue with more success that his home language was Greek.

Only don't it beat all, you think that to "successfully" argue a point, all ya gotta do is swear up and down it's true.

I've presented my source for all to consider. Why might it be that you're incapable of, or simply can't bring it upon yourself to offer sources in support of your "successful argument" for analysis?


My point is, as presented in the OP, that if translations are faulty, should we make life affecting decisions based on 'em?

A question in the OP you seem reticent to consider, much less answer.

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

I think I can put this to rest.
We are 100% certain he could speak with his mom and step father.

They spoke Aramaic and that't that, anyway.

He spoke with Romans, so he knew Latin. Pilate didn't learn Aramaic, of this we can be sure.

He'd have to live underneath a rock to not know some Greek. But he was also challenged to read it.

His culture was Hebrew, and he is said to have taught himself Hebrew mysteries.

Of course, except for mom and pop, these are all from stories about stories.

So the above makes sense.

He knew mom and dad's language. He knew the language of the Roman oppressors. He assimilated Hebrew, he would have to be a blithering idiot not to absorb some Greek.