(By Felicia Trecek / June 6, 2008 - updated January 2011)
There is a misconception going about in the religious circles that Jesus/Yahushua spoke Hebrew to the common people. He did not. He spoke Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the day. The information that is presented on the behalf of the believers who support this false notion is misleading. I'm not saying that it is done on purpose, however. But; when only partial information is presented, its easy to make an incorrect conclusion.
Many people base their idea that Christ spoke Hebrew to the common people on citations of some early NT church fathers. Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus (for example) wrote that the epistle of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Thus, they conclude that Christ spoke Hebrew. This is not proof that Christ spoke Hebrew. I will explain.
Since said people quote the early NT fathers, they need to be consistent with their quotes. In other words, they shouldn't be selective in what they quote. For example: Irenaeus (the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of apostle John) made a distinction between the Hebrew language and the "Jewish" language. He wrote the following regarding the two languages when he addressed the definition of the word "mammon."--->
"For mammon is, according to the Jewish language, which the Samaritans do also use, a covetous man, and one who wishes to have more than he ought to have. But according to the Hebrew, it is by the addition of a syllable (adjunctive) called Mamuel, and signifies gulosum, that is, one whose gullet is insatiable."
---Chapter 8:1 in book 3 of "Against Heresies, works of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus made another distinction between the Jewish language and the Hebrew langauge in Book 2, Chapter XXXV of "Against Heresies."
Irenaeus clearly made a distinction between the language the Jews spoke verses the Hebrew language. Henceforth, whether or not there actually was a Hebrew Matthew gospel doesn't prove that the Jews, nor Christ spoke Hebrew during the first century. I'll give a parallel fictitious example of what I mean. Let's say that Irenaeus wrote this: the trees were green when Susie Whoever walked the road. Should everyone automatically conclude that the time period was spring or summer? Would this be an accurate conclusion? Of course not. The season could have been during the winter because the trees might have been evergreen trees. Therefore, jumping to conclusions without taking more facts into consideration more times than not leads to false conclusions.
When all the known facts are compiled, we can rightly determine that Christ spoke Aramaic to the common people. This; however, doesn't negate the fact that Christ could speak to anyone in their own language. He had the full measure of the Spirit. He possessed wisdom, and He amazed the temple teachers while He was yet a child. (Ref: Luke 2:46-48,52, Luke 4:1)
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ARAMAIC WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE DAY
I e-mailed and asked a man by the name of Fred P. Miller - one of the many translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls - why the name "Joshua", the son of Nun, was written differently in Nehemiah 8:17 than in any other place in the bible. Fred told me he thought it was due to the Aramaic language influence since the Jews who returned from Babylon spoke and wrote Aramaic. Some words are similar, but others are not. Fred wrote me some examples. One example is ABIB/AVIV. He said that ABIB/AVIV is the Hebrew name of the first month, but NISAN is the Aramaic name for the first month. (I think most people know this one already.)
For another example, Fred wrote me this: "Every quotation of Jesus like "Talitha qumi" or "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" that Jesus is cited as saying is the Aramaic language and not the Hebrew." (Ref: Mark 5:41, Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46)
Many words in the New Testament are transliterations from the Aramaic. The following are some examples, minus the example of Christ's words that I already gave. Peter's name Cephas is from 'kepha' (rock); Thomas is from 'toma' (twin). 'Bar' the Aramaic word for (son) occurs in such names as Bartholomew, Bar- Jonas, Barabbas and Bartimaeus. (The Hebrew word for son is 'ben' ). Golgotha is from 'golgolta' (skull); and Maranatha comes from 'maran' (our Lord) and 'eta' (come).
OLD TESTAMENT PROOF
For those of you that want an explicit scripture in the OT that demonstrates that the Israelites were not speaking Hebrew when they returned from Babylon and thereafter, please read Nehemiah 8. The people - at that time - were ignorant of the law - and Nehemiah and Ezra read the book of the law to them. HOWEVER, they had to translate the Hebrew language (v:7-8) to the people so that they could understand the teaching.
Some time after the exile of the Jews to Babylon, Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, called TARGUMS, were made for those who understood the Aramaic language better than the Hebrew language. We have targums (translation/commentaries) for all of the Old Testament books except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The earliest extant targums are from Qumran on the Dead Sea. An extensive targum on portions of Job came from one cave and dates from 150-100 BC. (Before Christ!)
THE TWO ALPHABETS
The alphabet of the two languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) look almost identical. And, all of the Aramaic letters represent consonants as like the Hebrew letters do. (Please see attached chart on the right.)
Biblical Aramaic, Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects and the Aramaic language of the Talmud are written in the Hebrew alphabet. Syriac and Christian Neo-Aramaic dialects are written in the Syriac alphabet.
For a comparison: The English language is actually a Germanic language; however, English and German are not the same language. Although, German and English are sisters. And, I can use English letters to write a German sentence. For example: "Hallo, wie geht es Ihnen?" means, "Hi, how are you?".
Aramaic is known as a Jewish language, but Aramaic is not another name for the Hebrew language. Although, some call it as such. Aramaic is a close sister of Hebrew, and it is akin to and a derivative of the Phoenician alphabet/language. The (older) ancient Paleo-Hebrew is closer in form to that of the Phoenician alphabet. In other words, both languages - Hebrew and Aramaic - are descendants from the Phoenician language. Ironically, the Greek alphabet, is also a descendant of Phoenician, but the script was modified to represent vowel phonemes.
Aramaic and Hebrew languages are not the same language, but are sisters. And, the Aramaic language can be written using the Hebrew alphabet just as I can write something in German using the English letters/alphabet.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
MIDDLE ARAMAIC (200 BC - 200 AD or 250 AD). After Alexander the Great had conquered the Near East and the Greek language had spread widely, various local dialects of Aramaic developed. From this period comes the Aramaic of the New Testament, of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Bar Cochba texts, of the Nabateans and of the Palmyreneans.
LATE ARAMAIC (AD 200-700). In this era the western branch of Aramaic included Samaritan, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic; the eastern branch included Syriac, Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic and Mandaic.
For further historical information on the Aramaic language, click here.
ARTIFACT PROOF:
For those of you that might be interested: A first century Christian baptismal grotto was discovered in the Judean Desert with the saying, "For the Oil of the Spirit" written in Aramaic. Click here to see this artifact.
NT WRITERS SPEAK OF THE "HEBREW" LANGAUAGE
So why does the NT gospel writers speak of the "Hebrew" language as if it was the language spoken during the time of Christ? For examples: Luke 23:38 and John 19:20. These scriptures tell us that the sign posted above Christ on the cross was written in the "Hebrew", "Greek" and "Roman" languages. According to Strong's Concordance, the word "Hebrew" found in Luke 23:38 means just that, "Hebrew" and is Strong's #G1444. AND, there isn't any other #G1444 in the entire NT. That's it. But, the word "Hebrew" found in John 19:20 is Strong's #G1447 and pertains to the Chaldee tongue. AND, this Strong's #G1447 is found in several other places in the NT. The following scriptures contain #G1447
--John 5:2
--John 19:13
--John 19:17
--John 19:20
--Rev 9:11
--Rev 16:16
The apostle John made a distinction in his use of the word "Hebrew". With this in mind, consider this: The apostle John said that the sign above Christ's head was also written in "ROMAN". Technically, the Roman language was actually the GREEK language. Restated; the Greek language was identified when it was referred to as the Roman language. Likewise: the NT writers called the language that the Jews spoke, "Hebrew" since the Jews were Hebrew people. So, it is a logical conclusion that the Apostle John and other NT writers were actually referring to the (Aramaic) langauge spoken by the Hebrews rather than the Hebrew langauge itself. The solid fact remains: In the NT, Christ was quoted speaking Aramaic rather than Hebrew. (Ref: Mark 5:41, Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46).
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above facts, Aramaic is it's own distinct language, and it can be written with the Hebrew letters. And, during the time of Christ - the first century - the common Jewish people were not speaking Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic.
For further information, read the article in the "Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land."
