Jesus spoke Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Wow that's a lot. People in 1st century Palestine had to know a lot. Wow...

newadvent.org/cathen

You misunderstand what infused knowledge is. You are being a docetist heretic. Recant or go to hell.

The Septuagint wouldn't be used by Palestinian Jews. He would have had to read from Hebrew in liturgical settings or perhaps use an Aramaic Targum.

I should add that the reason it seems like the NT quotes the Septuagint is because the Masoretic scribes altered their texts. Don't you think it's fishy that just about all the Messianic prophetic passages read differently in Hebrew? Is that just coincidence? Yeah, right. The synagogues tried to pass Christians off as liars, but the Church fathers called them out on this from beginning.

And now Qumran proves the Church right on that.. at least from what exists. Things like the Psalm passage "They pierced my hands and my feet" became "Like a lion at my hands and feet" in the Masoretic. Guess what? Qumran now has the proper Hebrew, exactly like the LXX. And this is just one passage.

So whatever Jesus or Judean apostles were quoting was close to this. And the LXX was fitting and accurate for Greek speakers.

Sorry to derail.

Matthew 24:36 NASB — “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Attached: 1528001521990.gif (575x420, 506.83K)

Being able to speak more than one language is pretty common, ameriburger

Always been an interesting passage, but I don't think it has anything to do with languages, but time. Jesus is the Logos himself, in the very act of Creation at the beginning of time. It's his very being to know words. But maybe the Father, being the Eternal source of all life and time, is where the Son's domain ends..

I feel stupid and puny just thinking of such things. It's not for us to know really. :)

Thanks for providing the Aquinas support for my statement.

Your second quote has no provenance and thus has no magisterial authority.

Christ having infused knowledge of everything is not docetism as it does not deny he also had a rational human intellect too.

I'm going to need to see an anathema on this position of infused knowledge of everything. Otherwise your condemnation of me is the mortal sin of usurpation and schism.

No, three languages is really not much. Everyone in my family is bilingual at the very least, and I am trilinugual myself. Maybe it seems much to Americans who are used to everyone else in the world knowing how to speak English that they don't bother with other languages.

I'm American, but honestly I admire that. I even live in a heavily bilingual era with Spanish speakers, but still never saw the need to learn it (everyone speaks English too). I also have a fascination with bible translation, and would love to read some (not to mention would love to be familiar with the originals).

If you were raised in a household that spoke multiple languages, you'd know a lot of languages too.
As said, Aramaic was the regional language.
The Roman Empire controlled the territory and spoke Greek and Latin.
The Jews knew Hebrew for religious purposes.
Aramaic would be native, Greek would have been at least conversational. Hebrew could have been limited at worst, and Latin may never have come up.

The evidence is strongest for Aramaic. The scriptures that were read could have been Targum translations. Otherwise Greek was the language of adminstration.
The sermon on the mount was likely given in Aramaic considering the places that were mentioned in the gospel before it.

Matthew 4:24-25
And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judaea and from beyond the Jordan.

Brother, you got me. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

This actually reminds me of this scene. Jesus speaks Latin to Pilate in it. There's nothing in St. Catherine of Emmerich's original that mentions this afaik (I could be mistaken), but it's still kind of cool nonetheless…. as far as the most likely place he would have spoken it (although I think Pilate could have easily been a Greek speaker).

Could you post/link Emmerich's account? I'm nondenominational, but what I've seen of her visions thus far seem genuine.

Her vision of the Passion that Mel Gibson based the film off of is here:
sacred-texts.com/chr/pjc/index.htm

It's not exactly approved by the Vatican, and there are questions raised about the writer who copied down her words.. but she is beatified nonetheless. She also had visions of the nativity and the life of Mary, among other things…but not sure where that is to be found online.

Probably mainly Aramaic, with some knowledge of Hebrew from talking with rabbis. Greek and Latin were more business languages, so he might have spoken those like Americans can speak a little Spanish. The world he lived in was a Greco Roman one

In the region it's believed Latin would have been used mostly by military personnel. But even then some the conscripts might have been Greek speakers.

That Latin is atrocious.

Gonna need to qualify that statement lad

It is church Latin for one.
The usual word for 'king' (rex) isn't heard when Pilate asks him if he is the king of the Jews. Instead I hear something that sounds more like the Semitic terms for it.

At first he starts off speaking Aramaic to Jesus. Then Jesus responds in Latin, making the centurion and Pilate look at each other in surprise.

Oh I see, that's interesting.

So it depends what you mean by old Hebrew. I'll preface by saying I am in no ways a scholar or student, just a guy casually learning Hebrew to better read the OT. The Hebrew that Moses wrote with used the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, which is based off the ancient Phonecian alphabet. During the time of the Babylonian exile the Jews adopted the Aramaic alphabet writing style; the language and character set stayed the same, but the way the characters were written changed. That Aramaic style is what we know as Ancient and modern Hebrew.

Now a very large part of Jewish way of life both back in OT times and as Talmundists following one rule: make sure you keep doing what your ancestors did. This means staving off foreign influences from changing your culture and making sure you stay very closely to your traditions. In this case, it means that modern Hebrew is very similar to ancient Hebrew. When they were forming the modern language (sometime in the late 19th or early-mid 20th centuries I think) they made sure it was as close as possible to the Masoretic texts. The Masoretic texts were copies of the Old Testament produced by a group of Jews called the Masorites. They existed in the 10th-15th centuries (I think). They were very meticulous with ensuring that the copy they were producing matched the original copy they were copying from very closely. All of this to say that modern Hebrew is very similar to ancient Hebrew. There are some small differences I think, as any language will change over time, but considering how old of a language Hebrew is, the modern equivalent is astonishingly close to the original.

Pronunciation is where more noticeable differences come in. There are a couple of dialects, but the most common that is spoken in Israel is the one derived from Jews living in central Europe. Whilst there, they picked up some pronunciations that aren't like the original. The most obvious is the letter 'Waw'. The closest match to the ancient is to pronounce it as 'wow', but modern Jews say 'vav' (vah-v, like the obv in obviously). So when you watch ancient Hebrew lectures online from seminaries, the youtube comment sections will be filled with people who either speak modern Hebrew, know someone who does, or have been to Israel, complaining about the pronunciation.

I have no idea if there are big grammar differences. I imagine there are some, but not massively.

TL;DR: Modern Hebrew is remarkably similar to ancient Hebrew. Moses used the same language but different way of writing the alphabet characters. The new characters came in when the Jews went off to exile in Babylon. Some of the pronunciation is different. Some of the grammar might be different. As for the Old/Modern English analogy, it is probably more accurate to say it is like Shakespear's and our English, maybe even not that big of a difference.

Forgot to link.

The paleo script was preserved for things like coins and seals. The Samaritan alphabet is the closest to it.
Yemen is a country where a lot of linguistic antiquity appears to have been preserved. Aside from having what are said to be quite conservative dialects of both Hebrew and Arabic, some of the remaining South Arabian languages are also still extant there. Yemeni Jewish tradition is also distinctive and believed to be quite ancient.

youtu.be/IPsazUOaDS8
youtu.be/-e1cOB_6X00
youtu.be/upcx2MT4Q0M

Attached: e311f6f09e8d1a6d95ddd375038d1485.png (1928x856 77.91 KB, 62.74K)

Fascinating, thanks

well obviously since he's God he can speak anything he wants

Act 21 mentions the chiliarch in the barracks Paul was taken to when he went to Jerusalem spoke Greek so that would be the most likely secondary language for inhabitants of some of the Eastern Roman provinces in the Levant aside from their vernacular Aramaic dialect.

Taking the gospel of John truthfully, the Latin written on the crucifixion sign would probably be more of a formality. That isn't to say that among people in the government or military stationed in the eastern provinces there wouldn't be some who understood Latin.
Paul's writing the epistle to the Romans in Greek, where it would be easily translated to Latin is another indicator of Greek's more prominence.

I bet a whole book could just be written about the crucifixion sign (probably has). My only guess is that Pilate could have been covering himself. The Jews accused him of not being loyal to Caesar, if he didn't execute Jesus or thought "another king" was innocent. He knew they were just interested in their own squabble, but it painted him in a corner if this ever got wind to the Emperor or Senate (or at least, senators who hated him). So maybe he placed the sign to speak directly to Caesar, as a way to mock the Jews and place it at their own feet. Maybe the Romans would have just seen sarcasm, but it ended up meaning more than that.

Also, the Jews hated it, no matter the language. They wanted it to say "He said, 'I am the King of the Jews." Pilate: "Quod scripsi, scripsi." What I have written, I have written.

Pilate's actor is Polish.

Ecclesiastical Latin is fair use as we know it is the very high stylistic form of Latin from the time. Pilate being high class Roman could and probably used it over the more guttural and primitive classical Latin (the only difference really being a few hard consonant sounds like G, V as W and C as K).

It might have been the vulgar varieties that were more primitive. I imagine they probably spoke with varying degrees of colloquialism while what is known as the formal language was probably reserved for literary use and formal correspondence.

Multi-lingualism was much more common even a hundred years ago, much less before the age of the printing press.

I have a bunch of muslim friends from the "stan" countries, they speak 4 languages quite easily, a few speak 7.
It's not that crazy if you live in such regions.

Ecclesiastical Latin has major Italian influence in its phonology, it is quintessentially medieval. Classical Latin was the language of the upper-classes in Jesus' time, Vulgar Latin was the language of the common man.