Troublesome Topic: LANGUAGE PREFERENCES OF JESUS AND THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Allow me to start with a couple summary responses given by AI.

AI RESPONSE TO – WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE JEWS OF JESUS’ TIME SPOKE ARAMAIC?

• Historical Texts: Ancient writings, including the Talmud, indicate that Aramaic was widely spoken among Jews.
• Biblical References: The New Testament contains Aramaic phrases, such as “Talitha koum” and “Eloi, Eloi,” suggesting familiarity with the language.
• Cultural Context: Aramaic was the common language of the Near East during the 1st century, making it likely for Jews to use it daily.
• Language of the Synagogue: Aramaic was often used in synagogue teachings and prayers, further embedding it in Jewish life.
• Roman Influence: Following the Babylonian exile, Aramaic became the lingua franca, influencing Jewish communities in Judea and Galilee.
• Linguistic Studies: Scholars have analyzed inscriptions and documents from the period that show Aramaic was prevalent in Jewish society.

AI RESPONSE TO – EVIDENCE THAT JESUS MAY HAVE TAUGHT IN HEBREW

• Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Jewish people during Jesus’ time.
• The New Testament was primarily written in Greek, but many scholars believe Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.
• The Gospels reference Hebrew scriptures, indicating familiarity with the language.
• Early Jewish Christians likely used Hebrew texts in their teachings and discussions.
• Some phrases attributed to Jesus in the Gospels may reflect Hebrew idioms or expressions.
• Historical context suggests that Jesus would have been educated in Hebrew as part of Jewish tradition.

So we see that the people of Israel at the time of Jesus spoke several languages and it is hard to nail down with clarity when they were speaking one language and when they were speaking another.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEBREW AND ARAMAIC?

They are cousin languages, so the difference is quite small. They share quite a bit of vocabulary and grammar, and yet there are enough differences in vocabulary and grammar for them to be considered different languages, not just different dialects of the same language. They looked similar because Hebrew had adopted Aramaic script; that is why the Hebrew of today looks blockish, whereas the old Hebrew that was used before their captivity in Babylon looked roundish, much like Arabic.

Someone who spoke one of those languages fluently would be able to at least understand a good bit of the other one (understanding a language is always easier than speaking one). Therefore, it is not surprising that many Jews of Jesus’ day knew both Hebrew and Aramaic.

MY OWN ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION IS THE FOLLOWING:

Religious leaders of the Jews such as, the priests, Rabbis, Pharisees, teachers of the law, scribes, synagogue leaders, and the Essenes of Qumran, used the following languages listed from high to low in order of fluency: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Latin. This category would have included Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, and Nicodemus. However, religious leaders who wanted to curry favor with the Romans, such as the High Priests and the Sadducees, would have used more Latin than others, making their list look like this” Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic.

Jewish Merchants, especially traveling merchants, used the following languages listed from high to low in order of fluency: Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Latin, Hebrew.

Anyone who had lots of contact with the Romans, such as, tax collectors, high level Jewish elders, and Jewish magistrates authorized to serve under Roman authority, used the following languages listed from high to low in order of fluency: Aramaic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic. This category would have included Matthew, also called Levi, who was a tax collector, as well as Zacchaeus.

DID JESUS TEACH IN ARAMAIC OR HEBREW?

To answer this question, I have leaned heavily on the following web site: https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html#:~:text=And%20while%20it%20is%20true,other%20Jewish%20standards%20of%20practice.

After some Israelites returned from captivity in Babylon/Persia, they wrote in Hebrew using Aramaic script. Ezra is credited with making that change. However, the grammar and vocabulary are Hebrew; it was only the form of the script that changed. Consider it similar to the difference between writing English in cursive or block letters.

In the time of Jesus, Hebrew was still the sacred language of the Jews. It was the language used to study, discuss and debate about religious and spiritual issues. It was the language used by priests, teachers, and rabbis.

In the synagogues, they read the Hebrew OT. When Jesus spoke with the teachers of the law at age 12, it would have been in Hebrew.

During His ministry, when Jesus read or quoted the Torah, it was in Hebrew.

His disciples spoke with a Galilean accept which was a disparaged or corrupted form of Hebrew. They also knew Aramaic.

Jesus spoke easily with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sichar – Samaritans had retained Hebrew and did not speak Aramaic.

Early church fathers indicate that the statements of Jesus were in Hebrew.

The thought patterns in the NT are Hebrew, not Aramaic or Greek.

I believe Jesus taught in Hebrew, but it is possible that casual conversations with individuals were in Aramaic. I envision Him quoting from the OT in Hebrew but when His teaching got written down in Greek (either as original writings in Greek or as a translation of a Hebrew original), they quoted the LXX instead of making their own translation to Greek.

WAS THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW PENNED IN HEBREW OR IN GREEK?

Some of the church fathers indicate there was an early Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew.

Later Jerome prepared his Latin Vulgate from earlier Latin documents which he made improvements upon. Whether those earlier Latin manuscripts, collectively called the “Vetus Latina”, were translations from Hebrew texts or from Greek texts, I do not know.

Matthew wrote his Gospel for Jewish readers; therefore, it is most logical to conclude that he wrote it in Hebrew, and it was translated into Greek early in church history.

JEROME, ON THE WRITING OF MATTHEW

Here is a quote from Jerome which a personal friend named Sam Klumpenhouwer shared with me. From – On Illustrious Men, 3: “Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it.” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Dr. Klumpenhouwer explains, “There seems to be two parts of the claim that Matthew was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek: 

1.) Papias (2nd century) claims that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then later Christians (Irenaeus, Origen) cite his authority for this.

2.) Jerome both accepts Papias’ claim, and further says that people he knows have personally seen a copy.

Based on this evidence, it was indeed the standard belief in the early Church and all through the Middle Ages that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that he or someone else then translated it into Greek. 

Once you get to the 16th century, people like Erasmus and others started questioning this more and more. Today, the majority of scholars think that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least for the most part) in Greek, not Hebrew. However, there are a few people who might argue otherwise.”

DID PAUL EVER SPEAK TO AN AUDIENCE IN HEBREW?

Scholars are divided on this. The argument centers around the meaning of one Greek word used in Acts chapters 21, 22 and 26.

The word “Hebrew” in Greek is said to refer to either classical, Old Testament Hebrew, or to the Syro-Chaldaic/Aramaic tongue. Some assume that Aramaic was so prominent and common that any use of the word Hebrew must refer to Aramaic. However, this lumps everyone into the same group and assumes there was no differentiation between those who used Hebrew for religious purposes and those who used Aramaic for common purposes.

The lengthy quote that follows is from the Topical Lexicon on Biblehub.com: https://biblehub.com/greek/1446.htm

Linguistic Context in the First Century

By the time of the New Testament, daily life in the land of Israel was a mosaic of languages. Koine Greek served as the international lingua franca, Aramaic was the common spoken tongue among Jews, Latin provided the administrative language of Rome, and classical Hebrew remained the cherished language of Scripture and worship. Luke’s decision to single out Ἐβραΐδι (“in the Hebrew language” in Acts 21:40 and 22:2) alerts the reader that something specifically Jewish and covenantal is taking place—moments when the speaker or the risen Lord chooses the ancestral tongue to underscore continuity with Israel’s sacred history.

Occurrences in Acts

Acts 21:40 Paul quiets a hostile Jerusalem crowd and “addressed them in Hebrew”.

Acts 22:2 “When they heard him speak to them in Hebrew, they became even more silent”.

Acts 26:14 On the Damascus road Paul recounts, “I heard a voice say to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’ ”.

These three verses represent every New Testament use of Ἐβραΐδι and together form a cohesive narrative arc in Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry.

Historical Background of Hebrew Usage

1. Identity and Authority

 Speaking Hebrew immediately declared Paul’s pedigree as a trained Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). It authenticated his message to a Jewish audience without the need for external credentials.

2. Covenant Continuity

 Hebrew was the language of the Torah and the prophets. By preserving Paul’s Hebrew addresses, Luke shows that the gospel of Jesus Messiah stands in unbroken line with the faith of Abraham, Moses, and David.

3. Contrast with the Gentile Mission

 Luke normally records sermons in Greek because the message was moving outward to the nations. The deliberate switch to Hebrew highlights unique settings where Paul pivots to his Jewish brethren, emphasizing his burden that they not be left outside the blessings promised in the prophets (Romans 9:1-5).

Theological and Ministry Implications

1. Divine Initiative in the Covenant Tongue

 The risen Jesus chose Hebrew when confronting Saul. This underscores that the gospel begins with God’s gracious approach to Israel and then flows outward. The covenant God addresses His covenant people in their covenant language.

2. Apologetic Strategy

 Paul’s use of Hebrew calms a mob (Acts 21:40–22:2) and gains their attention long enough for him to articulate his testimony and the gospel. Effective ministry often begins with respectful engagement on familiar ground, acknowledging hearers’ heritage before challenging their understanding.

3. Affirmation of Scripture’s Unity

 By framing both the Lord’s words (Acts 26:14) and Paul’s defense (Acts 22) in Hebrew, Luke reinforces that the same God who spoke through Moses and the prophets now speaks through the risen Christ and His apostle. The old and the new are not in tension but in fulfillment.

Summary

Ἐβραΐδι appears only three times, yet each occurrence is strategically placed at critical turning points in Acts. Whether calming a riotous crowd or recalling the voice of the risen Lord, the term underscores God’s faithfulness to Israel, validates Paul’s Jewish credentials, and models cross-cultural evangelism that honors both heritage and truth.”

DID PAUL WRITE HIS LETTERS IN GREEK OR IN HEBREW?

First of all, Paul penned very little of it himself; he usually used an amanuensis (a type of scribe), to whom he dictated the letter. Then he would write the final salutation himself.

It is most likely that Paul’s letters were in Greek because that was the language his Gentile audience would have known best. Their knowledge of Hebrew would have been limited to the similarities between Hebrew and Aramaic, since it is possible they knew some Aramaic, depending on what part of the Roman Empire they lived in. Paul could handle Greek well enough; most of Paul’s teaching and preaching while in Asia Minor was in Greek. He did not sound like a highly educated Greek philosopher, but he could get points across to the common man whose primary language or second language was Greek.

WAS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WRITTEN IN GREEK OR IN HEBREW?

For my answer to that question, please go to my lesson called WAS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WRITTEN IN GREEK OR IN HEBREW?

FINAL SUMMARY

I return to the hebrew4christians website https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html#:~:text=And%20while%20it%20is%20true,other%20Jewish%20standards%20of%20practice. for one final comment: “Other NT books also show signs of having been written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, with Greek translators using the Septuagint (LXX) to quote from the Old Testament instead of making their own translations.”