INTRODUCTION
With
the rise of historical criticism from the 18-19th century onwards,
there has been a keen interest in the study of the ‘Jesus of history’ as much
the ‘Christ of faith’. The world in which he lived- Jewish, Hellenistic, or
Graeco-Roman at large, has gradually become important references for an
in-depth understanding of his life, mission and message. Pioneered by Käsemann
in 1953, then G. Bornkamm, Bultmann, Schweitzer etc., the quest for historical
Jesus met a paradigm since the late 18th century and critical
studies began.[1]
Thus, through their works we can, not fully but partly and with limitations,
deduce the languages used during the time of Jesus.
So, in order to determine the
languages in the Palestine during Jesus’ time, available evidence comes from
written sources, but spoken and written languages may not coincide. The
linguistic milieu was subject to change in the period from 200 BC to AD 135,[2]
but the evidence is irregular and not evenly distributed. Different languages
and dialects were spoken by various groups of people, some of which have no
written record preserved to the present day. However, a glimpse of information
can be drawn from the Biblical as well as extra-Biblical sources, on which this
paper will be mainly based upon.
Limitations: Even
though the crux of the paper is all about Linguistic concern, it will not make
exhaustive study on the grammatical differences and changes. This paper will
also limit geographically to the Palestine of Jesus’ time and not broader, as all
of Jesus’ life and ministry was more or less within Palestine.
1. LINGUISTIC
DIVERSITY DURING JESUS’ TIME
To study the life and culture of the
Palestine world during Jesus’ time, it is imperative first, to scrutinize the
very era of Jesus’ earthly life. This would include the geography, chronology
and anthropology of Jesus’ time.
Jesus’
Time: There had been no direct
documentation on the precise date of Jesus’ days on earth. Thus, over the
years, the dating of the chronology of Jesus has been scholarly dealt with, for
which, there can be at least, or more than ten traditions[3].
Nevertheless, the core subject of this paper is not concerned with the
‘arguments’ and rather deals with the most common and generally accepted (though
still argumentative) tradition.
1.1 Date: With the census of Quirinius having
occurred sometime during the period 6-4 BC, and Herod's death having occurred
in the spring of 4 BC, it likely seems that Jesus was born sometime in December
5 B.C. or January 4 B.C.[4]
Subsequently, the dating of his death, having different traditions, can also be
narrowed down to its generally accepted tradition, which is between 26-36 AD
and specifically AD 33 best fits the historical evidence.[5]
So, we can assume (in this paper) that Jesus’ time on earth was from 5-4 BC to
33 AD.
1.2 Geography: The Geographical journey which Jesus
covered during his 35-36 yrs on earth can be broadly taken as Galilee, Samaria
and Judea.[6]
The Gospels provide us with traceable records of His Galilean life, withdrawal
areas around Galilee, journey to Jerusalem to His last days in Jerusalem.[7]
1.3 The Context (Assorted People
and Language): Throughout
its history, including the periods of Greek and Roman rule, Palestine was a
land of many peoples. More Jews lived in Jerusalem and Judea than anywhere
else, although there were some in Galilee. Greeks and Romans were present
almost everywhere, and many cities, such as Caesarea and Tiberias, were predominantly
Gentile.
Among the diverse people in Palestine
were those known as Samaritans who lived in the region of Samaria. The Jews
regarded the Samaritans as neither fully Jews nor fully Gentiles, believing
they were half-breed descendants of foreigners imported into Samaria by Assyrian kings and Israelites not
deported by Assyria in the decades following 722 BC. The Samaritans themselves, however, claimed to
be descendants of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and therefore authentic Jews.
The Samaritans followed a version of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old
Testament (OT); also known as the Torah) that differed in several places
from that of the Jews, and they
worshiped in their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, not in the temple in Jerusalem.
Languages:
In first-century Palestine four languages were spoken and written (Even though
other Semitic words and Persian words are found, they are not considered
importantly as falling among the major
languages spoken or written during the period).[8]
Hebrew, the language of most of the OT, was the oldest. Many texts from the
Jewish community at Qumran were written in Hebrew, confirming the literary use of
that language. However, except for scrolls from Qumran, there is little
evidence that Hebrew was widely used in first-century Palestine. Although, it
was probably still in use in parts of religious services and in Jewish schools,
Hebrew was no longer universally understood among Jews.
Aramaic, the language of Aram (the OT
word for Syria), was the most widely used language in Palestine in the first
century AD and the one most commonly spoken by Jews. Aramaic is now a general
term referring to a number of Semitic dialects closely related to each other and
to Hebrew. Evidence from Qumran indicates that many texts in that community
were also written in Aramaic.
After the conquests of Alexander the
Great Greek became the universal language throughout the Mediterranean world.
The OT translated from Hebrew into Greek for Jews who lived outside Palestine
was later used by some Jews within Palestine. Although all manuscripts of the
New Testament (NT) are in Greek, it is possible that some were originally written
in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Such translations would
have been made by Christians living in Hellenistic communities in
Syria-Palestine or elsewhere.[9]
The Koine: The
periodic attack onto Greek soil of Indo-European people brought modifications
in the native speech of various localities. Due to the broken character of the land
of the Grecian peninsula, once these linguistics modifications/changes became
established, they tended to perpetuate themselves. In this way, the various
dialects came into being. While a literature grew up in only three or four of
these (Doric, Aeolic and Ionic under which came Attic), the spoken dialects
were many (C.D. Buck, The Greek Dialects).
This type of Greek was not confined to Athens or Attica but spread with the
colonizing activity of the Athenians. It is the largest single element behind
the Greek New Testament (The noting of this influence is one of the major
influences of the Blass-De Brunner Grammar). Some distinctly ionic words appear
there too, as well as Doric forms (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp xi-xxv). Aeolic
influence is minimal. The venture of Alexander the Great beyond Hellas in the
fourth century BC played a vital role in the emergence of a new type of Greek.
Those elements of speech that were most widely current already and those that
were most readily adapted from the various dialects tended to survive, whereas
the less useful were dropped. Hence, a new Greek medium was forged out, known
today as koine, meaning ‘common’. This Greek was
indeed the language of the common people and the common means of communication
in the Hellenistic age.[10]
In first-century Palestine, Greek was very widely used not only by Jews in
Graeco-Roman towns, but also by farmers and artisans, for whom Greek was the
second language. Among recent discoveries in Palestine are several kinds of
documents written in Greek by Jews, including letters, business transactions,
marriage contracts, and literary texts. It is even plausible that some Jews
spoke and wrote only in Greek. However, the fact that the Sanhedrin and synagogue,
distinctive Jewish institutions, got their names from Greek words illustrates
the influence of Greek upon the Jews.
The
newest language in Palestine was Latin, the language of Roman soldiers and some
Roman officials. Evidence that Latin was used in first-century Palestine has
been found in inscriptions dedicating public buildings and aqueducts,
tombstones of Romans who died in Palestine, and signposts along Roman roads.[11]
2. A STUDY ON THE DIVERSED
LANGUAGES & DIALECTS
2.1 ARAMAIC
Aramaic was one of the major languages of the ancient Middle
East. Along with Canaanite (Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite, Edomite) and Ugaritic,
it belongs to the Northwest group of Semitic languages. And along with Greek
and Hebrew, Aramaic was one of the three languages in most common use in the
land of Israel during the first century. It is the language most commonly
mentioned in NT scholarship as providing the Semitic background for the
teaching of Jesus.
Aramaic[12]
is not specifically named in the NT. At Acts 1:19 "in their language"
is used for an Aramaic name "Blood Field," h"qél dämä. Many scholars think that when Hebrew is mentioned
in the NT (Jn 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14 [Rev 9:11;
16:16]) it refers usually to Aramaic. However, the proof for such a usage is
weak and limited to proper names, where the etymology of the names is technically
Aramaic (Jn 5:2; 19:13, 17). Names are a special category of language and can
be adopted into a language. For instance, In John 20:16 rabboûni is correctly called Hebrew. The dialectical form rabbûni ("my teacher") is
found in Mishnaic Hebrew. The older Hebrew vocalization rabbûni could also occur in Aramaic.[13]
The Greek NT contains a significant number of Aramaic terms: Abba, Akeldamakh, Gabbatha, Golgotha,
Ephatha, Korbanas, Maran Atha, Mesias etc and several Aramaic names: Kephas, Martha, Tabitha etc.[14]
2.1.2 Dialects of Aramaic. There are two important phases of dialects
for NT background that span a period from the sixth century B.C. to the tenth
century A.D. The earlier phases of
the language in this period are Official Aramaic and Middle Aramaic. By the Late Aramaic phase (third century
A.D. to tenth century), there are three distinct dialectic areas: Western Late
Aramaic (Galilean, Samaritan and Christian Palestinian Aramaic) Central Late
Aramaic, (Syriac) and Eastern Late Aramaic (Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic and
Mandean).
Offcial Aramaic (700-200 B.C.) became the standard
written language of the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries). This is the
dialect of the Biblical Aramaic (BA) texts in Ezra and Daniel, with some
allowance made for spelling changes.
Middle Aramaic is a name given to the various dialects
attested from 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Fitzmyer 1979). During this period there appears
to have been a dialect-range from Nabatean to Judean/Qumran (QA) to Palmyran to
Syriac and Hatran. The Official dialect no longer dominated written Aramaic, and
local dialect features more and more penetrated into the written language. The
dialects from this period are only sparsely attested except for the documents
found in the Dead Sea area. Late Aramaic dialects (post-AD 200) show more
diversity and are better attested.
The Targums
of Ongelos to the Torah and Jonathan to the Prophets (TO/J) raise
special questions as to their dialect. Many scholars attribute the basic
consonantal text of these Targums to Judea from the first or second centuries AD
while acknowledging that the tradition was revised and vocalized in Babylonia
beginning with the third century. However, they may represent a written dialect
whose origin is more central than the Western Late Aramaic dialects. Galilean Aramaic (GA) is the name often
given to the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic dialect found in parts of the Jerusalem
Talmud and Midrashim. Inscriptions in Judea show that this dialect was
influential beyond Galilee.
The
dialect of Palestinian Targumic Aramaic (PTrA) consists of fragments from the Cairo Genizah, Codex Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targum. It is close to that
of Galilean Aramaic, but it appears to be a separate and slightly earlier dialect,
perhaps from the second century AD, and perhaps from Judea.
Samaritan Aramaic is roughly contemporary to Galilean
Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Aramaic and has been preserved in the
religious literature of the Samaritan community. It is important for tracing
the development of Western Late Aramaic.
Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) is mainly preserved in church
lectionaries of the Bible. This Western Late Aramaic dialect is from the sixth
to the eighth centuries AD and represents the continuation of Judean Aramaic
from the first half of the first millennium AD.
Syriac is a major literary language whose
dialectical origin was centered in Edessa. It is the most widely documented
Late Aramaic dialect. It is useful for NT studies from many perspectives.
Textually, it preserves ancient translations and textual traditions of the NT.
Historically, it preserves the teachings, records and literature of the
Aramaic-speaking churches. Syriac is not a Palestinian Aramaic dialect, and it
does not directly preserve first century Aramaic traditions.[15]
2.1.3 Written and/or Spoken Aramaic: Dialect
Models for First-Century Aramaic. The question of a distinct written
dialect over against a colloquial dialect has been debated in evaluating the
nature of the Aramaic material. The Palestinian Targum(s), and even more so Galilean
Aramaic, are distinct from the Qumran Aramaic texts. How is this difference to
be explained? Two broad approaches have been taken, viz.
One school of
thought attributes the main differences between Qumran Aramaic and Palestinian
Targumic Aramaic to time and somewhat to geography. The Palestinian Targums are
close to Galilean Aramaic but they lack some forms with final-nun that are so prominent in Galilean
Aramaic. This makes these Palestinian Targumic Aramaic forms parallel both to
earlier Qumran Aramaic and later Christian Palestinian Aramaic forms.
Palestinian Targumic Aramaic also uses a separated object pronoun like Christian
Palestinian Aramaic. This hints at a Judean origin of the Palestinian Targum.
But the difference of the Palestinian Targum from Qumran Aramaic and its
closeness to Galilean Aramaic would point to a later time than Qumran Aramaic
and an earlier time than Galilean Aramaic or Christian Palestinian Aramaic. The
Palestinian Targum may represent a Galilean development of a second-century
A.D. Judean tradition. The Bar Kokhba disaster (AD 135) would be the obvious
historical catalyst for the process. Another school of thought views the
Palestinian Targums and Talmud (grouped together) as being closer to the spoken
dialects and closer to colloquial first-century Aramaic. The Aramaic of Qumran
is viewed as literary and not a good example of spoken Aramaic. In this
approach the documents of Qumran Aramaic are literary and Palestinian Targumic
Aramaic/Galilean Aramaic are colloquial, and Palestinian Targumic Aramaic is
claimed to be contemporary in origin to Qumran Aramaic. The Qumran texts are
contemporary to the NT and therefore are the best examples of what written
Aramaic would look like from the first century and are probably the best
examples of what colloquial Aramaic would have looked like when written down.[16]
2.2 GREEK
Greek is one of the Indo-European languages.
Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is a scholarly reconstruction of the proto-typical
language from which all of the Indo-European languages descended.[17]
The NT, apart from a few Aramaic and Hebrew words and phrases, is written in a
form of ancient Greek. This Greek, however, is not the Greek of the classical
writers, such as Plato, Thucydides or the tragedians, but is that of the Greek
of the Greco-Rornan world of the first century. This Greek is represented by a
number of different sources, including not only the NT but also the Greek of
the papyri and other authors, such as Epictetus, Appian and Josephus.
Down the
centuries, Greek language has been facing modification, alteration and
development which Scholars have generally classified into four stages:-
i) Classical Greek (Before 300 BC)
ii) Hellenistic Greek (300-550 BC)
iii) Byzantine Greek (550-1453 AD)
iv) Modern Greek (After 1453 AD)
2.2.1 Hellenistic
Greek: The 5th
century BC in Greece saw two common things- Ionic
and Attic. The Ionic was essentially
a literary language, but it had no empire to sustain or advance it. Since Ionia was related to the Attic empire
and since the Attic dialect itself was influenced by earlier literature, the
resultant mixture of these two common languages characterizes what is known as
the Hellenistic Greek. This
Hellenistic Greek itself contains two major divisions: - i) Literary Greek[18]
and ii) Koine Greek.[19]
2.2.2 Greek,
the lingua franca: Throughout the Greco-Roman world in
the time of Jesus the Greek Koine was
the language of common interaction (lingua
franca) after the conquests of
Alexander the Great (Refer to p 3 The Koine). There were several perhaps
understandable and predictable responses to the clear and widespread ascendance
of Greek. One was that a number of people maintained the use of indigenous
languages. During the classical, Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods, Asia
Minor was particularly rife with indigenous (or epichoric) languages, such as
Lycian, Lydian, Sidetian, Carian, Phrygian and Galatian, besides Persian and
Aramaic, as well as Greek. The book of Acts notes that several of these
dialects continued even though Greek was the lingua franca. Some scholars have
even contended that the result was a number of hybrid dialects of Greek that
combined Greek with an indigenous
language, such as demotic in Egypt or Aramaic in Palestine. The evidence for
the persistence of such Creole[20]
languages, in which two languages were mixed for temporary communicative purposes,
is lacking. However, not all were as content with the developments that had
occurred within Greek. There were two movements that reacted against the use of
the Koine. As early as the third century B.C., several poets rejected the
common form of the Greek language and wrote poetry in forms of earlier Greek
dialects.
Similarly, in
the third century BC, there was the rise of what is called Asianism. This was a reaction against the balanced and measured
style of the literary form of Hellenistic Greek, such as found in Polybius, and
so these writers indulged in a more exuberant and ornate style. Some have
thought that the book of 2 Peter reflects this Asianic style. Somewhat in reaction
to Asianism, a movement called Atticism developed and reached its peak in the
second century A.D. Atticistic writers rejected what they perceived to be the
corruption or debasing of the
Greek language and advocated a return to the standards of vocabulary and style
of the best classical writers of Athens. Neither Asianism nor Atticism ever had
much influence apart from on certain literary authors, including some later Christian
writers.
As a result, one
of the noteworthy features of the linguistic situation of the first century is
the overall consistency and uniformity of Hellenistic Greek across the span of
the Greco-Roman world. Even in Phrygia and Lycaonia, in the interior of Asia
Minor, where regional dialects did a better job of surviving, Greek was the
common language, although perhaps with some regional differences in
pronunciation and phonetically based spelling variations. L. R. Palmer says of
this common language that it "smothered and replaced the ancient local dialects":
"Profound linguistic consequences might have been expected from the
adoption of what was basically the Attic dialect by users of not merely
non-Attic, but non-Greek speech. In fact the changes were remarkably
slight".[21]
The last two
decades of the twentieth century saw a return to the Greek hypothesis. M. Silva
has shown that the linguistic distinction between langue (the language system) and
parole (a particular writer's use of it) helps to clarify the linguistic
situation in Palestine in the first century. Although one's individual parole
may have had peculiarities brought about through knowledge of a Semitic
language, the langue in use was clearly Hellenistic Greek. Greek was the
prestige language of Palestine, and anyone wishing to conduct business on any
extended scale, would have needed to have known- indeed, would have wanted to
know- Greek.[22]
2.3 HEBREW
Hebrew is the language of the Hebrew
nation, and that in which the Old Testament is written, except for the Chaldee
(now generally known simply as Biblical Aramaic). In the Old Testament Hebrew
is only spoken of as "Jewish" (2 Kings 18:26,28; Isa 36:11,13; 2
Chron 32:18). It is grouped among the North-West Semitic languages such as
Aramaic and Cana[23]
and is called "the language of Canaan" (Isa 19:18) and
appropriately, Hebrew is the best attested and best known form of Canaanite. Modern Hebrew reader could understand literature
ranging from the earliest Biblical Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls and medieval
Midrashim.[24]
One of the most remarkable facts connected with the Hebrew language is that
although that literature extends through a period of over 1,000 years, there is
almost no difference between the language of the oldest parts and that of the
latest. One of the reasons would be that nearly the whole of the Old Testament
literature is religious in character, and as such the earliest writings would
become the model for the later. But this phenomenon is vulnerable of several
explanations.[25]
2.3.1 Classifications of Hebrew Language
Waltke and O'Connor deduce, "The Hebrew of scripture, though
far from uniform, is essentially a single language," and "The bulk of
the Hebrew Bible . . . presents a single if changing grammar". Likewise,
Hebrew grammarians have discerned differences in the Biblical Hebrew, the Mishnaic
Hebrew (An early 3rd century compendium, largely legal,
containing regulations and beliefs foundational of rabbinic Judaism and thus of
all later Jewish thought.[26])
and other later rabbinic
compositions[27].
With the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, E Qimron contends that the 550
scrolls written in Hebrew belong to the Biblical Hebrew. But there are,
however, two evidences from the Qumran caves that suggest Mishnaic Hebrew- The Copper Scroll and 4QMMT
(Some of the works of the Law). Both these literary works date back to
first-second century AD and further suggest the Hebrew language used during
that time in Jerusalem. Thus, we can infer that the form of Hebrew spoken in
the Jewish community of the first century AD was characterized by this Mishnaic
Hebrew.[28]
2.4 LATIN
Latin belongs to the Italic branch of the Indo-European (IE)
family of languages. Originally it was the language of Latium, the region of
Italy in which Rome is situated. It became the dominant language of the W.
Mediterranean with the expansion of Roman power. Latin was the official
language of Roman colonies in the east and west alike, and it was the language
of the Roman armies wherever they were stationed; but in the E Mediterranean,
Greek was never displaced from its position as the language of culture and
general communication which it had held since Alexander the Great’s conquests.[29]
The view of J. A. Fitzmyer is usually cited as representative
of the position on Latin. He contends that the evidence indicates that Latin
was used "mainly by the Romans who occupied the land and for more or less
official purposes". The evidence that he cites in support of this
contention is the inscriptional material in Latin found on buildings and aqueducts,
funerary inscriptions on the tombstones of Roman legionnaires in Palestine,
milestones and Roman tiles with the abbreviation of the Tenth Legion. This is
in line with Josephus’ noting that the inscription forbidding non-Jews to enter
the Jerusalem temple was written in Greek and Latin. And furthermore it
corresponds to Pilate’s writing of the title on Jesus’ cross.
We
also notice that a number of Latin words appear in Greek texts especially in
the Gospels like Gk kènsos/Lat. census; Gk koustödia/Lat. custodia;
Gk ksestés/Lat. sextañus; Gk praitärion/
Lat. praetorium; Gk soudarion/ Lat. sudarium; Gk spekoulatör/Lat. speculator; Gk titlos/Lat, tit(u)lus; Gk phragellion/ Lat. flagellium; Gk phragelloun/flagellar.[30]
There
are two classifications of Latin which are Classical and Modern Latin. The
modern Romance languages developed from the spoken Latin in various parts of
Roman Empire.
After
the 3rd Century AD, numerous texts in a popular style usually called
Vulgar Latin[31]
were written, which marked the beginning of the official recognition of
dialects within Latin language. The language has developed on the basis of
local spoken forms and has resulted in modern Romance languages and dialects in
which Latin still lives and yet continued in a more or less standardized form
throughout the Middle Ages as the Language of Religion and scholarship.[32]
3 IMPACT
ON JESUS’ LIFE AND MINISTRY
It is no doubt, in order that the
life and ministry of Jesus should be studied, there are certain limitations as
far as the sources provided are concerned. This is to say that even the Gospels,
which we consider as our chief sources, were written by the zealous evangelists
in their own ‘contexts’ and understandings and most importantly, not from the
historical point of view. And evidently the childhood and adolescence of Jesus
are obscure for us from this historical view. Nevertheless, with the scholarly
works rendered by different scholars through the ages, we shall now study how
the diversity of languages impacts the person and works of Jesus Christ;
starting with a brief description of what would Jesus’ language be amidst the
multilingual society.
3.1 What language(s) did Jesus
speak: The fact that
four major languages were spoken and written in first-century Palestine has led
to speculation about the language Jesus used. Thus, Aaron Tresham comments,
For decades scholarly consensus has held that Jesus
usually spoke the Aramaic language. To evaluate the accuracy of this
assumption, one must investigate to learn which language(s) was (were) spoken
in Israel during the first century A.D., and whether the sayings of Jesus in
the Gospels record the spoken Greek of Jesus or are translations of what He
said in Hebrew or Aramaic. Evidence for the use of Aramaic in the areas where
Jesus lived and taught is strong, but not necessarily strong enough to exclude
His use of other languages. Hebrew was not a dead language after the Babylonian
Exile as some have assumed. Documents, inscriptions, and coins have shown the
continued use of Hebrew during the time that Jesus was in Israel, particularly
in the area of Judea. If Jesus' visit to the synagogue in Nazareth is a historical
fact, and if he read from the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-22), then he could at
least read Hebrew, since most of the OT was written in Hebrew. The fact that
the Gospels as well as the rest of the NT were originally written in Greek
bolsters the case for a widespread use of Greek in Jesus’ time. Specific
instances of internal evidence in the NT itself, along with widespread use of
the Septuagint, in the NT indicate the trilingual nature of first-century
Israel. Indications that are external to the N T also show the use of Greek in
Jesus’ first-century surroundings. Yet impressive voices question the case for
Greek as the language Jesus used. A weighing of the evidence on both sides
seems to indicate that Jesus spoke and taught in both Greek and Aramaic, with
the degree to which He used each one yet to be clarified by further research on
this important subject.[33]
Another approach to the
sociolinguistic problem is to investigate the language used commonly by the
first century Jewish teachers and miracle workers to communicate with the
people. From the evidence of the Rabbinic literature and Dead Sea Scrolls,
Hebrew would most probably fit the answer as it was most commonly used for
parables, prayers, spiritual exposition, sermons and the oral publication of a
teaching.[34]
Apart
from the language mentioned by Aaron Tresham above, we can also deduce that
Jesus might have been more or less acquainted with Latin, as contended by
Fitzmyer, Millard etc, from the view that certain Latin words are found in the
Gospels and several places in the Mishnah and other rabbinic writings.[35]
3.2 IMPACT
ON JESUS’ LIFE
Having learnt that Jesus might have
been acquainted with no less than the major languages of his time, we can assume
that the formative period of his life would be the stage where the impact of
the multilingual-cultured milieu had its peak. And this is where we fall short
for sources and evidences. However, an attempt will be made to trace the impact
through his live, his personal claims of his titles.
3.2.1 The
boy Jesus among the Temple Rabbis
When Jesus was a boy among the temple
Rabbis (Lk 2:41-52), his very words when he was found was having some
Palestinian hints. The alternate translation of en tois tou patros mou, Plummer remarks that “in my Father’s house”
seem to have Palestinian and other Arabic support. Both classical and
colloquial are fond of the use of ’and…
Huwwanazil ’andi means that “he is staying in my house”. The implication is
one of very close relationship. Perhaps there was a homely Galilean expression
with a similar connotation.[36]
3.2.2 His
Temptation
In the “Q” account of the Temptation,
there are phrases which touch on the Palestinian background. In dialogue, Mt.
has Satana, also Arabized into ash-Shaitan. The word occurs in Mt.
16:22 (from Mk. 8:33). It has been suggested that when our Lord called Peter
“Satan” it was a Palestinian form of address, natural in the circumstances. It
is true that Ya Shaitan is used in
common speech, playfully perhaps towards a junior, naughty to the point of
being troublesome. Its use in the Temptation story is proof enough of the
seriousness of the encounter.[37]
3.2.3 His personal claims
These claims are the Christological titles, out of the so
called ‘Jesus’ self-consciousness’. We may not have a direct reference as to
how the linguistic diversity have impact on the titles of Jesus, but certainly,
we can trace how Jesus was influenced, at least indirectly, by quoting and
imitating the styles of the diverse concept of the titles. Here we shall
confine only to the titles Jesus claimed for himself as they best bring out the
linguistic impact than the other titles. But in studying the Christological
titles, here, we must be restrained and limited only to how the linguistic
diversity influenced them, and not to have an in-depth study of the Christologies.
i) Jesus
as Prophet and Teacher: In considering the prophetic role of Jesus, we note several features which
support the view that he was popularly regarded as fulfilling such a role. He
was variously identified with John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the
prophets (Mk 8:27f. = Mt. 16:14f. = Lk 9:18f.) In Lk 4:24, Jesus indirectly applies
the title to himself. [38]
The baptism account has affinities with
the call-experiences of prophets like Isaiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah. His
teaching ministry centered around the proclamation of the Coming-Kingdom
rightly fits into the prophetic role. Also the account peculiar to Luke of
Jesus’ preaching in the Synagogue in Capernaum (4:16ff.) is based on the
fulfillment of Isaiah 61, and the temptation narrative, whatever its original
form may have been, is typical of the religiously impelled man undergoing the
testing of his vocation.
Jesus
was addressed by title rabbi, quoted in Mark 9:5 and John 1:49, which
means according to John 3:2 didaskalos, teacher. This term can be
interpreted as Hebrew and also as Aramaic17. The same is true
concerning the term rabbouni, with the same meaning and function,
attested in Mark 10:51 and John 20:16.[39]
Like the prophets of the Old
Testament, Jesus comes to condemn his generation for their unbelief and places
himself in the long line of prophets who have done the same (Lk 11:49ff.). He
comes from rural Galilee, crying woes on the towns. Like them hi is rejected
and his criticisms are directed at the people who have made obedience to God a
sham. He preaches doom on the unrepentant. Also he speaks with authority which
resembles the authoritative divine pronouncement of the prophets, “Thus says
the Lord”, “Truly, Truly I say to you” etc.[40]
ii) Son of God: Although Jesus never claims for
himself this title, he is represented as accepting the title in Mt 11:25ff; Lk
10:21f, and in other instances like baptismal narrative where he is addressed
as ‘Son’, his 51 times addressing God as Father, the temptation narrative where
Satan challenged and repeated twice the phrase, “If you are the Son of God”
etc. Here, other than the OT usage of Son of God, the references to divine
sonship are admittedly slight in both apocalyptic Judaism and in the Qumran
literature. Scholars also have appealed to Hellenistic sources for an
understanding of the NT use of Son of God on the supposition that it is derived
from the Greek idea of divine men. Here, Jesus’ preferential use of Aramaic Abba over Hebrew abinu indicates, according to Jeremias, that Jesus was conscious of
a relationship to his Father which was unique, an intimate and a deep sense of
Father-Son relationship.[41]
It is referred back to the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit who gives believers a
share in his sonship. Dunn concludes that it was a characteristic of Jesus’
approach to God in prayer that he addressed God as abba and that the earliest Christians retained an awareness of this
fact in their own use of abba.[42]
iii) The
Messiah: We have at
least three instances where Jesus explicitly approves his messiahship. In Mk
14:61-62; 15:2, His reply to the question whether he was the messiah were
seemingly positive- “I am” and “You say so”. In Mk 8:27, when Peter confesses
that he was the Messiah, he gave indirect agreement by ordering them not to
disclose to anyone.
The NT term Christos, is derived from the Hebrew term masiah or Heb. Participle mashiach
means ‘anointed one.’ In the OT, the absolute use of the term ‘Messiah’ does
not occur, but as the anointed one for a special mission, mainly kings and
priests, prophets, patriarchs and even of the heathen kings. In a broader
sense, different groups tended to visualize a Messiah who would be conducive to
their own tenets- priestly groups like Qumran in priestly terms, nationalist
groups in political terms. For Jesus, his messianic life was concerned with the
most popular understanding of the term which probably was the hope of a coming
political leader who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppressive Roman
yoke.[43]
iv) Son of Man: Son of Man appears about
70 times in the synoptic and 10 times in John. It is mainly derived from the
book of Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah and is chiefly transliteration from Greek ho huios tou anthropou and Aramaic banasha, simply meaning man. The phrase
Son of Man is a poetic way of referring to a man (cf Ezek 2:1; Ps 8:4) common
in the OT. It is also a well known circumlocution in Palestinian Aramaic for
the first person singular, in which the speaker refers to himself. Jesus used
the phrase Son of Man of a heavenly figure, perhaps not of himself, who would
come to vindicate his own ministry. (Mk 8:38; Daniel 7:47).[44]
In Jewish concept, Son of Man refers to Heavenly Being, presently hidden but appears
only at the end time and the first man at the beginning time. Oriental
religions refer it to the divine original man who is the prototype of man.
The most significant interpretation
is from Jesus himself in terms of Servant of Isaiah. Son of Man was to suffer,
betrayed, rejected, killed and rise again. These are even found in many of his
sayings and teachings.
3.2.4 Eschatology:
The Jews of Jesus’ time talked about ‘the end time’ in a way that was nearly
synonymous for ‘ïn our time’. It was realized eschatology, not to be confused
with the apocalyptic thought. Both the Woes and the Beatitudes in the Gospels
probably derive from Jesus, and indicate he inherited from contemporary Judaism
both God’s judgment and his forgiveness. Jesus probably did warn about an
impending war with Rome, as we know from the traditions embedded in Mk 13; but
this is different from proclaiming an eschatological war with Satan.[45]
3.2.5 The
‘I Am’ sayings: The ‘I
am’ sayings are exceptionally bound to John’s Gospel. There are 7 sayings in
john’s gospel in which Jesus uses it to describe himself. the use of ‘I’ adds
particular dignity to the statements of Jesus. The very frequency of its use by
Jesus draws attention. The reason for the special significance is that the
phrase is used in the OT as a description of God. According to D. Daube, the
expression 'anî hî' (“I [am] he”; cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa.
40:10, 13 etc.) can hardly signify I am this or that, referring back to some
previous attribute. In the Old Testament it appears in the sense of “I am the
Absolute” or the like, and this application certainly prepared the ground for
the ego
eimi of the
Messianic Presence. Ego, uttered by men, occurs in the first-person speeches of the
prophets (e.g. in the Servant Songs, Isa. 48:12; 49:1 ff.; cf. 50:4 ff.; 61:1)
and in the wisdom literature (Prov. 8). Later the apocalyptic writers were fond
of using the ‘I’ -style, and frequently did so to convey secret revelations
(cf. Dan. 7:15, 28; Sl.Enoch 39:2). The Damascus Rule from Qumran also speaks
in the style of wisdom: “Hear now, my sons, and ‘I’ will uncover your eyes that
you may see and understand the works of God”. Thus, scholars argue that Jesus’
use of ego eimi itself could have
been the influence of the mentioned sources.[46]
3.3 IMPACT
ON JESUS’ MINISTRY
3.3.1 Miracles: The most common word used for miracle
in the NT is thauma or thaumastos. It means a wonder, miracle,
amazement or astonishing, extraordinary etc. The miracles of Jesus are mainly
healing, exorcisms, controlling nature, power over death and supernatural
power. Here, we will be looking into some of Jesus’ miracles which were influenced
by the existing tradition and culture.
i) The healing of the deaf
stammerer and the blind (Mk 7:31f; 8:22f): He performs these two cures with the use of his saliva
and certain manual acts. Such a use of saliva was well known in antiquity. The
Emperor Vespasian is said to have performed a cure by means of it at
Alexandria. The Rabbis later denounced the practice as being semi-magical. It
also points to the fulfillment of OT prophecy (Is 35:3-6).[47]
ii) The
Gerasene Demoniac (Mk 5:9): Dramatically Jesus could not cast the devil out
until he learnt his name. Commentators have pointed out that in ancient times,
exorcists always tried to find out the name of the demon, since possession of
the name gave one a greater power over it[48]
and a formula for exorcism in the great Magical Papyrus of Paris leaves a space
for the name of the devil that is to be cast out.[49]
iii) Jesus and Beelzebul (Lk 11:15-23):
After Jesus showed the sign of supreme messianic miracle, which is the rescue
of men from the grip of the powers of evil- from sin, he was challenged by the
scribes that he cast out devils by Beelzebul, the answer Jesus gave is
significant. He plays with the word Beelzebul, bringing out a meaning suggested
in Aramaic- Beelzebul- lord of the house (cf Mk 3:27 “No man can enter into a
strong man’s house…first bind the strong man…”). Jesus here declares clearly
that he is stronger and able to deliver all men and women whom he has enslaved.[50]
iv) Roots
in the Hebrew OT: The very use of
the hand in Jesus’ healing seems intended to fulfill the common metaphor
employed of the intervention of God (cf Ps 37:24 “Though he falls… the Lord
upholdeth him with his hand”). The stilling
of storm is the fulfillment of Ps 65:7 (who stills the roaring of the seas,
the roaring of their waves…). Similarly, the walking on the sea may have
reference to the God who alone ‘trades upon the high places (waves) of the sea’
(Job 9:8; cf. 38:16). Lastly, the feeding of the five thousand and the four
thousand in the desert recall the miraculous feeding of the Israelites in the
desert (cf. Ps 22:26 “the meek should eat and be satisfied”).[51]
3.3.2 Parables: The Rabbis during Jesus’ time had their own
style of communicating to their folks. Or in other words, they had their
diverse language of communicating and teaching, under which parable was the one
among them (Parable as language). Jesus was also influenced by the religious
teachers’ language and was, to some extent, compelled to use such language
(parables) to attract, communicate, challenge, and arouse the interests of the
listeners. And in each of his parables, we find him speaking and changing his
language[52]
to meet the context but details of the parables will not be dealt with here.
Jesus'
parables are both works of art and the weapons he used in the conflict with his
opponents. They were the teaching method he chose most frequently to explain
the kingdom of God and to show the character of God and the expectations God
has for people. They reflect the clarity and eschatology of Jesus' preaching
and his conflict with Jewish authorities. They also reflect daily life in
Palestine. His parables display homes, servants and slaves, donkeys, wolves,
birds, sheep, harvest, fruit trees, wineskin, labourers, children, merchants
and so on. He used these parables as of a proverb (Lk 4:23), a riddle (Mk
3:23), a comparison (Mt 13:33), a contrast (Lk 18:1-8) and both simple stories
(Lk 13:6-9) and complex stories (Mt 22:1-14).
Parable
was a common teaching device in Judaism and had its origins in the OT (e.g. Isa
5:1ff; II Sam 122:1ff). Jesus was not the first person to teach by parables and
stories. There are both Greek and Semitic antecedents, but there is no evidence
of anyone prior to Jesus using parables as consistently, creatively and effectively
as he did. There are so many rabbinic parables similar to the ones Jesus told
that some scholars argue Jesus drew from a fund of popular stories or at least
that he drew his themes and structures from such a fund. The OT too, does
provide seven parables which are antecedents to Jesus' parables: Nathan's
parable to David about the poor man and his lamb (II Sam 12:1-10); the woman
from Tekoa's story about her two sons (II Sam 14:5-20); the prophet's acted
parable condemning Ahab (1 Kings 20:35-40); the song of the vineyard (Is 5:1-
7); the eagles and the vine (Ezek 17:2-10); the lioness and her cubs (Ezek
19:2-9); and the vine (Ezek 19:10-14).[53]
Thus,
we can affirm that the use of parable was not new in the world of Jesus. In
fact, Jesus, being religious leader- a Rabbi, was apparently influenced by the
practices he learnt either from the scriptures or from his contemporaries. He
was in the situation where using the parable was one of the best means of communicating
to the people.
EVALUATION & CONCLUSION
Palestine during the time of Jesus
was a multilingual context where four major languages were dominant, viz. the
Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. In the course of our study, it has been found
out that there was an exclusive separate language for each profession. For e.g.
Rabbis had their parabolic language, Roman had their official Latin language
etc, which were not common to others. Within the four main languages, there
were modifications and alterations in the grammar as well as style. The main
cause of these differences and changes was due to co-existence of written and
spoken languages, geographical-environmental variations and the span of time. Aramaic
was assumingly the chief and most common language of the time. But the question
still persists- which Aramaic? Since this language even changes with the change
of geography. It is also debatable that the Koine
Greek was in much use, rendering the possibility of the most common language of
the time. The New Testament being written down in Greek can further supplement
this stand point. Most scholars regard the Hebrew language to be a dead
language in that time, but contenders came up with the proof, that Hebrew was
substantially alive, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other
scripts. But Hebrew was not much in use colloquially, except for reading scripture
passages in the synagogues. The Roman colonization brought Latin into the arena
but was greater used as official language for publications, notifications and
official statements. We could also trace the presence of Persian and other
Semitic languages but they are not given heed (by scholars) so as to affirm
them.
Now, in such a variety of culture,
how did Jesus cope with the changing environment? This study leads us to first
question what language did Jesus speak? G. Bornkamm firmly asserts that Jesus’ mother
tongue was the Aramaic of Galilee.[54]
Whatever his mother tongue might be, it is evident that Jesus was acquainted
with the prevailing languages. In the light of our study, it is learnt that
most of the methods Jesus employed in his ministry were not of his origin, but
imitation mostly of the OT. This is to say that his very existence itself on
earth as Jesus Christ (Messiah) was influenced by the pre-occurred concepts and
ideologies. His very steps taken (ministry) and words spoken (teachings,
sayings and parables) were potential duplications of the OT and other scripts.
This could ultimately lead us to question his authority. Then John provides us
with a simple answer, “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bishop,
Eric F. F, Jesus of Palestine. London: Litter Worth
Press, 1955.
Buttrick, George
Arthur, The Interpreter’s Dictionary. New York:
Abingdon
Press,
1962.
Charlesworth,
James H, Jesus within Judaism. London: SPCK,
1990.
Chhuanliana,
R, Greek-Mizo Lexicon. Aizawl: Lengchhawn
Press, 2007.
Chuauthuama. Revd, Zotawng
Bible Dictionary. Assam: Bhabhani Offset &
Imaging
Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2011.
Evans Craig A, Porter
Stanley E, Dictionary of The New Testament Background.
Leicester:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Freed, Edwin D, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction.
Great
Britain:
SCM Press Ltd, 1994.
Green, Joel B,
McKnight, Scot, Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels.
Leicester:
InterVarsity
Press, 1992.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Secunderabad: OM
Books,
2005.
Parkins, Pheme, Reading The New Testament. New York:
Paulist Press,
1988.
Hargreaves, Cecil, The Miracles of Jesus. Madras: The
Christian Literature
Society,
1964.
Harrison, Everett F, Introduction to the New Testament. Michigan:
WM. B.
Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1977.
Hoskyns & Davy, The Riddle of the New Testament. London:
Faber and
Faber
Ltd., 1947.
McArthur,
Harvey K, In Search of Historical Jesus. London:
SPCK, 1970.
N/A, The New Encyclopedia Britannica vol. VI.
Chicago:
Encyclopedia
Britannica Inc., 1975.
Tresham, Aaron,
The Languages Spoken
By Jesus The Master’s Seminary
Journal, 2009.
WEBLIOGRAPHY
http://library.nu/
http://www.atla.com/
SOFTWARES
Electronic Database Copyright ©
1998, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
Logos Bible Software
Zondervan Reference Software
Word Count: 7481
[1] James H. Charlesworth., Jesus within Judaism (London: SPCK,
1990), pp 1-2.
[2] http://library.nu/search?q=Language%20of%20Jesus as on 19th
Ju;y, 2011, 10:35 p.m.
[3] Clement sets it on November 17,
3 BC, Dionysius Exiguus-AUC 754(1 AD), E. Halley- 12-11 BC, Johannes Keppler
7-6 BC, David Hughes 7 BC, Collin Humphreys- 5 BC, E.L Martin- 3 BC, PL Maier-
8-7BC etc…(Zo\awng
Bible Dictionary, pp 515-517)
[4] After Herod's death Josephus
mentions that the Passover was celebrated, the first day of this would have
occurred on April 11, 4 B.C. Hence, Herod's death would have occurred between
March 12 and April 11, 4 B.C. According to Luke 2:1-5, the census of Quirinius
was taken just before Jesus' birth and hence, Jesus could not have been born
before the census. The date of this census is difficult to pinpoint. Although
no Roman historian specifically mentions this census, there were periodic
censuses.. Trying to synchronize Quirinius's governorship of Syria with the
time just before Herod's death proves difficult. Some suggest that he was
governor not only in A.D. 6, but also from 11/10 to 8/7 B.C. Others suggest
that this census took place before Quirinius was governor in A.D. 6/7 and some
think that Quirinius had been proconsul of Syria and Cilicia during the last
years of Herod the Great under the legates Saturninus and Varus. Regardless of
what construct one may propose, it is not improbable that Quirinius was
involved with a census during the last years of Nero. Toward the end of his
reign Herod fell out of favor with Rome (c. 8/7 B.C.). This was followed by his
sons engaging in an intense struggle for the throne at a time when Herod was
extremely ill. All of these factors would allow for the Roman government to take a census in his
land in order to assess the situation before his death. Although it is
difficult to pinpoint the exact year of the census, it was probably sometime
between 6 and 4 B.C. According to Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5 Jesus' birth came
before Herod's death. According to Josephus an eclipse of the moon occurred
shortly before Herod's death. This is the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus,
and this occurred on March 12/13, 4 B.C… (Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels, pp
118-119)
[5] Evidences
being- Josephus’ dating of the Officials
of the trial- AD 26 and 36, Contributions
of Astronomy – AD 27, 30, 33 and 36, Ministry
of Christ The year A.D. 30 is accepted by many, but it presents real
difficulty if one accepts the commencement of John the Baptist's ministry
occurring in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, A.D. 29 (Lk 3:1-3), for this would
mean that Jesus' ministry could not have lasted more than one year. Again A.D. 33 seems to fit the
evidence best, Confirmation of History-
From the evidence and reports of Pilate by his contemporaries- Philo and
Josephus (Philo Flacc. 1; Leg. Gai. 159-61) (Philo Leg. Gai. 299- 305) etc.
(Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels, p 121)
[6] Pheme Parkins., Reading The New Testament (New York:
Paulist Press, 1988), p 23.
[7] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight., Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels
(Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1992), pp 36-43.
[8] For example- Paradeisos, Gazafulakion etc are Persian, Zizanion, Kinnamomon etc are Semitic.
R. Chhuanliana., Greek-Mizo
Lexicon (Aizawl: Lengchhawn Press, 2007), pp 409-410.
[9]
Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction
(Great Britain: SCM Press Ltd, 1994), p 10.
[10]
Everett F. Harrison., Introduction to the New Testament (Michigan:
WM. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1977), pp 50-51.
[11] Edwin D. Freed., The New Testament: A Critical Introduction
…p 11.
[12] The Aramaic language developed
in the area of present-day Syria, a region whose ancient name from the end of
the second millennium B.C. was Aram (Aramu). With the spread of Greek culture
and language, a new name for Aramaic developed. The Greeks used the name Syria
for the old area of Aram. In Greek the name of the Aramaic language became syriake glossa (“Syrian language”) and
as an adverb syristi (“in Syrian”)
[13]
Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p 87.
[14] Revd Chuauthuama., Zotawng Bible Dictionary (Assam:
Bhabhani Offset & Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2011), p 6.
[15] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background… p 88.
[16] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background… p 88.
[17] One of the branches of PIE
developed into Proto-Greek, another hypothetical language that predates the
settlement of the Balkan Peninsula in the early second millennium B.C. but is
the progenitor of nearly three thousand years of unbroken history of the Greek
language.
[18] It is often called as Artificial
language to a certain degree as it imitates the classical Greek but with
limitations.
[19] George Arthur Buttrick., The Interpreter’s Dictionary (New York:
Abingdon Press, 1962), p 480.
[20] A dialect formed from two
languages which has developed from a pidgin to become a first language.
[21] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background… p 429.
[22]
Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background… pp 430-431.
[23] Revd Chuauthuama., Zotawng Bible Dictionary… p 336.
[24] Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright © 1998,
2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
[25] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database
Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
[26]
Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York:
Doubleday) 1997, 1992. (Software)
[27] The early rabbis inherited a
long tradition of scriptural interpretation beginning in the Bible itself.
Following biblical precedent, they continued to interpret Scripture for the
needs of their communities, particularly following the destruction of the Jerusalem
temple and its levitical cult in 70 c.e.
Interpretation included oral traditions passed down from generation to
generation about the meaning of a verse or the particular way in which to carry
out a biblical command. At the same time there was an active tradition of
scriptural exegesis based on hermeneutic norms, many of which could be inferred
from the Bible.
[28] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament Background… pp 460-461.
[30] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E.
Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament
Background… pp 630-631.
[31] Vulgar Latin is the spoken form
of non-classical Latin from which the Romance group of languages originated.
[32] N/A., The New Encyclopedia Britannica vol. VI (Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica Inc., 1975), p 71.
[33] Craig A. Evans, Stanley E. Porter., Dictionary of The New Testament Background,
p 89.
[36] Eric F. F. Bishop., Jesus of Palestine (London: Litter Worth
Press, 1955), p 46.
[37] Eric F. F. Bishop., Jesus of Palestine, p 57.
[38] Donald Guthrie., New Testament Theology (Secunderabad: OM
Books, 2005), p 269.
[39] Stanislav Segert., The Languages Of Historical Jesus (Los Angeles). (http://www.atla.com)
[40] Christopher Rowland., Christian Origins (London: SPCK, 1997),
pp 175-176.
[41] Donald Guthrie., New Testament Theology … pp 302-303
[42] James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into
the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, (London: SCM Press, 1980),
p 60.
[43] Donald Guthrie., New Testament Theology … … p 238.
[44]
Christopher Rowland., Christian Origins… p 185.
[45] James H. Charlesworth., Jesus within Judaism …pp 43-44.
[46] Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Reference Software.
[47] Hoskyns & Davy., The Riddle of the New Testament (London:
Faber and Faber Ltd., 1947), p 147.
[48] Cecil Hargreaves., The Miracles of Jesus (Madras: The
Christian Literature Society, 1964), p 112.
[49]
Hoskyns & Davy., The Riddle of the New Testament… p 148.
[50] Hoskyns & Davy., The Riddle of the New Testament… p 152.
[51]
Hoskyns & Davy., The Riddle of the New Testament… p 156.
[52] His parabolic language- e.g. to
the disciples of Pharisees & Herodians… He used the parable of giving to
Caesar what are his, and to the shepherds and farmers, he used the parable of
seeds, shepherd, farm etc.
[53] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight., Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels… p
591-598.
[54] Harvey K. McArthur., In Search of Historical Jesus (London:
SPCK, 1970), p 165.
No comments:
Post a Comment