Further Proof Jesus spoke Greek

[Gandalf]

I have never believed in the Aramaic Supremacy Nonsense that Jesus exclusively spoke Aramaic. This video is over 2 hours in length, and have never watched the entire video yet. But I still like to post it, because it hits hard early on on just how Greek Jewish Culture was, by the time of Christ.

 

[Mikeuk]

It is one of the old conundrums.

There are places where the hebrew old testament and the septuagint differ enough to recognise the origin of what was quoted.
It is possible to say in a couple of places (athoulgh I have forgotten where) that Jesus did quote from the septuagint rather than hebrew which confirms understanding of Greek.

However it also gives our protestant brothers a problem, because early copies of septuagint did indeed include Maccabees 2 which Luther wanted rid of presumably because he did not like prayers for the dead!

 

[Mikeuk]

Of course - one other thing should be said.
The apostles were simple country folk Fishermen who we know spoke galilean.
Jesus would have addressed his teaching to the language of those listening.

So the language he spoke to the educated including pharisees, sadducees is not necessarily the same as the country folk.
When speaking to Peter, before the gift of tongues at pentecost, Jesus will have used aramaic or galilean if he wanted to be understood!.
So whether or not Jesus spoke greek is not relevant to the question of petros vs petra, cepha etc.

I live in portugal, in the area I live many speak english. However I do not have to travel far in to the country for portuguese to be the only language spoken, by the farming communities who live there. If I speak English to them they have no idea what I am saying. It is all "greek" to them!!! Indeed further in land, local dialects become important too. Their equivalent of "galilean", phrases, pronunciations and so on differ , to the point that we can both read the same portuguese, but I do not understand a word they say! The accents and phraseology is how Peter was rumbled whilst Jesus was being interrogated.

 

[Gandalf]

It is one of the old conundrums.

There are places where the hebrew old testament and the septuagint differ enough to recognise the origin of what was quoted.
It is possible to say in a couple of places (athoulgh I have forgotten where) that Jesus did quote from the septuagint rather than hebrew which confirms understanding of Greek.

However it also gives our protestant brothers a problem, because early copies of septuagint did indeed include Maccabees 2 which Luther wanted rid of presumably because he did not like prayers for the dead!

I have diabetes, which affects my eyesight, so I have a real problem with the default smaller smaller fonts most use here, so I apologize, but really struggle with reading the smaller default font.

Actually the Septuagint is a Misnomer, and never really existed. The truth is, in spite of it's wild Jewish legend, was that the Jews were tasked with writing their law into Greek, and only did so with the five books of the Torah. And the Jews also highly revered the Scroll so badly, that their scriptures could only be found in scroll form. The Jews had the Codex, or what we know as book, but used it only for secular tasks.

But after the Torah was indeed translated into Greek, many individuals over time likewise wrote other OT scrolls ( individual books in their scroll form, ) until eventually all of the OT books, in scroll form were translated into Greek.

And these versions using Midrash, or reinterpreting texts, did so in a highly Messianic sense / expectation, etc.., And thus all such scroll books, translated by many, who no one knows who they were, were all over the place in quality. And multiple versions of some OT books were translated, so for example short and long versions of Daniel were even translated, with the longer version with new material, such as Bell and the Dragon, were added, but were never in the original.

But eventually Origen came along, and wanted to codify the Septuagint, taking what he thought were the best version of the OT scrolls, and he created the Septuagint as all found together in one book.

But his version of the Septuagint was really the creation of his Hexapla, which was really a six parallel columns of the OT, two of them in Hebrew, and four in Greek to compare them side by side. He thus collected the Septuagint Scrolls he prefered in his Book, with an Old Greek parallel version, which was written by Jews to clean up the sloppy translations of much of the Septuagint versions, and to remove some of the Messianic Midrash, etc..,

And eventually ver time, some scribes cleaned up some of the column differences, so the original Origen compiled was tampered with.

You need to buy a new Interlinear Greek English Septuagint, to be able to read a lot of this, together in one place. I have such a modern Interlinear Septuagint by a Christian publisher, as well as other Christian books on the Septuagint, to read all of thisd.

On the other hand I have also bought more than a few much more recent Monograph series of books, usually published by various Christian University Authors, on their own University Press, which vary in price from low, to very expensive - But have bought several of these Monographs on the Gospels.

And they go into a lot of study, including heavily on statistics, etc.., and on Matthew, etc.., their studies show in the gospels, that about 60% of the OT quotes come from the Septuagint, and about 40% of the OT quotes come from the common MT version of the Hebrew OT, with a rare quote here or there, from a different Hebrew OT, and even an instant of a new quote version of the OT hebrew, from the gospel author himself.

And you are correct, I personally believe the Apocrypha to be evil, which always contradict the actual bible in many instances and places. The Apocrypha is extremely evil, though loved by some scholars, for research purposes, for a historic aside / investigation, etc..,

 

[Mikeuk]

I have diabetes, which affects my eyesight, so I have a real problem with the default smaller smaller fonts most use here, so I apologize, but really struggle with reading the smaller default font.

Actually the Septuagint is a Misnomer, and never really existed. The truth is, in spite of it's wild Jewish legend, was that the Jews were tasked with writing their law into Greek, and only did so with the five books of the Torah. And the Jews also highly revered the Scroll so badly, that their scriptures could only be found in scroll form. The Jews had the Codex, or what we know as book, but used it only for secular tasks.

But after the Torah was indeed translated into Greek, many individuals over time likewise wrote other OT scrolls ( individual books in their scroll form, ) until eventually all of the OT books, in scroll form were translated into Greek.

And these versions using Midrash, or reinterpreting texts, did so in a highly Messianic sense / expectation, etc.., And thus all such scroll books, translated by many, who no one knows who they were, were all over the place in quality. And multiple versions of some OT books were translated, so for example short and long versions of Daniel were even translated, with the longer version with new material, such as Bell and the Dragon, were added, but were never in the original.

But eventually Origen came along, and wanted to codify the Septuagint, taking what he thought were the best version of the OT scrolls, and he created the Septuagint as all found together in one book.

But his version of the Septuagint was really the creation of his Hexapla, which was really a six parallel columns of the OT, two of them in Hebrew, and four in Greek to compare them side by side. He thus collected the Septuagint Scrolls he prefered in his Book, with an Old Greek parallel version, which was written by Jews to clean up the sloppy translations of much of the Septuagint versions, and to remove some of the Messianic Midrash, etc..,

And eventually ver time, some scribes cleaned up some of the column differences, so the original Origen compiled was tampered with.

You need to buy a new Interlinear Greek English Septuagint, to be able to read a lot of this, together in one place. I have such a modern Interlinear Septuagint by a Christian publisher, as well as other Christian books on the Septuagint, to read all of thisd.

On the other hand I have also bought more than a few much more recent Monograph series of books, usually published by various Christian University Authors, on their own University Press, which vary in price from low, to very expensive - But have bought several of these Monographs on the Gospels.

And they go into a lot of study, including heavily on statistics, etc.., and on Matthew, etc.., their studies show in the gospels, that about 60% of the OT quotes come from the Septuagint, and about 40% of the OT quotes come from the common MT version of the Hebrew OT, with a rare quote here or there, from a different Hebrew OT, and even an instant of a new quote version of the OT hebrew, from the gospel author himself.

And you are correct, I personally believe the Apocrypha to be evil, which always contradict the actual bible in many instances and places. The Apocrypha is extremely evil, though loved by some scholars, for research purposes, for a historic aside / investigation, etc..,

Fascinating. Thanks.

What is the best book for study of the septuagint development?

As for the apocrypha there is the problem: the same people chose it under divine inspiration that chose the rest. If you do not believe in their inspiration, you have no new testament.
You do not get to pick and choose like luther did.

The canon is as much defined by what was left out as what was put in. And - the first canon was rejected by Rome. But for Rome your bible would be different.

I point out elsewhere not really subject for this thread - that those who state that " disagrees with the bible" really mean - "disagrees with their interpretation of the bible" .

But of course Jesus gave the anwer to that. He gave power to "bind and loose" - that is giving definitve judgement on matters of dispute. The power of the magisterium. That is where the power derives for councils to declare such as creed and canon, as what is heresy and what is not. It is also why the church physical - the household of God - is declared the "pillar and foundation of truth". (not the bible) and the place to take disputes.

Without that power you cannot trust either creed or canon or the outing of many heresies

Tradition carrying meaning, and the power to bind and loose was always so.

The old testament interaction with the new is proof of that.
It is only by tradition we know the use of "moses seat" . There is nothing in the old testament that defines it. But Jesus tells us that the teaching from it was true. That heralds ex cathedra teaching.

Jesus himself went to the festival of Lights. His knowledge of it came from maccabees and tradition. Why did Jesus legitimize it, if he thought it false doctrine?

 

[Gandalf]

Of course - one other thing should be said.
The apostles were simple country folk Fishermen who we know spoke galilean.
Jesus would have addressed his teaching to the language of those listening.

So the language he spoke to the educated including pharisees, sadducees is not necessarily the same as the country folk.
When speaking to Peter, before the gift of tongues at pentecost, Jesus will have used aramaic or galilean if he wanted to be understood!.
So whether or not Jesus spoke greek is not relevant to the question of petros vs petra, cepha etc.

I live in portugal, in the area I live many speak english. However I do not have to travel far in to the country for portuguese to be the only language spoken, by the farming communities who live there. If I speak English to them they have no idea what I am saying. It is all "greek" to them!!! Indeed further in land, local dialects become important too. Their equivalent of "galilean", phrases, pronunciations and so on differ , to the point that we can both read the same portuguese, but I do not understand a word they say! The accents and phraseology is how Peter was rumbled whilst Jesus was being interrogated.

I personally believe it was part of the Justifiable Deniability of God, that Jesus indeed speak a little in Aramaic.

However that as I likewise believe has been used by some extremely evil people to try and push an Aramaic Supremacy Lie, used by Pro Roman Catholic Liars to Fudge Matthew 16: to try and push the lie that Peter was the Rock, etc.., and by other liars who likewise have evil agendas to purposefully distort the word of God.

Galatians 2:8 has Paul proving that Peter's God given mission had changed to be an Evangelist to the Circumcised, and Paul to the greek. Peter and Paul wrote of each other in scriptural terms, and Gal 2:8 Proves Peter was Never The Bishop Of Rome, And Was Never The First Pope Of A Church Of Jews And Gentiles Alike - Because he Was An Evangelist To The Jews.

And these Aramaic Supremacy Liars falsely try and point out that Jesus never said it is easier for a Camel to go thru and eye of a needle, instead ying and saying Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and really said it is easier for a rope to go thru the eye of a needle.

And in doing so, they lie, and claim the NT, or at the very least the gospels, were originally written in Aramaic, and therefore Call God Incompetent, In Not Being Able To Have The Aramaic Properly Translated Into Greek? God would have to be completely Incompetent to do what they say happened.

On the other hand, Jesus' word / phrase choice, the Camel, actually goes back to God's Anti Gnostic revelations in the books of Jeremiah and Isaiah, etc..,

Jesus spoke a great deal of Anti Gnostic Rebukes!

For example when Jesus says, of their drinking, how they "Pass a Camel, but strain at a Gnat," likewise goes back to jeremiah's Antignostic statements such as Israel, they are like a "Lusty Camel, or a Donkey sniffing after the wind, and who could deny them in their heat," etc..,

So with their Evil Aramaic Supremacy nonsense, They Also Remove Christ's Anti Gnostic Rebukes.


And how? According to them Jesus would have to have said "They pass a rope, but strain at a Gnat"?

The RCC and Others Aramaic Supremacy Lies With Their Evil Subterfuge Are Demonic And Blasphemous Actions To Lie And Falsely Make Peter The Rock, etc..,

 

[Mikeuk]

I personally believe it was part of the Justifiable Deniability of God, that Jesus indeed speak a little in Aramaic.

However that as I likewise believe has been used by some extremely evil people to try and push an Aramaic Supremacy Lie, used by Pro Roman Catholic Liars to Fudge Matthew 16: to try and push the lie that Peter was the Rock, etc.., and by other liars who likewise have evil agendas to purposefully distort the word of God.

Galatians 2:8 has Paul proving that Peter's God given mission had changed to be an Evangelist to the Circumcised, and Paul to the greek. Peter and Paul wrote of each other in scriptural terms, and Gal 2:8 Proves Peter was Never The Bishop Of Rome, And Was Never The First Pope Of A Church Of Jews And Gentiles Alike - Because he Was An Evangelist To The Jews.

And these Aramaic Supremacy Liars falsely try and point out that Jesus never said it is easier for a Camel to go thru and eye of a needle, instead ying and saying Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and really said it is easier for a rope to go thru the eye of a needle.

And in doing so, they lie, and claim the NT, or at the very least the gospels, were originally written in Aramaic, and therefore Call God Incompetent, In Not Being Able To Have The Aramaic Properly Translated Into Greek? God would have to be completely Incompetent to do what they say happened.

On the other hand, Jesus' word / phrase choice, the Camel, actually goes back to God's Anti Gnostic revelations in the books of Jeremiah and Isaiah, etc..,

Jesus spoke a great deal of Anti Gnostic Rebukes!

For example when Jesus says, of their drinking, how they "Pass a Camel, but strain at a Gnat," likewise goes back to jeremiah's Antignostic statements such as Israel, they are like a "Lusty Camel, or a Donkey sniffing after the wind, and who could deny them in their heat," etc..,

So with their Evil Aramaic Supremacy nonsense, They Also Remove Christ's Anti Gnostic Rebukes.


And how? According to them Jesus would have to have said "They pass a rope, but strain at a Gnat"?

The RCC and Others Aramaic Supremacy Lies With Their Evil Subterfuge Are Demonic And Blasphemous Actions To Lie And Falsely Make Peter The Rock, etc..,

I am sorry.

Here ends the conversation.

I am happy to discuss our differences and why we think differently.

We interpret scripture differently. Indeed in many places catholics take the literal meaning. It is protestants who strain at gnats in the sense of find meanings no child would find. Jesus tells us that the truth is revealed to children and hidden from wise men! It is being too "wise" that ignores the literal.

But The word "liar" used even of others is not conducive to any conversation.

You are welcome to believe what you do. Farewell...

 

[Gandalf]

I am sorry.

Here ends the conversation.

I am happy to discuss our differences and why we think differently.

The word "liar" used even of others is not conducive to any conversation.

You are welcome to believe what you do.

Why? The world is evil, and the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in Paul's day.

The Aramaic Supremacy Liars do so to distort God's word. And Gal 2:8 alone shows Peter who was not the Rock could not have been the Bishop Of Rome nor the First Pope

The world is evil, and not all rainbows and star dust

 

[Gandalf]

Likewise not all Protestants, or Protestant Scholars are good either. There are more Barking Moonbat Crazy denominations, and Cults which have broken away from Protestantism, as Protestantism broke away from Roman Catholicism. There was a book called the Kingdom Of The Cults, that began to compare and analyze such denominational cults and errors. I do believe it has been updated, and replaced by some title like The New Kingdom Of The Cults.

And I still take exception to Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.., Scholars who Lie and say Christ Exclusively Spoke Aramaic, when He did speak some, but not exclusively. Much more recent scholarship proves this was the case.

But trying to distort the truth on purpose is what evil mockers do, including many such dubious so called Protestant Authors, who likewise distort things all the time themselves, because there are many wolves in sheeps clothing.

In Isaiah, and Jerimiah, etc.., there are many OT revelations and statements indicting and standing against Gnosticism, including such Anthropomorphisms in Jeremiah for example which are clearly Anti-Gnostic and Anti-New-Age, even back then.

Jeremiah 2:23-25 "How can you say, I am not defiled, I have not gone after the Baals? Look at your ways in the valley! Know what you have done! You are a swift young camel entangling her ways. A wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness, That sniffs the wind in her passion. in the time of her heat who can turn her away? All who seek her will not become weary; In her month they will find her. Keep your feet from being unshod, and your throat from thirst. ......."

Similar in the Anti-Gnostic response Jesus gave the rich man, because the rich are usually rewarded by the world system, for embracing it's Gnosticisms. Proverbs, etc.., deals with this.

But the Lying Aramaic Supremacists say, Oh No, it was originally was written in Aramaic, with it's multiple meanings, and therefore Jesus was saying "it is easier for a rope to go thru the eye of a needle than.....," rather than "it is easier for a Camel to go thru the eye of a needle than...."

Nonsense!!!! Biblical Hebrew is one of the Most Pregnant Languages there is, but the NT was written originally in Aramaic, but the NT authors were too incompetent to understand how Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar in how they operate, and couldn't figure out how to properly translate into Greek that which on the surface of it looked wrong?

Or maybe the reason we have an entire NT in Greek, is because God had it written in Greek, with the exception of a very limited amount of Aramaic spoken by Jesus, which was written as Aramaic, and likewise then openly translated into Greek, as was written as what happend indeed in the gospels.

And with their Aramaic Supremacy Lies, they likewise are saying God is too incompetent to give us an Aramaic NT, which God then allows to be translated into Greek, and is yet too incompetent to manage the translation, to make sure it was done correctly?

OK, then color me this, if one's Aramaic Supremacy Theory is so correct, then when Jesus used an example involving drinking, did Jesus say "they pass a Rope, but strain at a gnat?" That makes no sense either, but is how the Aramaic Supremacy Liars handled the other verse.

Or did Jesus indeed say "they pass a Camel, but strain at a Gnat," as an Anti-Gnostic Admonishing, throwing back to the language of Anthropomorphisms in Jeremiah 2:23-25 to clearly relate such scriptural comparative use, to show the OT Anti-Gnostic Language, and meanings are likewise to be applied here.

Which is why Jesus condemned their gnosticism multiple times, and in multiple places, even with sayings such as Luke 11:44 when Jesus said "Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it!"

And back to Jeremiah where in Jer 5:8 it says "They were well-fed lusty horses, Each one neighing after his neighbors wife," or Isaiah 31:3b ".......And their horses are flesh and not spirit."

There are tons of Anti-Gnostic, and punishment verses in the OT such as Isaiah 29:

Isa 29:4-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12, etc.., Isa 9:20, Isa 49:26, all of which is ignored when they try and divorce the Anti-Gnostic pronouncements of Jesus, and instead attribute them to Aramaic mistranslated into the Greek

 

[Bluedragon]

Maybe .....Maybe not. Greek was a trade language in Israel. Legal and basic cultural conversations were either Latin or Aramaic. But, there was another language I didn't quite grasp until I learned the following. There was a trade language, lingua franca This is merger of two languages primarily used in trade .......Quite prominent in Israel at the time. You can't pin the lanuguage to one group or the other. A mixture not quite identified ...I was puzzeled at my conclusion until I recalled a task I was given. We took an Instruction Book and had it translated to French for Quebec .......They couldn't understand the book. We then handed the English version to our Manufacturer's Rep in Montreal ......He translated the book for us. The lab at Hydro Quebec authorized the translated version from the Rep. I then had an idea. Sitting in my house in Tampa was a French foreign Exchange Student. Who better than a straight A student from France? She tried to read the translated version from our Rep, came back to me and asked "What language is this?" The real French version was not the Canadian French version. Yet it's supposed to be the same language ...

This posed another question ....... When Pilate tried Jesus .....Did he use Latin, Greek or Aramic?

 

[Gandalf]

Maybe .....Maybe not. Greek was a trade language in Israel. Legal and basic cultural conversations were either Latin or Aramaic. But, there was another language I didn't quite grasp until I learned the following. There was a trade language, lingua franca This is merger of two languages primarily used in trade .......Quite prominent in Israel at the time. You can't pin the lanuguage to one group or the other. A mixture not quite identified ...I was puzzeled at my conclusion until I recalled a task I was given. We took an Instruction Book and had it translated to French for Quebec .......They couldn't understand the book. We then handed the English version to our Manufacturer's Rep in Montreal ......He translated the book for us. The lab at Hydro Quebec authorized the translated version from the Rep. I then had an idea. Sitting in my house in Tampa was a French foreign Exchange Student. Who better than a straight A student from France? She tried to read the translated version from our Rep, came back to me and asked "What language is this?" The real French version was not the Canadian French version. Yet it's supposed to be the same language ...

This posed another question ....... When Pilate tried Jesus .....Did he use Latin, Greek or Aramic?

Yes but the point was God gave us the entire new testament in Greek, for God's own reasons, and the Aramaic Supremacists Lied, and made God too "incompetent" in the process, in not being able to make sure it was correctly translated into Greek, if as according to them, the gospels were first written in Aramaic.

Likewise as Jesus being in the form of the Son, as a stumbling block for those who refuse to believe, He would have had supernatural knowledge / power to be able to speak any or all languages he would have wanted too.

And to counter their Camel / Rope claim further, then again did Jesus likewise say, in an Anti-Gnostic pronouncement, or not, "they pass a Rope, but strain at a Gnat," or as given to us "they pass a Camel, but strain at a Gnat"? - I don't know about you, but I've never ever seen anyone drink a rope, lol

I would have thought Pilate would have been speaking Latin, or Greek?

God Bless

 

[Gandalf]

Maybe .....Maybe not. Greek was a trade language in Israel. Legal and basic cultural conversations were either Latin or Aramaic. But, there was another language I didn't quite grasp until I learned the following. There was a trade language, lingua franca This is merger of two languages primarily used in trade .......Quite prominent in Israel at the time. You can't pin the lanuguage to one group or the other. A mixture not quite identified ...I was puzzeled at my conclusion until I recalled a task I was given. We took an Instruction Book and had it translated to French for Quebec .......They couldn't understand the book. We then handed the English version to our Manufacturer's Rep in Montreal ......He translated the book for us. The lab at Hydro Quebec authorized the translated version from the Rep. I then had an idea. Sitting in my house in Tampa was a French foreign Exchange Student. Who better than a straight A student from France? She tried to read the translated version from our Rep, came back to me and asked "What language is this?" The real French version was not the Canadian French version. Yet it's supposed to be the same language ...

This posed another question ....... When Pilate tried Jesus .....Did he use Latin, Greek or Aramic?

"Charlesworth's study supports what we may call the Greek hypothesis in this field of research—that Greek was the lingua franca and an everyday language of the people in ancient Palestine, particularly, in Roman Galilee." Biblical interpretation series, Vol 150.

And

DID JESUS SPEAK GREEK? THE EMERGING EVIDENCE OF GREEK DOMINANCE IN FIRST-CENTURY PALESTINE​

https://www.wisluthsem.org/did-jesus-speak-greek/


And

"In addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek and Latin were also common in Jesus’ time. After Alexander the Great’s conquest of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Persian Empire in the fourth century B.C., Greek supplanted other tongues as the official language in much of the region. In the first century A.D., Judea was part of the eastern Roman Empire, which embraced Greek as its lingua franca and reserved Latin for legal and military matters. ....So while Jesus’ most common spoken language was Aramaic, he was familiar with—if not fluent, or even proficient in—three or four different tongues. As with many multilingual people, which one he spoke probably depended on the context of his words, as well as the audience he was speaking to at the time." The History Channel.

And

And what was the language and culture of the Hellenistic world?

The language and culture of the Hellenistic world was Greek. That became the lingua franca of all of these subject peoples. It was to that world what English is to the modern world in many ways, what French was to the world of the 19th century.

How Hellenized was the Jewish religious culture of the time?

Jewish culture and civilization during the Hellenistic period was in intense dialogue with Hellenistic culture and civilization, beginning with the translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek, a translation which survives and which we know as the Septuagint. That's certainly an example of the way in which Greek literary forms and Greek language impacted Jewish civilization and literary traditions. That impact extends far beyond scripture, and we see during the Hellenistic period Jews adopting literary forms of the Greek tradition, and writing plays, epic poems, lyric poems, all in the Greek language. Much of this activity would have centered in Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, but there was similar activity going on in Palestine, and some of these literary products that survive in some cases only in fragments, were probably written in Palestine, by Jews who were adopting these Hellenistic literary modes. PBS.ORG

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/hellenisticculture.html

 

[Bluedragon]

The Greek was introduced by Alexander the Great when he conquered the region. Under the protections of Alexander, business was conducted and recorded in Greek. Isreal provided military as a part of the deal. So the Greek would merge with another local language ......I wonder if the Tril of Jesus took place in Latin since the Romans hated the thought of being sent to a remote location such as Israel.

 

[Bluedragon]

Of course - one other thing should be said.
The apostles were simple country folk Fishermen who we know spoke galilean.
Jesus would have addressed his teaching to the language of those listening.

So the language he spoke to the educated including pharisees, sadducees is not necessarily the same as the country folk.
When speaking to Peter, before the gift of tongues at pentecost, Jesus will have used aramaic or galilean if he wanted to be understood!.
So whether or not Jesus spoke greek is not relevant to the question of petros vs petra, cepha etc.

I live in portugal, in the area I live many speak english. However I do not have to travel far in to the country for portuguese to be the only language spoken, by the farming communities who live there. If I speak English to them they have no idea what I am saying. It is all "greek" to them!!! Indeed further in land, local dialects become important too. Their equivalent of "galilean", phrases, pronunciations and so on differ , to the point that we can both read the same portuguese, but I do not understand a word they say! The accents and phraseology is how Peter was rumbled whilst Jesus was being interrogated.

I doubt they conversed in Greek or Latin ......The Temple business was conducted in the language of the population. There were no requirements that Temple conduct was in a foreign language. Otherwise the Temple leadership would far distant from the worshipers ......Kind of like my church conducting business in Swahili .....when everyone speaks English in Tampa ......wanted to have fun with that ...

 

[Gandalf]

The Greek was introduced by Alexander the Great when he conquered the region. Under the protections of Alexander, business was conducted and recorded in Greek. Isreal provided military as a part of the deal. So the Greek would merge with another local language ......I wonder if the Tril of Jesus took place in Latin since the Romans hated the thought of being sent to a remote location such as Israel.

I still suspect the Trial was held in Latin. However, most everything else we are discussing is speculation, because not all of the apostles were simple folk. so, again, it's all speculation. Luke was a Physician, and well educated. Paul was educated. And the Greek used by John, Peter, Luke, Paul, etc.., demonstrated a fluency in Greek. Peter was well off, And everyone is assuming therefore, that none of them ever had business dealings, and Peter didn't own a nice house, and therefore they never had discourse in Greek? Matthew was a tax collector as well, so you are only assuming all of them were merely simple folk with their command of written Greek. And to make matters worse, then if the gospels, etc.., were originally written in Aramaic, then not only were they Bilingual, but they could write in at least two languages. Pretty fancy for such simple folk. Simple folk in their day had philosophical, and other such cultural discussions as well. not to mention talking about politics, etc.., with intellectual discourse, with nothing else to do with waiting, and idle time, was their video games of the day. They didn't have all of our distractions we have today, so they talked, and talked some more. I do not buy they, no matter how simple, would not have talked a lot. What simple folk of today, around the world, being filmed as such, for just about everything these days don't talk a lot? Simple folk do an awful lot of talking today, and they didn't have the printing press, nor TV, nor talk Radio, in first century Palestine.

https://earlychurchhistory.org/daily-life/peters-home-in-capernaum-found/

 

[Bluedragon]

I still suspect the Trial was held in Latin. However, most everything else we are discussing is speculation, because not all of the apostles were simple folk. so, again, it's all speculation. Luke was a Physician, and well educated. Paul was educated. And the Greek used by John, Peter, Luke, Paul, etc.., demonstrated a fluency in Greek. Peter was well off, And everyone is assuming therefore, that none of them ever had business dealings, and Peter didn't own a nice house, and therefore they never had discourse in Greek? Matthew was a tax collector as well, so you are only assuming all of them were merely simple folk with their command of written Greek. And to make matters worse, then if the gospels, etc.., were originally written in Aramaic, then not only were they Bilingual, but they could write in at least two languages. Pretty fancy for such simple folk. Simple folk in their day had philosophical, and other such cultural discussions as well. not to mention talking about politics, etc.., with intellectual discourse, with nothing else to do with waiting, and idle time, was their video games of the day. They didn't have all of our distractions we have today, so they talked, and talked some more. I do not buy they, no matter how simple, would not have talked a lot. What simple folk of today, around the world, being filmed as such, for just about everything these days don't talk a lot? Simple folk do an awful lot of talking today, and they didn't have the printing press, nor TV, nor talk Radio, in first century Palestine.

https://earlychurchhistory.org/daily-life/peters-home-in-capernaum-found/

Yeah, we have to realize that that time period was not like today. For example, I went to High School for four years without English Speaking TV, in Japan. We had Armed Forces Radio and that was it ,,,,,so , I spent most of time listening to the radio and reading .....The reason I have such a fascination with reading today. We had a Jewish CPA at work .....He dropped a few files at my desk. looked around and saw books everywhere. I had two shelves of nothing, but religious books because I was pursuing more college degrees. The College was St Leo, Dade City, FL Epicopalena School, we were required to take courses in religion .......He asked about a book Moses. I offered to lend the book to him and explained. I fly so much, I take a new book with me each trip. I can finished half of the book going out and complete it coming home. Besides, You are Jewish and I am Christian .....we both have an interest in who, what, and the mind of Moses ....Anything you see just have at it ....

 

[Bluedragon]

I still suspect the Trial was held in Latin. However, most everything else we are discussing is speculation, because not all of the apostles were simple folk. so, again, it's all speculation. Luke was a Physician, and well educated. Paul was educated. And the Greek used by John, Peter, Luke, Paul, etc.., demonstrated a fluency in Greek. Peter was well off, And everyone is assuming therefore, that none of them ever had business dealings, and Peter didn't own a nice house, and therefore they never had discourse in Greek? Matthew was a tax collector as well, so you are only assuming all of them were merely simple folk with their command of written Greek. And to make matters worse, then if the gospels, etc.., were originally written in Aramaic, then not only were they Bilingual, but they could write in at least two languages. Pretty fancy for such simple folk. Simple folk in their day had philosophical, and other such cultural discussions as well. not to mention talking about politics, etc.., with intellectual discourse, with nothing else to do with waiting, and idle time, was their video games of the day. They didn't have all of our distractions we have today, so they talked, and talked some more. I do not buy they, no matter how simple, would not have talked a lot. What simple folk of today, around the world, being filmed as such, for just about everything these days don't talk a lot? Simple folk do an awful lot of talking today, and they didn't have the printing press, nor TV, nor talk Radio, in first century Palestine.

https://earlychurchhistory.org/daily-life/peters-home-in-capernaum-found/

I pondered that as well. Then thought, would the Pharisees understand Latin or the crowd Then surmised ....I worked with a group of German Engineers for few years. To qualify for their jobs .....they had to read, write and speak five lanuages fluently ....Of course they were from Europe and had the advantage ..

 

[Gandalf]

I pondered that as well. Then thought, would the Pharisees understand Latin or the crowd Then surmised ....I worked with a group of German Engineers for few years. To qualify for their jobs .....they had to read, write and speak five lanuages fluently ....Of course they were from Europe and had the advantage ..

Yes but the Pharisees were extreme political animals, so based on that, why wouldn't they have worked with rome on such levels, such as knowing Latin as well? Maybe not all of them. However the apostle Paul alone demonstrated the level of knowledge a Pharisee could have. The problem is we have to consider the politics of the day, and just what kind, to what depth, of political animals, so to speak, the Jewish leadership of the day would have been like. And one likewise have to wonder as well, how many daggers, so to speak, they would have had to keep handy too. It isn't a matter of which language they would have prefered for a particular situation, but rather a matter of political savvy, intrigue, and even just showing off in general, showing how smart they were, and maintaining a seat at the table, in the established pecking order. Don't underestimate the political, and religious intrigue of those times.

 

[Bluedragon]

Yes but the Pharisees were extreme political animals, so based on that, why wouldn't they have worked with rome on such levels, such as knowing Latin as well? Maybe not all of them. However the apostle Paul alone demonstrated the level of knowledge a Pharisee could have. The problem is we have to consider the politics of the day, and just what kind, to what depth, of political animals, so to speak, the Jewish leadership of the day would have been like. And one likewise have to wonder as well, how many daggers, so to speak, they would have had to keep handy too. It isn't a matter of which language they would have prefered for a particular situation, but rather a matter of political savvy, intrigue, and even just showing off in general, showing how smart they were, and maintaining a seat at the table, in the established pecking order. Don't underestimate the political, and religious intrigue of those times.

Keep in mind, the Roman Governor controlled who was the Head of the Temple. The people had no hand in that. The Bible says that Annas, Father in Law of Caiaphus had been replaced because he got cross with the Governor. (They didn't execute, only moved him out of the position) One of my favorite reads concerns all the wrong actions in every step of the trail of Jesus. All the violations of Jewish Law.

Modern day politics?

 

[Gandalf]

Keep in mind, the Roman Governor controlled who was the Head of the Temple. The people had no hand in that. The Bible says that Annas, Father in Law of Caiaphus had been replaced because he got cross with the Governor. (They didn't execute, only moved him out of the position) One of my favorite reads concerns all the wrong actions in every step of the trail of Jesus. All the violations of Jewish Law.

Modern day politics?

Which is why I was discussing the kissing up to power basically amongst those Jewish leaders. If you wanted to be important, you had to deal with Rome and the Roman Empire. And if you didn't want to spend all of your time at the kiddie table, rather than having more influence than that, then why wouldn't you want to speak Latin. So Jesus before Pilate I would at least presume would have been in Latin, if not Greek, but if Jesus was only brought before a Jewish trial only, that would have been different.