The Greek influence on the Bible may be more profound than we know. I believe that the terms “Christos” for “Christ” — meaning Anointed One — is another example, thus showing that his name was not Jesus Christ, but the term Christ, Christos from the Greek.
This then asks: was Jesus his name which some debate, Jesus or Yeshua.
The point I’m driving home here is that our modern understanding of the Bible pales to the richness of history, narrative, and story that have influenced it, and until we begin to understand these deeper elements, we may never fully grasp the fullness and depth of what is being told to us.
Glad to see something look to dive into this topic. Curious to what the feedback will be.
Franklin-- I agree. A great topic of discussion. I just posted on that very subject two weeks ago, responding to another substack post that made arguments in this line of thought. Here's a link to that post, should you be interested.
We always have to take seriously the NT is written in Greek and that the "thought" behind the Greek language helped shape early Christianity - the best example of this is John's use of "the Logos" to describe the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Really enjoyed this, Deacon Garlick. The Sepphoris detail and the Septuagint citations make the multilingual case well, and I think you're right that most people flatten Christ's world into a single language when it was anything but.
I'd push one layer further, though. Grant everything you've argued: Jesus moves fluently between Aramaic, Greek, and the Hebrew of the synagogue depending on the audience in front of him. That multilingual fluency actually makes something else more striking, not less. When the Gospel writers reach for the most intimate and urgent moments in the story, the little girl's raising, the deaf man's healing, Gethsemane, the cross, they don't translate. They give us Talitha cumi, Ephphatha, Abba, Eli Eli, in the original Aramaic, and only then hand us the Greek gloss. These are the men most equipped in the ancient world to render everything smoothly into Koine, and they keep refusing to.
Something about those specific words asked to be heard before it asked to be understood.
I wrote about that pattern today (what great timing!) over at the Arrow Song blog, if you're curious where it leads. Your essay and mine are looking at the same linguistic terrain from opposite directions, yours asking which language Christ used, mine asking why one particular language kept surfacing at the moments that mattered most.
Great column. Although not a perfect analogy (they never are) I've always thought of America's relationship to Britain — oweing much of its foundational culture, government, language, capitalist system, etc. to the older culture. Seems analagous to Rome's appropriation/absorption/adoption of those things most meritorious left behind from the Helenized world that it inherited/conquered. Makes perfect sense that, in the natural, Jesus would speak Greek. In the supernatural, I suppose, he could speak any language he might wish, but that's another discussion.
To the Christian, the answer seems obvious. But here again, we must not straw man the skeptic's point: The Hellenization of the Rome began as early as 201 BC. As Will Durant writes in Caesar and Christ, "Greek sculptors, painters, and architects, following the line of greatest gold, migrated to Rome and slowly Hellenized the capital of their conquerors." The following centuries would see trade in the Mediterranean secured by men like Pompey the Great. Thereafter, Rome would conquer Bithynia, Pontus, and Syria, and it would make a client state of Palestine.
It's reasonable to conclude that the Greek language would proliferate across the Mediterranean just as Rome did. And as you point out, scripture supports this.
Let's not forget how the pivotal conversation at the end of John's Gospel (21:15-17) hinges upon differences in Greek words: ἀγαπάω (agapaō) – self-giving love, and φιλέω (phileō) – brotherly love.
Indeed, there's plenty of evidence supporting that Christ spoke Greek. But then again, even in the face of evidence, people will believe what they wish to. After all, some maintain that the earth is flat...
Wow, I knew many Jews spoke Greek, yet never thought Jesus would be included. I falsely believed this only was something employed by those of higher status.
The Greek influence on the Bible may be more profound than we know. I believe that the terms “Christos” for “Christ” — meaning Anointed One — is another example, thus showing that his name was not Jesus Christ, but the term Christ, Christos from the Greek.
This then asks: was Jesus his name which some debate, Jesus or Yeshua.
The point I’m driving home here is that our modern understanding of the Bible pales to the richness of history, narrative, and story that have influenced it, and until we begin to understand these deeper elements, we may never fully grasp the fullness and depth of what is being told to us.
Glad to see something look to dive into this topic. Curious to what the feedback will be.
Franklin-- I agree. A great topic of discussion. I just posted on that very subject two weeks ago, responding to another substack post that made arguments in this line of thought. Here's a link to that post, should you be interested.
https://arrowsong.scotlahaie.com/p/the-ditch-on-the-other-side-of-the
We always have to take seriously the NT is written in Greek and that the "thought" behind the Greek language helped shape early Christianity - the best example of this is John's use of "the Logos" to describe the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Really enjoyed this, Deacon Garlick. The Sepphoris detail and the Septuagint citations make the multilingual case well, and I think you're right that most people flatten Christ's world into a single language when it was anything but.
I'd push one layer further, though. Grant everything you've argued: Jesus moves fluently between Aramaic, Greek, and the Hebrew of the synagogue depending on the audience in front of him. That multilingual fluency actually makes something else more striking, not less. When the Gospel writers reach for the most intimate and urgent moments in the story, the little girl's raising, the deaf man's healing, Gethsemane, the cross, they don't translate. They give us Talitha cumi, Ephphatha, Abba, Eli Eli, in the original Aramaic, and only then hand us the Greek gloss. These are the men most equipped in the ancient world to render everything smoothly into Koine, and they keep refusing to.
Something about those specific words asked to be heard before it asked to be understood.
I wrote about that pattern today (what great timing!) over at the Arrow Song blog, if you're curious where it leads. Your essay and mine are looking at the same linguistic terrain from opposite directions, yours asking which language Christ used, mine asking why one particular language kept surfacing at the moments that mattered most.
https://arrowsong.scotlahaie.com/p/the-language-underneath
Good thoughts.
Great column. Although not a perfect analogy (they never are) I've always thought of America's relationship to Britain — oweing much of its foundational culture, government, language, capitalist system, etc. to the older culture. Seems analagous to Rome's appropriation/absorption/adoption of those things most meritorious left behind from the Helenized world that it inherited/conquered. Makes perfect sense that, in the natural, Jesus would speak Greek. In the supernatural, I suppose, he could speak any language he might wish, but that's another discussion.
Agreed. And it may have been better to clarify Greek as a universal language predominant in the eastern part of the Empire.
To the Christian, the answer seems obvious. But here again, we must not straw man the skeptic's point: The Hellenization of the Rome began as early as 201 BC. As Will Durant writes in Caesar and Christ, "Greek sculptors, painters, and architects, following the line of greatest gold, migrated to Rome and slowly Hellenized the capital of their conquerors." The following centuries would see trade in the Mediterranean secured by men like Pompey the Great. Thereafter, Rome would conquer Bithynia, Pontus, and Syria, and it would make a client state of Palestine.
It's reasonable to conclude that the Greek language would proliferate across the Mediterranean just as Rome did. And as you point out, scripture supports this.
Let's not forget how the pivotal conversation at the end of John's Gospel (21:15-17) hinges upon differences in Greek words: ἀγαπάω (agapaō) – self-giving love, and φιλέω (phileō) – brotherly love.
Indeed, there's plenty of evidence supporting that Christ spoke Greek. But then again, even in the face of evidence, people will believe what they wish to. After all, some maintain that the earth is flat...
Agreed. The Greek language gave shape and form to Christian thought.
Wow, I knew many Jews spoke Greek, yet never thought Jesus would be included. I falsely believed this only was something employed by those of higher status.