As Pontius Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus only spoke Aramaic, is this why Christ remained silent? If a translator was present, was that person a sidekick of Pilate's and likely to translate any of Christ's words in terms of what Pilate wanted to hear?
It is very likely Jesus spoke at least four languages: Aramaic, Hebrew (the language of the Scripture - he was able to debate the rabbis in the age of his bar mitzva), Greek and Latin. Greek was the lingua franca of the era in education, philosophy, culture and arts, and Latin was the language of the administration, law and enforcement.
Some of the phrases of the discourse make sense only in Latin - it is likely they discussed in Latin, but it may be coincidence, and they discussed in Greek instead. Certainly they both spoke Greek, as that was also the language of the Jewish elites in Iudaea in the era.
There is one chapter in the Gospels which clearly suggests Jesus knew Latin: he was able to make puns which work only in Latin. See Matthew 16:18 :
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.
What I consider almost certain is that Pontius Pilatus yelled in Latin “Quod scripsi, scripsi!” to the priests (John 19:22) - he wanted to humiliate the priests fully. It is the same as saying “Dixi!” - it has been spoken and no further discussion is necessary.
Like most upper-class Romans, Pilate would have spoken Greek at a near-native level, having been raised by Greek pedagogues since he was old enough to hold a stylus. As Jesus is meant to have spent much of his youth in Egypt, where the Jews spoke Greek natively, it is very likely he also spoke fluent Greek (as did much of the Judaean elite). It is unlikely any translator was needed- assyuming this meeting ever even happened in reality.
Educated Romans, like Pilate, spoke both Latin and Greek. Greek was the lingua franca in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, while Latin was widespread in the West. Educated Jews spoke Greek as well on top of their native Aramaic and the liturgical Biblical Hebrew they learnt for synagogue, Temple, and religious study purposes.
As for Jesus, there was a Greek-speaking city called Sepphoris right near Nazareth. Since Nazareth was a very small village, there are high chances that Jesus worked in Sephhoris. He would have known Greek.
I’m not sure why people are so convinced that the historical Jesus would have only spoken Aramaic. Even if he lacked an Hellenic education, Greek was a lingua franca throughout the region in which he lived - it’s very unlikely that he was an Aramaic monoglot, strictly speaking. Most scholars believe that, had the Romans not destroyed Judea, the populace would have sooner than later entirely shifted to Greek; additionally, it is generally believed that this language shift was already well underway during the historical Jesus’ lifetime. The null hypothesis should be that the historical JC spoke both Aramaic and Greek, although not necessarily both at the same level.
As for an interpreter (NOT translator, BTW) being present - yes, there would have been one present if necessary - they were widely used by the Roman military and government. The reasons for JC’s silence in the court are theological and personal, unrelated to the Roman judicial infrastructure. Pontius Pilate would not have used Latin while engaging with members of the local populace - Latin never replaced Greek as a lingua franca in the eastern half of the empire, nor did it ever replace any of the local vernaculars, as it did in Western Europe. As a member of the aristocracy, Pilate would have been taught Greek at an early age, and would have been able to use it fluently in a court of law.
Therefore: the historical JC’s trial was conducted in Greek by a Greek-speaking Roman, JC understood it, and his (limited) responses were delivered in Greek. Pending more information, that is the most likely scenario to have occurred.
The lingua franca of the Roman world was common Greek, the lingua franca of the Mesopotamian world and near East was Aramaic. The former was a a result of Hellenic conquest, the latter largely the result of trade along the Fertile Crescent and the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean.
There is little to no doubt that Pilate would have spoken at least Koine Greek, even if he wasn't fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew (compare John 19:19-22)
That Jesus conversed with Pilate is made very clear from the rest of the account. Jesus’ choice to keep silent had absolutely nothing to do with their inability to understand one another.
Jesus, as the son of God, could likely speak literally any language of man, since of course he would have heard all of them from heaven in his prehuman existence, not to mention his peerless mental facilities as a human and perfect man.
JW.org
It’s reasonable to assume that both Jesus and Pilate were able to speak Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the entire Eastern Mediterranean region, and had been for centuries. Anybody growing up in that part of the world, as Jesus, did, would have been ale to speak at least enough Greek to communicate with anybody they needed to do business with, which included the government. For the same reason, anybody in a position of authority in that region, whether placed there by Rome or otherwise, would have needed to be able to speak Greek. Italy had been part of the Greek sphere of influence before the rise of Rome, and the language was widely spoken among the political elite and most traders.
It’s possible that Jesus also had some Latin, but it’s a much safer bet that he spoke Greek to a reasonable standard. Greek is the language in which the earliest known New Testament texts are written in, and this is because Greek was a more or less universal language in that time and place.
Read some more. Jesus also stayed pretty silent when the Sanhedron was demanding answers from him so they could condemn him. They all spoke the same language, so your better question should not be about language but about why Jesus chose to not defend himself. And the answer is because Jesus voluntarily accepted condemnation.
We generally don’t understand - it doesn’t communicate to us all that well, because we no longer have a religious sacrificial system. Everyone did back then. And oddly, Christ’s success in dying as a sacrifice for the sins of the world ended these sacrificial systems for most of the world. Pretty soon, Christians were talking about forgiveness from God because of faith (trust) in what Jesus had done for them and others understood. Before long, it was hard to find a Greek or Roman or other who killed their animal at the local pagan temple in order to appease some god. Jesus was different. He quietly claimed to be God in the flesh and the leaders became fearful that he would take away their privileged place over the people, so they bumped him off. What if they killed the one they claimed to worship?! But that one was there to open the door to heaven by living a perfect life and receiving the judgment due to our own lacking. That would make God pretty gracious, wouldn’t it?
https://www.quora.com/
Comments
Post a Comment