« Back

Pilgrimage or Visit, Aramaic or Hebrew, Francis or Bibi? Jesus, the Languages of His Times, and the Politics of the Media

It was disappointing and dispiriting to see that the American media largely chose to ignore the participation of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in the Apostolic Pilgrimage of Brothers that took place in the Holy Land in May.  The meetings between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis, during the May 23-27 pilgrimage—marking the fiftieth anniversary of the first meeting between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem, the historic audience that initiated the modern dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, formally separated since the schism of 1054—represented one of the most important ecclesiastical summits to have taken place in the Christian world in the last half century.  Yet, the Orthodox Church was largely written out of the popular media’s narrative, as was the actual purpose, of the joint Papal-Patriarchal pilgrimage—an official reaffirmation and renewal of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. 

The media widely packaged the pilgrimage as “the Pope’s Trip to the Middle East” or “the Pope’s Visit to the Holy Land,” a unilateral junket rather than a bilateral ecclesiastical summit, and a decidedly political, more than a religious, journey.  Indeed, the mainstream media’s approach left the public with the impression that Pope Francis’ counterpart and partner during the pilgrimage was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) rather than Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.  Most of the American reportage from Jerusalem overlooked entirely the ecclesiastical dimensions of the pilgrimage, to focus on Francis’ show of support for the Palestinian cause, his calls for resolution of the Middle East’s multiple conflicts through peace, and Netanyahu’s irritation with the Pope’s pronouncements and actions.

The strain between Francis and Netanyahu came out into the open during a tense public exchange between the Israeli prime minister and the Pope over the language spoken by Jesus.  Despite efforts to reframe the incident as good natured, the very undiplomatic verbal sparring was immediately seized upon by the media as the most provocative moment of the pilgrimage, even perhaps eclipsing Francis’ apparent impromptu stop to pray at the controversial Israeli-built wall that isolates and cuts into the occupied West Bank. 

During a seated discussion between Francis and Netanyahu in Jerusalem on May 26, the Pope listened through a translator to Israel’s Prime Minister as he began speaking on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.  Francis listened intently until the point when Netanyahu said, “Jesus was here, in this land.  He spoke Hebrew.”  Francis looked displeased, interrupted Netanyahu, and corrected the Prime Minister with a curt response: “He spoke Aramaic.”  Flustered, but with a firm retort, Netanyahu insisted, “He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew.”

On its surface, the edgy disagreement over what language Jesus spoke may have seemed pedantic, the stuff of endless debate and speculative interest for historians and linguists.  In reality, for Francis and Netanyahu, their passionate responses to this question were not the product of some sort of arcane academic squabble.  Instead, both men reacted as they did because they understand this issue is a gravely serious and consequential matter loaded with political import. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertions about Jesus’ language were driven by a political agenda.  Specifically, Netanyahu made his comment to emphasize the point that the historic Jesus was a Jew who lived in the land of Israel centuries before the appearance of modern Arab Palestinians.  Netanyahu’s statement was meant to implicitly promote his view that Palestinians—Christian and Muslim alike—are interlopers in all of the lands west of the Jordan River, with no compelling historical link or right to such territory.  Francis reacted strongly to Netanyahu’s claims about Jesus’ spoken language, not merely because Netanyahu was factually incorrect.  Francis abruptly interrupted Netanyahu’s soliloquy because he discerned, and was upset by, Netanyahu’s effort to distort and exploit the historical Jesus and his language for political purposes.  In short, the Pope’s reaction was not simply a nit-picking correction of an historical mistake.  It was an act of political defiance, with Francis breaking polite diplomatic convention in order to communicate clearly to Netanyahu that he would not tolerate such manipulation of Christ in history.    

As to the question of Jesus’ language, the historical evidence and the scholarly consensus are clear.  Centuries before the time of Christ, Aramaic—a Semitic language closely related to both Arabic and Hebrew, surviving today as Syriac, a dialect of the ancient language spoken by many Eastern Christians in the Levant—had flourished, becoming the most common language in the Near East, outside Egypt.  That Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native language is virtually indisputable.  That Jesus may have had more than a superficial knowledge of Hebrew is possible, but uncertain. 

Although some Jews continued to speak Hebrew as their vernacular language during the time of Christ, most probably in parts of Judea, the language had dramatically receded to a largely liturgical role in Jewish society by the first century AD.  Indeed, by the first century, more Jews, especially in Jesus’ native Galilee, spoke Greek than Hebrew.  This fact did not find its way into the disagreement between Pope Francis and Prime Minister Netanyahu, neither, not surprisingly, was it something recalled by the media.  This blog’s next posting will focus on the Greek spoken by Jesus.   

Dr. Alexandros K. Kyrou is Professor of History at Salem State University, where he teaches on the Balkans, Byzantium, and the Ottoman Empire.

Comments
Trackback URL:

Ewan MacLeod
The debate between Aramaic and Hebrew will be an endless one, but the Pope's intended message was that Jesus ONLY spoke Aramaic (and didn't speak Hebrew at all). By contrast, Bibi was correctly saying that Jesus did speak Aramaic, but not to forget that he spoke Hebrew as well. The debate over which was spoken more (Aramaic and Hebrew) is particularly well researched on JesusSpokeAramaic.com
Posted on 6/24/14 2:28 PM.
Paul-Joseph Stines
All experts agree that it is almost a certainty that Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic and there is only conjecture that he may have spoken Hebrew. It was, in fact, the PM who first said “Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew.” He made no mention of Aramaic until the pope corrected him. Mr Netanyahu is a politician, and a very adept one, and he was doing what politicians do. He had a photo-op with the pope and was trying to score political points for their historical claim to the land. The Palestinians do the same, going so far as to deny there were any Jews in the land before they arrived. When I first heard about the exchange I was very surprised that no one else seemed to see the significance of this. This article was the first thing I have found in which the author understood the significance of what seemed like impatience or even argumentativeness of Pope Francis. I look forward to the author's promised article on the use of Greek in the Holy Land in the First Century.
Posted on 6/25/14 2:38 PM.
Nicholas Kalinosky
It is mentioned in this article with a few swift (and I think somewhat obscure) words that even though Jesus spoke Aramaic (and likely also Greek), the Hebrew language was still used liturgically in synagogues.
The Bible talks about Jesus getting up and reading a scroll in a synagogue. Do you think that scroll would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic? (Clearly I and many others would say Hebrew). Just as today, Greeks use ancient Greek in churches and not modern Greek (the language they "speak"), so in the days of Jesus, it is altogether possible that he read that scroll in Hebrew, as the liturgical language was not necessarily the same as the spoken language. To take it a step further, if God's home is our home, and the Liturgy is our native work, then is the language of our everyday conversation with our friends really "our language"? Or is what we use in church more properly "our language"?
I find it at least a little disturbing that Dr. Kyrou chooses to say, "That Jesus may have had more than a superficial knowledge of Hebrew is possible, but uncertain." Why am I disturbed? Because this is the same as when someone talks about "The Jesus that didn't know calculus." I mean, if we assert that Jesus is God the Son, then he has all knowledge -- he knows Japanese, Russian, Slavonic, Italian, Latin, Modern Greek and Ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. He can speak it all, then and now.
Finally, it is worth noting that Aramaic and Hebrew are probably closer in both syntax and semantics than Modern Greek and Ancient Greek. If you speak Aramaic, then there is a very real sense in which "ARE" also speaking Hebrew and vice-versa. This is just like a speaker of Spanish and of French will likely understand each other far better than say a speaker of Spanish and a speaker of Chinese.
Posted on 7/3/14 4:37 PM.
Rev. Dr. Panayiotis E. Papageorgiou
The effort of the Israelis to present themselves as the rightful owners of the "Holy Land" is clearly the reason the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made his comment to Pope Francis, as Dr. Kyrou has clearly pointed out in the above article. There is a serious problem with the Israeli claim, however, which has been ignored or not clearly articulated by people (even by historians), as they continue to refer to the inhabitants of the "Holy Land" as Palestinians with no distinction between Christians and Moslems. Furthermore, there is a serious flaw in labeling the Christians of the "Holy Land", Lebanon and Syria as "Arab Christians". Any serious historian can quickly affirm that the Arabs who conquered these lands in the seventh century did not embrace Christianity!!! So, who are these Palestinian Arab speaking Christians? Did they come to this land after the Arabs or are they perhaps the indigenous people of the "Holy Land”? Again, any serious student of history will be able to quickly tell you that these Arab speaking Palestinian Christians are not Arabs, but rather the indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land who have their roots in Judaism of the first century and who were Christianized in the centuries following the destruction of Jerusalem and final expulsion of the Jews from that area by the Romans (135 AD) and most especially after the visit of St. Helena and the establishment of hundreds of churches and numerous monasteries in the 4th century. It will be easy to show, also, that not only Aramaic but also Greek was spoken in most places until the Arab invasion and the subjugation of these Christians to Islamic rule. My point is that modern Jews may claim the "Holy Land" as their ancestral home, but the Christians of the "Holy Land" have been continually there and have their roots deep in that land, at least as deep as anyone who claims to be a Jew today. We owe it to the one and half million of these forgotten Christians to stand up for them, for they are the biggest victims of the unholy, bloody conflict between the Jews and Moslems in the "Holy Land".
Posted on 7/17/14 12:07 AM.
Emily N Spanos
Posts: 1
Stars: 0
Date: 9/15/14
Dominic Perri
Posts: 8
Stars: 2
Date: 9/12/14
Nicholas Chakos
Posts: 1
Stars: 0
Date: 8/27/14
Will Thomas Cohen
Posts: 2
Stars: 1
Date: 8/14/14
Dr. Tony Vrame
Posts: 15
Stars: 1
Date: 8/11/14
Fr. Nathanael Symeonides
Posts: 8
Stars: 1
Date: 7/17/14
Theo Nicolakis
Posts: 16
Stars: 5
Date: 7/14/14
Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou
Posts: 6
Stars: 3
Date: 7/2/14
Brandon Vogt
Posts: 1
Stars: 0
Date: 5/14/14
Jamil Samara
Posts: 9
Stars: 0
Date: 5/13/14