At church today the organist played the hymn “There Is a Green Hill Far Away” just before the sacrament. I normally just sing along, but since we are still wearing masks as part of the measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, we have been asked to read the lyrics silently rather than sing. While reading I noticed that the hymn was cross-referenced to John 19:16-20 and Hebrew 13:2, which I went ahead and read while the sacrament was being passed. The verses in John were familiar enough to me, but a new thought occurred to me as I read verse 20. Why isn’t Aramaic included?
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
– John 19:19-20
You’ll notice at the end of the above verses, it identifies the languages that appeared on the sign above Jesus’ head as he was crucified. This isn’t the first time time I’ve noticed this verse. Being the language nerd that I am, I’ve frequently thought it appropriate that the Roman governor went to the effort to post the sign in three languages and I’ve wondered if this was true of all public proclamations in the Roman world (though modified somewhat depending on which Roman province you were in). Latin was the “official” language of the Roman Empire, at least to the extent you could call something an official language in that time, but in the Easter Mediterranean it never had quite the same prestige as Greek, which had taken root during the reign of Alexander the Great. In addition to Greek and Latin, each province would have one or more local languages that survived the rise and fall of the various conquering empires. Despite the original prevalence of Hebrew, in Roman Judaea the local language presumably would have been Aramaic.
For decades the scholarly consensus has been that Hebrew began its decline during the Babylonian Captivity when many Jewish leaders adopted the languages of their captors, and Assyrian governing policies led to the forced relocation of entire Aramaic-speaking populations to Palestine. When the Jews returned to their earlier homeland they found it inhabited by a foreign people who spoke the language of the larger empire, which the Jews now adopted as their own. Which is not to say Hebrew was completely dead, but it’s only been in the last few years that some scholars have challenged the Aramaic consensus, leading to hotly contested debates over the vitality of the Hebrew language as a living part of Roman Judaea.
So what was going on in Jerusalem when Pilate ordered the “King of the Jews” sign to be posted in Hebrew? Based on what I’ve read here are my three main theories:
Theory #1: The sign was actually written in Aramaic
This is my least favorite theory, but there is some evidence for it. The most authoritative of the early New Testament manuscripts were all written in Greek, and these form the basis for the King James Version in English. This has led most scholars to argue that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.1 But there are several places in the New Testament where the original Greek appears to be a transliteration of Aramaic, often immediately followed by the Greek equivalent. Most of these instances are place names or personal names, but some sayings of Jesus himself have been argued to be Aramaic transliterations in the early texts, including this verse from Mark:
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
– Mark 5:41
Furthermore there are a number of places where the New Testament author appears to identify an Aramaic term incorrectly as Hebrew. One example of this is the name “Bethesda”.
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
John 5:2
If Aramaic really was as widespread as most scholars think, and John mistakenly identifies Aramaic terms as Hebrew, isn’t it possible that he also misidentified the language on the “King of the Jews” sign as well?.2
Theory #2: Hebrew was more common than Aramaic
One competing theory to the above is that Hebrew had not yet been displaced as the main language of Palestine by the times of Jesus. While there is a growing recognition that Hebrew as a native spoken language lasted longer than most scholars originally thought (some arguing it survived as late as 400 AD), the fact is Aramaic and Hebrew are similar due to their common origin as Semetic languages, and it is not unreasonable to think that some Aramaic terms made their way into the Hebrew language. In fact, this seems very likely to be the case with several Aramaic terms such as Abba and Mammon that are still used in Modern Hebrew.
So it is possible that the scholars who point to Aramaic terms in the New Testament as evidence that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the primary language are actually pointing to Aramaic terms that had been adopted into Hebrew as the language evolved through contact with Aramaic-speaking peoples now living in the area. So John was right when he identified those terms as Hebrew. They were the Hebrew of his day, which was a constantly evolving as is true of all languages.
This argument makes sense, but personally I am not convinced. Knowing almost nothing about Hebrew and Aramaic other than what Wikipedia has taught me, it seems like the evidence of Aramaic in the New Testament is stronger than that. When there are two competing languages in a society, it is not uncommon for one to become a prestige language and one to be the common language of the masses. It seems that those instances where Aramaic is used is in the common language, such as refering to personal names or speaking to a child. That suggests the language has gone a good way toward replacing Hebrew as the language of the home. But, like I said, I’m no expert.
Theory #3: People spoke Aramaic but wrote in Hebrew
This last theory is my preferred theory because it seems the most simple and consistent with hostoric precedent. Austrians speak a language that doesn’t really sound like the language they write. Cantonese speakers write a form of Chinese that replicates spoken Mandarin, and which is not a true reflection of how they speak. Eight hundred years after the fall of Rome people were still writing primarily in Latin, until Dante decided to write things the way they sound, and simultaneously creating the standard for modern Italian. The Akkadian-speaking Babylonians wrote ceremonial texts in Sumerian, a language that was already ancient before Babylon was even founded, for nearly 2,000 years after the last speaker of Sumerian would have died. Hebrew clearly held this same level of prestige in the Jewish community of Jesus’ day, and continued to hold that position for 2,000 years afterwards until it was revived as the national language of Israel. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that Aramaic-speaking Jews would neverthelss prefer to conduct formal business in written Hebrew.
And so my assumption is that Pilate did in fact write his sign in Hebrew. Probably not the spiritual thought that some may have expected from a post about Palm Sunday. Sorry about that. But hopefully it’s still interesting.
- Though this is contested specifically with respect to the Four Gospels and Revelations due to the occassional awkward phrasing in the original Greek, which suggests it may be a poor translation into Greek from an older original written in a different language.
- For more on the use of Aramaic in the times of Jesus see this Wikipedia article: “Language of Jesus”.