What language did Jesus really speak

Here our goal is to investigate the language of Jesus Christ. Did he just speak Aramaic? For some strange reason Muslims want to just make Jesus Unilingual. Why, I don't know. Lets look at Osama's posting about what language Jesus spoke:

It's very important to know that the Hebrew and Greek letters that were found, are only translations that were written 150 to 300 years after Jesus.  It is important to know that Jesus did not speak Greek.  So therefore, the Greek letters are nothing but a translation (which could have many faults in it) from Aramaic to Greek.  Same applies to Hebrew.  When you translate a doctrine that was written hundreds of years after the fact into another language, then you can't really claim that your sources are 100% correct.  As a matter of a fact, claiming 50% would be even too much.

Actually this is the furthest thing from the truth, because for one thing there is no single piece of Gospel in Hebrew and one must wonder why if Aramaic was the only language Jesus spoke, how come there is no Aramaic fragments of the Gospels in Aramaic? Also The gospels weren't translated hundreds of years after Jesus, we have copies of the NT which date approximately 15-20 years after the authors of scripture originally penned the autographs.

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts):

Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD coexistent

John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years

Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years

Chester Beatty Papyri (NT) 1st cen. 200 AD 150 years

Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st cen. 200 AD 150 years

Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st cen. 325-350 AD 275-300 years

Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st cen. 350 AD 300 years

Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st cen. 400 AD 350 years

Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies. Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230. Some of the most important MSS include:

The John Ryland Papyri:

Manuscript portions of the Gospel of John, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and believed to be the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original.

Lukan Papyrus:

"The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!"

Magdelene Manuscript:

"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!"

"What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript... this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD)."

Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Curator of the British Museum, says

"The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship [London: John Murray, 1948], 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 49)

Add to this list the discovery of several NT quotations found in Qumran:

"Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran... as a piece of the Gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...

Mark 4:28 7Q6 A.D. 50

Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D?

Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50

Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50

Acts 27:38 7Q6 A.D. 60+

Rom. 5:11, 12 7Q9 A.D 70+

1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1-3 7Q4 A.D. 70+

2 Peter 1:15 7Q10 A.D. 70+

James 1:23, 24 7Q8 A.D. 70+

"... Mark and Acts must have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events. There would be no time for mythological embellishment of the records... They must be accepted as historical... There would hardly be time for a predecessor series of Q manuscripts... And since these manuscripts are not originals but copies, parts of the New Testament would be shown to have been copied and disseminated during the lives of the writers. No first-century date allows time for myths or legends to creep into the stories about Jesus." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics [Baker Books, Grand Rapids; 1999], p. 530)

Hence, further research confirms O'Callahan's theories which establish beyond any reasonable doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Even without these discoveries, the evidence from the Patristic writings and MSS overwhelmingly supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical text.

Patristic writings also solidify the case for the preservation of the NT text and its early composition, as well as the extensive usage of the New Testament, especially that of the four Gospels:

"Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and 325 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339...) Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul's Epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive." (Norm Geisler, pp. 529-530)

Osama's theories hold no weight whatsoever and it explains why you would find accusations without any legitamate hardcore references on his site. Just visit answering Christianty and you will see what I am talking about. Osama derives most of his thinking from Al-Kahdi and Shabbir Ally, he isn't original an he obviously can't prove that the Bible is corrupt with his baseless words.

Aramaic Language, Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Originally the language of the Aramaeans (see Aram), it was used, in many dialectical forms, in Mesopotamia and Syria before 1000BC and later became the lingua franca of the Middle East (see Assyro-Babylonian Language). Aramaic survived the fall of Nineveh (612BC) and Babylon (539BC) and remained the official language of the Persian Empire (539-337BC). Ancient inscriptions in Aramaic have been found over a vast area extending from Egypt to China.

Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

Aramaic began to decline in the 7th century AD. Aramaic survives today in Eastern and Western dialects, mostly as the language of Christians living in a few scattered communities in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.

(From Encarta Encyclopedia )

We know that Jesus preached in Aramaic, but one thing must be stated. The Jews new Aramaic but however, Greek was also a widespoken language and replaced Aramaic around Jesus time!!

"… Just as the Jews had abandoned their native Hebrew tongue for Aramaic in the Near East, so they abandoned the Aramaic in favor of Greek in such Hellenistic centers as Alexandria, Egypt. During the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the Jews were shown considerable favor. In fact, Alexander was sympathetic towards the Jews as a result of their policies toward him in the siege of Tyre (322 B.C.). He has even reported to have traveled to Jerusalem to do homage to their God. As he conquered new lands, he built new cities, which frequently had Jewish inhabitants, and frequently named them Alexandria.

After his great conquests and sudden death, Alexander's empire was divided into several dynasties: Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seleucid Dynasty in Asia Minor, and Antigonid Macedonia, as well as several minor kingdoms. It was in Ptolemaic Egypt, named after Ptolemy I Soter, son of Lagus, that many Jews resided, in the city of Alexandria. Ptolemy I was governor of Egypt from 323 to 305, when he became king and reigned until his death in 285. He was succeeded by his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), who followed the Pharaonic practice of marrying his sister, Arsinoe II.

It was during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus that full political and religious rights were granted to the Jews. Egypt also underwent a tremendous cultural and educational program under the patronage of Arsinoe II, spearheaded by the founding of the Museum at Alexandria and the translation of the great works into Greek. It was in that period (c. 250- c. 150 B.C.), that the Hebrew Old Testament was being translated into Greek- the first time it had ever been extensively translated. The leaders of Alexandrian Jewry had a standard Greek version produced, known as the LXX, the Greek word for 'seventy.' It was undoubtedly translated during the third and/or second centuries B.C. and it was purported to have been written as early as the time of Ptolemy II in a Letter of Aristeas to Philocartes (c. 130-100 B.C.)."

The Letter of Aristeas relates that the librarian at Alexandria persuaded Ptolemy to translate the Torah into Greek for use by Alexandrian Jews. As a result six translators were selected from each of the twelve tribes, and the translation was completed in just seventy-two days. The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious, but th letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for the use of Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria." (Norm Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible- Revised and Expanded [Moody Press, Chicago 1986],, pp. 503-504)

Many Jews did speak Hebrew along with Aramaic and Greek. It was the Jews of the Dispersion who could no longer read or speak Hebrew. Jesus wasn't a Jew of Dispersion, which shows that he did know how to speak Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew along with even Latin. Jesus knew Hebrew because he was a Jewish Rabbi which is verfied by this verse:

"Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, 'What do you want?' They said, 'Rabbi' (which means Teacher), 'where are you staying?'" John 1:38

One must ask Osama and any other Muslim this question, how could Jesus be a Jewish Rabbi and not speak Hebrew, which is a requirement? You notice that these types of subjects aren't touched on by are educated and friendly Muslim websites. Now you know why. In fact here are some Hebrew phrases reserved in their natural form in the Gospels, and they were spoken by Jesus:

Phrases such as the following which are preserved in the Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases:
(a) "Hossana" - Matthew 21:9 (b) "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" - Matthew 27:46 (c) "Rabbi" - John 3:2 (d) "Talitha cumi" - Mark 5:41

Jesus spoke Hebrew on the cross before he died and then it was latter given in Aramaic which Mark records in his gospel:

The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism of the Bible.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani." However, it is doubtful that Jesus spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; THE PEOPLE HEARING JESUS' WORDS THOUGH HE WAS CALLING ELIJAH (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus would have to have cried "Eli, Eli," not "Eloi, Eloi." Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either "My God" or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only "My God."

It is also worth noting that lama ("why") is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.

Therefore Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Jesus was part of a multilingual society. He most probably SPOKE GREEK (THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF GREECE AND ROME), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) AND HEBREW, THE SACRED TONGUE OF JUDAISM, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.

That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. The simple reason for the difference is probably that when one of them remembered and discussed the happening of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, this phrase may well have been repeated in their conversation as Aramaic, which would be perfectly normal. So he wrote it down as such. Secondly, Mark may have written it in Aramaic due to the fact that he was the original recipients of the Gospel.(101 Cleared Up Contradictions, Smith, Jay, Chowdhry, Alex, Jepson, Toby, Schaeffer, James; pg 33-34)

You see the evidence of Jesus speaking more than the language of Aramaic! If Osama and other Muslims go in depth in their study about the Bible they wouldn't be so quick to come to these incorrect conclusions about Jesus life. The fact remains that the Jews would also have had to know Greek in order to communicate to the officials as well as to interact with neighboring towns and villages. More proof that Greek was also spoken in Palestine and Jerusalem comes from the Gospels themselves:

"Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, LATIN and GREEK." John 19:19-20

Do you see the languages mentioned? Aramaic, Latin and Greek! Not just Aramaic. More historical and archeological information comes from this source, the September-October 1992 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review-"Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?":

Today, however, new archaeological discoveries have undermined the speculations of scholars and brought into clear light the fact that Greek was well known among the Jews, especially the priesthood, leadership class, and the merchant class. In particular, Greek was well understood in "Galilee of the Gentiles," the region where Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised, and grew up as a young lad. There is no doubt, therefore, that Jesus and the original apostles all spoke Greek -- commonly, as a "second language."

Evidence from Caiaphas' Tomb

First, let us explore the recent findings in Jerusalem of the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Christ. Astonishing as it seems, the burial cave of the Caiaphas family was found, in Jerusalem, by "accident" -- the family of one of the priests who presided at the trial of Jesus. Workers building a water park in 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave, underneath what is now a stretch of road in Jerusalem's Peace Forest. The surrounding area was used as an ancient necropolis during the late Second Temple period (first century B.C.- first century A.D.).

In the burial cave, archaeologists found twelve ossuaries, including one decorated with two six-petaled rosettes within concentric circles. The bone box displays a fluted column on a stepped base and topped by an Ionic capital. Inscriptions on two of the ossuaries found here indicate that this was the burial chamber of the Caiaphas family, and one of the ossuaries may well have contained the bones of the high priest who handed Jesus Christ over to the Romans and Pontius Pilate, after interrogating Him... (see Matt.26:57-68). Chapter Two -- Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?

Not only do we see evidence that Greek was the common language of Palestine we also find Pontius Pilate's tomb which blows away the Quranic theory of Jesus never being crucified. We continue:

Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!

In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs -- funerary inscriptions -- are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus' brother James said in Acts 15, "Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath" (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).

Van Der Horst goes on:

These are shocking statements to all who have believed, and taught, that the Jews as a whole were ignorant of Greek during the time of Christ! Obviously, Judea was not a "backwater" and "boorish" part of the Roman Empire, but a most sophisticated and cultivated part. In fact, the Jewish Temple was acknowledged to be the finest building structure throughout the whole Empire! The Jewish people, because of their widespread dispersion in the Empire, for business and commercial purposes, mainly, spoke Greek rather fluently -- and this knowledge and usage of Greek was also common throughout Judea, as this new "funerary inscription" evidence attests!... (ibid)

Need we say more? Muslims like Osama want us to believe that the Gospels are corrupted because it was written in Greek and not Aramaic. As we see above the language of Greek authenticates the character of the gospels because it shows us that they were composed in the common language of that day, and we see that they were written early not allowing for any corruption to set in. Here is more:

All of this is very interesting, of course. But what about Jesus Christ, and the disciples? Did Jesus also use Greek, commonly, in speaking to the people of Judea? For centuries, theologians and scholars have assumed that He only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. HOWEVER, THIS ASSUMPTION NOW SEEMS TO BE FAR OFF THE MARK! (ibid)

Notice that this is the same argument used by Muslims in their attempts to tell us that the bible isn't the true words of Jesus. They even appeal to the Aramaic Bible society on the internet to support them. However history and archeology proves for a fact that Jesus never spoke just Aramaic:

Jesus and the Disciples Spoke Greek!

Another article in the very same issue of BAR discusses this very issue. The author, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, points out that there is no doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic. He shows that although a form of Aramaic was "the dominant language, it was not the only language spoken in Palestine at that time." He continues:

During the Babylonian captivity, many Jews came to use Aramaic as their first language, a sister language closely akin to Hebrew. Although Hebrew continued in use in the Temple, and the emerging synagogues, Aramaic was the common language of the people during the time of Christ. The majority of the people apparently did not fully understand Hebrew, for the custom arose to have an Aramaic translation read of the Hebrew Scriptures, following the reading in Hebrew, in all the synagogues. These readings and interpretations were done by a person called the meturgeman. In time, they were written down and were called targumin.

But what about Greek? Says Fitzmyer:

Most Muslims don't read the bible closely nor do they try to understand Christianty. However this is a bad thing to do because it sets them up for a fall. Islamic misinformation about Jesus is based on mere conjecture instead of facts:

A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists." The King James Version says, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or "Greeks"? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, in whose synagogues Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: "And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . ." The "Grecians" or "Hellenists" were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem...

What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a "second language"?

Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a "Greek" (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek. (ibid)

So, did Pilate, the centurian learn Aramaic just to speak to Jesus when they were from the Latin and Greek speaking city of Rome? No. Did the Syro-Phoenician woman, have to learn Aramaic to speak to Jesus in her native land? No. These are the types of questions that beg to be answered when we see Muslims claiming that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. I wonder what excuse they will try to come up with next.

Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were CERTAIN GREEKS among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. (ibid)

Based on Historical, Biblical, and archeological evidence we find out that Jesus did speak Greek along with Aramaic as well as Hebrew and possibly even Latin. Muslim apologist would be hard press to deny this if they are truthful, but then again, we've seen some of their tactics and therefore, there is no reason to be to hopeful. But for the rest of us, we know that Jesus, our Lord and Savior spoke more than one language then as well as know because by studying his word in the Holy Bible, he can speak to you no matter which language you speak. Unlike Allah, who demands Arabic to be the only language to understand his true words, Jesus is able to respond to you no matter what you speak. God Bless all.

Osama's link discussed is Question #13 What Language did Jesus speak

  1. New Articles Back to New Section.