{"id":64585,"date":"2026-09-20T02:32:44","date_gmt":"2026-09-20T00:32:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.omnesmag.com\/?p=64585"},"modified":"2026-09-20T02:32:45","modified_gmt":"2026-09-20T00:32:45","slug":"did-jesus-speak-hebrew-or-aramaic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.omnesmag.com\/en\/actualidad\/hablaba-jesus-hebreo-o-arameo\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Jesus speak Hebrew or Aramaic?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the first article on Hebrew, we saw how this language\u2014which had been considered dead for centuries\u2014came back into use between the late 19th and 20th centuries, eventually becoming the official language of the State of Israel, much as if Latin were to once again become the everyday language of a modern country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, a growing number of scholars are asking themselves a question: Was Hebrew still spoken in Jesus\u2019s time? Or did Christ and his contemporaries speak exclusively in Aramaic?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Was Aramaic Jesus\u2019 language?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let's start with an undeniable fact: Jesus was Jewish<\/a> and he lived in a Jewish context. As a good Jew, he had to know the Jewish Scriptures, the alphabet, and the Law. The fact that he was also able to debate with the scholars of his time shows that his level of knowledge regarding matters of his faith was not that of a beginner. Consequently, he must have known literary Hebrew, which, in addition to being the sacred language, was used for the study of the Scriptures, prayer, national memory, and religious reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no doubt that by the first century C.E., Hebrew had lost its \u201cstatus\u201d as the predominant spoken language in the region now known as Palestine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, Aramaic had emerged, not merely as a \u00abvernacular\u00bb language, that is, of everyday life, but rather as a \u201clingua franca\u201d widespread throughout the Middle East as a means of communication not only in daily life but also in administrative and cultural contexts, to such an extent that some passages of the Old Testament are written in this language: parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel, as well as individual words or expressions in other texts. .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This situation gave rise to the \u201cTargumim,\u201d Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Bible intended for public reading and for explaining the sacred texts (one is reminded of Jesus\u2019 readings and commentaries in the synagogue at Capernaum and elsewhere) to ordinary people, who spoke primarily that language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, it can be said that Jesus habitually spoke Aramaic, both for the reasons already mentioned and because in the Gospels themselves certain expressions or terms he used are faithfully recorded in this language: \u201cAbba, Talit kum, effat\u00e1, Eloi, Eloi, lem\u00e1 sabact\u00e1ni\u201d (probably a reference to a \u201cTargum\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we have made it clear that he must also have known Hebrew. If we also take into account that Palestine at that time was a country where diverse languages, cultures, and religions coexisted side by side, it is plausible that Jesus and the disciples had at least a basic knowledge of Greek, the administrative and commercial language of the eastern part of the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aramaic<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages, but they are not the same language. Both belong to the \u00abnorthern\u00bb group of Semitic languages; Hebrew is part of the Canaanite subgroup (along with Phoenician, Moabite, etc.). A rough but useful comparison for readers might be the following: Aramaic is related to Hebrew roughly the same way that Romanian is related to Italian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The area where Hebrew originated and developed was the Land of Canaan (not only Palestine, but also Lebanon and parts of Syria and Jordan), while Aramaic originated in the regions of Syria around Damascus, from where it spread\u2014especially between the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.\u2014throughout the Near and Middle East, from Egypt to Afghanistan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aramaic remained \u201cthe lingua franca\u201d of that region at least until the 7th century, when it began to be replaced by Arabic, though it did not cease to exist. However, even before the Islamic conquest, it had diversified into several varieties: Judeo-Aramaic, Samaritan, Nabataean (influenced by Arabic and, in turn, influencing Arabic\u2014especially the alphabet, which derives precisely from Nabataean), Palmyren, and Syriac (one of the major languages of the Eastern Christianity<\/a> and which also influenced Arabic) and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about Hebrew?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Until 1947, many scholars were convinced that, following the Babylonian exile, Hebrew had been permanently abandoned as a spoken language in favor of Aramaic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, on the other hand, has led to a reevaluation of that idea, thanks to the discovery, in the texts found in the famous caves, of a Hebrew language that was alive not only in liturgy and religious contexts but also in poetry and in the correspondence of communities contemporary with or chronologically close to Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a belief that a form of Hebrew more advanced than Biblical Hebrew\u2014Mishnahic Hebrew, which we have already referred to<\/a> \u2014 was the language actually spoken in some parts of Judea until the Bar Kokhba revolt and the Romans\u2019 near-total annihilation of the Jewish presence in Palestine in A.D. 135.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Language of the People<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s imagine Jerusalem in the year 30 A.D.: a temple packed with Jews and proselytes from all over\u2014foreigners, Romans, Greeks, and\u2026 Galileans. These Galileans, on the other hand, spoke the same language as the Jews (as we have seen, Aramaic in its colloquial form, not the \u00abclassical\u00bb variety), but, according to the chronicles, they were not held in high regard, both because of their hot-tempered nature and because of their way of speaking, which was considered somewhat coarse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later rabbinic sources in the Talmud recount that jokes were made about the Galileans<\/a> because of the \u00abconfusing\u00bb pronunciation of certain guttural consonants: \u201calef, he, \u1e25et, and \u2018ayin\u201d\u2014letters that all have their own distinct sounds but were pronounced the same way in Galilee.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one anecdote, for example, they make fun of a Galilean who enters a market and asks for something that sounds more or less like \u00abamar.\u00bb The vendor replies, \u00abYou silly Galilean! Are you looking for a donkey to ride (\u1e25am\u0101r), wine (hamar), wool (\u2018amar), or a lamb (\u2018immar) for sacrifice?\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the Gospels confirm that, during Christ's Passion, Peter was recognized as a Galilean because his accent gave him away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be a bit like recognizing a Tuscan today in Italy by the \u00abgorgia\u00bb (the aspirated \u00abc,\u00bb so that \u00abcasa\u00bb is pronounced \u00abhasa\u00bb) or, in Spain, to recognize an Andalusian by their pronunciation (or lack thereof) of final \u00abs\u00bb sounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, in practice, is the diverse linguistic landscape of that era:<\/p>\n\n\n\n