Hebrew Versus Aramaic As Jesus' Language

Hebrew versus Aramaic as Jesus’ Language: Notes on Early Opinions by Syriac Authors Serge Ruzer The question of the language(s) that the historical Jesus used on various occa- sions of his ministry and which characterized the pristine form—either oral or written—of the Jesus tradition, is obviously at the heart of the present volume, with Hebrew and/or Aramaic being the plausible candidates. This question naturally overlaps with that of the language of the religious discourse of Jesus’ immediate entourage and, more broadly, of first-century c.e. Palestinian Jewry. Although the exact solution may still elude us, a certain collation of Hebrew, Aramaic and even elements of Greek can be reasonably supposed here.1 This essay, however, will focus not on the first-century c.e. linguistic situation itself—admittedly a most complicated issue—but rather on how it was perceived throughout the early centuries of Christi anity. An emphasis will be put on the evidence where a differentiation was made between Hebrew and Aramaic and on the role allotted to such a differentiation in polemical strate- gies of identity building. Early Christian Syriac authors will be of special inter- est for our discussion as it is with them that one may expect Aramaic-centered preferences with regard to Jesus’ language to surface. This, after all, was a natural expres sion of Aramaic-Syriac pride that is well-known from later sources. Our investigation, however, leads to somewhat surprising observations that have a bearing, even if indirect, on the main topic of the volume. 1 Pre-Christian Hellenistic Jewish Evidence As a way of introduction, a brief discussion of two pre-Christian Jewish state- ments on the nature of the Holy Writ’s language is in place here, from which a 1 See Shmuel Safrai, “Spoken and Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” in Jesus’ Last Week (ed. R. Steven Notley, Marc Turnage and Brian Becker; Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 1; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 225–44; Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Moshe Bar Asher, Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (ScrHier; Jerusalem: Magnes Press,1998); Philip S. Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. William Horbury; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 71–89. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004�644�0_�07 early syriac authors on jesus’ language 183 certain perception concerning the linguistic situation in the land of Israel can be gleaned. Both of them come from the Alexandrian diaspora—if you wish, from “outsiders”—and both relate to the Septuagint translation enterprise. We start from the later of the two, found in the famous passage from Philo’s The Life of Moses, Book 2 (37–40):2 Sitting here in concealment with none present save the natural elements, earth, water, air, heaven, the mystery of whose genesis they were on the verge of expounding first, for the creation account constitutes the beginning of the laws, they became as it were possessed and inter- preted the divine word . all of them employing precisely the same words and phrases, as though dictated (ἐνηχεῖν) to each by an invisible prompter . The Greek words used corresponded exactly to the Chaldean (τοῖς Χαλδαϊκοῖς), perfectly adapted to the things signified . The clear- est proof of this is that, if the Chaldeans (ἐάν τε Χαλδαῖοι) have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean (τὴν Χαλδαίων), and read both versions, the Chaldean (τῇ τε Χαλδαϊκῇ) and its translation, they marvel at them and respect them as sisters, or rather one and the same, both in matter and words, and designate the authors not as translators but as prophets and hierophants, to whom it was granted in the purity of their thought to match their steps with the purest of spirits, the spirit of Moses. The crux of the passage is clearly the attempt to elevate the status of the Scripture’s Greek translation.3 Philo’s polemically flavored argument reflects the situation of the enlightened Alexandrian Jews of the first century c.e., who mostly had a rather limited ability, if at all, to deal directly with the original, using instead the Greek version of the Torah and the prophets (and some other biblical or para-biblical books as well). This version was also used for the public reading at their synagogues.4 Therefore, our author claims that all the meanings implied in the Semitic original are faithfully expressed by the Greek. Consequently, the need for the original is for all practical purposes eliminated. Moreover, it is emphatically stated that the revelatory miracle granted to the 2 English translation follows Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections (trans. and intro. David Winston; The Classics of Western Spirituality; New York: Paulist, 1981). 3 See Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 139–42, 152–56. 4 See, for example, Aryeh Edrei and Doron Mendels, “A Split Jewish Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences,” JSP 16/2 (2007): 95–101; Rajak, Translation and Survival, 143–52..

Load more