Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts

The Language of Jesus: Confession and Context

In yesterday’s post, I explained that I was beginning a series that seeks to answer the questions: What language did Jesus speak? Why does it matter? Before I delve into these questions, however, I need to make a confession and offer a bit of context.

Confession – My Scholarly Credentials (or Lack Thereof)

I am not an expert in the study of ancient languages. I’m not a historian of the languages in the Ancient Near East. Nor am I a sociolinguist (who studies the relationship of languages and societies). Nor am I an expert in the cultures of first-century Palestine, where Jesus lived and spoke. In what I write in this series on the language of Jesus, I am standing on the shoulders of many fine scholars. I am also, therefore, open to correction from those who are experts in the academic disciplines that help us to determine the language or languages spoken by Jesus. In several ways, these experts have helped my thinking to mature since I first wrote about the language of Jesus six years ago.


harvard-divinity-school-5.jpgYet I do have more knowledge about these subjects than the average man on the street. During my doctoral work in New Testament, I did learn a great deal about the life of Palestinian Jews in the time of Jesus, and I have kept on learning about this subject during the last twenty years since I finished my Ph.D. As a grad student, I studied all three languages that Jesus might have spoken: Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I had plenty of Greek (five years) and Hebrew (2 ½ years), but only one semester of Aramaic. That’s enough to help me understand the technical discussions surrounding the question of Jesus’ language, but not enough to allow me to translate things into Aramaic. (In the last few years, I’ve received a couple of requests for this sort of translation, no doubt because someone read my piece on the language of Jesus and figured I was proficient in Aramaic.) (Photo: Harvard Divinity School, where I took most of my language classes.)


Finally, I should mention again that I have no particular bias in this conversation about the language(s) of Jesus. Yes, I have gone on record saying that I think Aramaic was his first language. But it wouldn’t trouble me to be wrong about this. In fact, my opinion is a little more nuanced now than it was six years ago. No matter which language or languages Jesus spoke, I have confidence in the historical authenticity of the Gospels and believe about Jesus everything contained in the Nicene Creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon. That’s a technical way of saying that I am an orthodox Christian.

Context – What is Aramaic?

If you’ve been hanging around churches for as long as I have, you’ve probably heard the word “Aramaic.” It was used often during the time when Mel Gibson released The Passion of the Christ, since most of the movie script was in Aramaic. But that didn’t exactly make “Aramaic” a household word. Before we try to figure out which language(s) Jesus spoke, it would be good to have some basic notion of Aramaic, since it is a leading candidate for the starring role in this drama.


Aramaic is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew, Arabic, and similar languages. According to an expert linguist whom I consulted, Hebrew and Aramaic are related much as French and Spanish or Cantonese and Mandarin. During the time of the Assyrian Empire (8th century BC), Aramaic became used throughout the Ancient Near East as the language of diplomacy. In the time of the Persian Empire (6th-4th century BC), Aramaic was the predominant language of the region. Since Palestine was part of the Persian Empire, Jews for whom Hebrew was a primary language began to speak Aramaic, especially those of the upper classes. By the time of Jesus, Aramaic was the most common language in Palestine, though Hebrew may have been dominant in Judea. Greek usage was also widespread in those regions during the first century A.D.


The widespread use of Aramaic among Jews is illustrated by the fact that portions of the Old Testament are in Aramaic, not Hebrew (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11). This means, for example, that one of the most important passages in the Old Testament for our understanding of Jesus appears in Aramaic. Daniel’s vision of “one like a son of man” is described in Aramaic (kebar ‘enash; 7:13). Moreover, around the time of Jesus, though probably after his death, the Hebrew scrolls of the Old Testament were translated into Aramaic for use in the synagogues, because so many Jews did not understand Hebrew.)

During and before the time of Jesus, there wasn’t just one version of Aramaic being used in Palestine and beyond. Some Aramaic was official and formal. This is preserved, as you would expect, in official documents and inscriptions. Some was informal and common. This was spoken and has mostly been lost to modern scholars. The fact that Aramaic was used by Jews in Palestine is supported by its use in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are mostly in Hebrew, however), and in some ancient documents and inscriptions. Even many grave inscriptions around Jerusalem are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. It’s most likely that in Galilee, where Jesus was raised and where he began his ministry, Aramaic was the most common language of the people, though many would have been able to understand Hebrew and to get along in Greek as well.

In my next post in this series I’ll look at the evidence for Jesus’ use of Aramaic. 

  • Paul Adams

    Very informative, Mark. Thanks for this! I look forward to the next post in this series.

  • Ephraim Levy

    It surprises me that, despite your academic credentials, you certainly do need correction, Mark, when you persist in using the term “first-century Palestine”. You don’t have to be a scholar to know that there was no “first-century Palestine” because the name “Palestine” did not emerge until the SECOND century CE, when the Romans re-named Judaea after an old foe of the defeated Jews’ (the Philistines) to further humiliate them and divest the land of its Jewish heritage and sovereignty. Jesus would certainly not have heard of, or used, the name.
    Today, “Palestine” is very much a political term used by those who do not recognise the state of Israel, and I would not expect to hear it from the mouths of Bible-believing Christians of whom, I would assume, you are one, especially when it is not mentioned in the New Testament. Furthermore, when one considers that the name does not even occur in the Qur’an, it makes it equally absurd when Arabs/Muslims use it to make their claims.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration ...

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand ...

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that ...

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy ...

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with ...

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.