Kuziej, Kenneth

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 2 | Issue 3 Article 57-1-1976The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and MatthewKenneth KuziejFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationKuziej, Kenneth (1976) "The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 5.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss3/5THE ARAMAIC LOGIA OF JESUSIN MARK AND MATTHEWKenneth KuziejThe language that Jesus spoke was not Hebrew, but a dialect of Hebrew calledAramaic. Aramaic was the language of the common people of Jesus’ time, a folklanguage, while Hebrew was the official religious and scholarly language of theHoly Land.Aram is Hebrew for “highland” and this referred to the country in NortheastPalestine called Syria by the Greeks. The Aramaic language had a western andan eastern dialect (Syriac and Chaldee). After the Babylonian captivity ended(538 B.C.) pure Hebrew gave way slowly to Aramaic, until, by the time Jesus wasborn, Aramaic was spoken throughout Galilee, Samaria and Judea.As he grew up in the Northern province of Galilee, Jesus very naturally spokeAramaic. Some of his exact words in this language were recorded by theGospel-writers. Exactly why they did this is unknown, because almost everywhereelse in the Gospels they record his words translated into Greek (which was theuniversal language of the Eastern Roman Empire). As they wrote out the story ofJesus together with his teachings, in Greek, a precious few of the words andphrases of Jesus, just as they fell from his lips were preserved. These words are:Mammon (Matthew 6:24), Raka (Matthew 5:22), Abba (Mark 14:36), TalithaKami (Mark 5:41), Ephphatha (Mark 7:34), Corban (Mark 7:12) and E/oi, E/oi,lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).One possible explanation why these words were kept in their original Aramaicmight have been to attempt to express a meaning the authors couldn’t express inGreek. In the same way we can detect the original language of a person new toEnglish, scholars who read the Gospels in their original Greek can detect theirauthors’ Aramaic accents. They term Greek phrases written with Aramaic style2324 Consensus“semiticisms”. Mark’s Greek is rough, strongly Aramaic, and not surprizingly, fullof grammatical errors. At the same time, however, it is language which is livelyand appealing, like that of an enthusiastic young immigrant. Matthew’s Greek issmoother than Mark’s, more correct, but still immistakably having an Aramaicflavour, somewhat like the speech of an immigrant who has mastered his newlanguage, but speaks it with an accent. Luke, who was a physician of Troas in theWestern extremity of Asia Minor, wrote with mixed language. When writingmaterial which is exclusive to his Gospel, Luke’s Greek is excellent. But when it isapparent that a written source was being used, Luke’s Greek becomes imperfect.^Luke’s Gospel preserves no Aramaic words of Jesus. Neither does the Gospel ofJohn, which, though accented with Aramaic, has such a simple vocabulary italmost seems as if this evangelist chooses not to make his work hard tounderstand for readers who understood no Aramaic.The question is why did Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels preserve those Aramaicwords and phrases of Jesus? It’s only a guess, but perhaps, like many people whoare new to a language, when stumped, fall back on their native words. Thisalmost could be the explanation for the word Mammon (loosely translated“money” but meaning all material things) and Raka (which is an obscure term ofabuse loosely translated “you fool”).But there is clearly a more important reason in the use of the Aramaic in someof the other instances. In Talitha Kami, there is no reason to keep the Aramaic forit means simply, “little girl, 1 tell you to get up”. This is a simple phrase in Greekand Mark’s Gospel translates it into Greek immediately after the Aramaic words.The reason it is preserved in Mark’s Gospel was probably because it recordsJesus’ words at the climax of one of his most shocking acts -- the raising to life ofa dead child. There is a great deal of eyewitness detail in Mark’s account of thismiracle: the girl’s age (12), Jesus telling her parents to give her something to eatand his strict (and disturbing) command that they tell no one of what he haddone. An eyewitness (either Mark or Peter who might have dictated the Gospel)would also remember Jesus’ exact words and feel a strong urge to record them.No other Gospel writer records the Aramaic phrase Talitha Kami.Another Aramaic word Mark records is Abba (14:36). This term was translatedas “Father” by most Gospel writers. But there is more behind it than simply“Father”.^ The proper term for “father” was ab. Abba is the familiar form - it isequivalent to “Daddy”, or “Papa”. Thus when Jesus prayed, he addressed God notas the more formal “Father”, but actually the very familiar, “Papa”! Theimplications of this stagger the theological mind! The close familiarity betweenJesus and God the Father verifies the ancient Christian teaching of Christ’sequality with God the Father in the Holy Trinity. The use of Abba also shows thestrong, warm, heartfelt love Jesus devoted to God the Father.Finally, there is the pathetic phrase Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani found in Mark15:34 and Matthew 27:46. This has been translated “My God, My God, why haveyou forsaken me?” These are the only words of Jesus from the cross that are1. Modern Biblical scholarship assumes the Gospel of Mark was used to write Luke, as well as a .theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings — the "Q" Document.2. Of the use of this word, William Barclay writes in his commentary: "It must have been often onJesus' lips, and the sound of it was so sacred that men kept it in the original tongue."Aramaic Logia 25recorded in either Matthew or Mark and they are preserved in Aramaic. Again,the fact that these words were recorded in the language of Jesus implies that theGospel writers were witnesses and had been deeply moved by what they saw andheard. Rather than emphasizing the physical pain Jesus suffered as he slowlydied in agony, these words drive home the much more severe spiritual agonyJesus suffered. Here was the man called God Abba who now was suffering sodeeply that he felt his Abba had rejected him. But there is much more to theseAramaic words. They are the first verse of Psalm 22. The fact that Jesus criedEloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani is undeniable because of the Aramaic rememberedand recorded. Put this together with the fact that these are the first words ofPsalm 22 and it can be concluded that Jesus was not only suffering for all ofmankind, but that he knew he was suffering for all of mankind. He knew he wasfulfilling the prophecy of the psalmist in the most minute detail. All who see memock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their head; “He committed hiscause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him.” (Psalm 22:7-8) Mystrength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dostlay me in the dust of death. (Psalm 22:15) . . . They have pierced my hands andfeet - I can count all my bones - they stare and gloat over me; they divide mygarments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. (Psalm 22:16-18)And Jesus knew he’d be finally victorious over death, for the Psalm concludes:Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down . . . Posterity shall servehim; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim hisdeliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it.Why was Aramaic used by Matthew and Mark? Because the use of some of thewords that Jesus himself used was one of the ways these Gospel-writers verifiedthe events they reported and attested to the authenticity of these events to peopleeven of our generation.

The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 2 | Issue 3 Article 5
7-1-1976
The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew
Kenneth Kuziej
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Kuziej, Kenneth (1976) "The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 5.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss3/5
THE ARAMAIC LOGIA OF JESUS
IN MARK AND MATTHEW
Kenneth Kuziej
The language that Jesus spoke was not Hebrew, but a dialect of Hebrew called
Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the common people of Jesus’ time, a folk
language, while Hebrew was the official religious and scholarly language of the
Holy Land.
Aram is Hebrew for “highland” and this referred to the country in Northeast
Palestine called Syria by the Greeks. The Aramaic language had a western and
an eastern dialect (Syriac and Chaldee). After the Babylonian captivity ended
(538 B.C.) pure Hebrew gave way slowly to Aramaic, until, by the time Jesus was
born, Aramaic was spoken throughout Galilee, Samaria and Judea.
As he grew up in the Northern province of Galilee, Jesus very naturally spoke
Aramaic. Some of his exact words in this language were recorded by the
Gospel-writers. Exactly why they did this is unknown, because almost everywhere
else in the Gospels they record his words translated into Greek (which was the
universal language of the Eastern Roman Empire). As they wrote out the story of
Jesus together with his teachings, in Greek, a precious few of the words and
phrases of Jesus, just as they fell from his lips were preserved. These words are:
Mammon (Matthew 6:24), Raka (Matthew 5:22), Abba (Mark 14:36), Talitha
Kami (Mark 5:41), Ephphatha (Mark 7:34), Corban (Mark 7:12) and E/oi, E/oi,
lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
One possible explanation why these words were kept in their original Aramaic
might have been to attempt to express a meaning the authors couldn’t express in
Greek. In the same way we can detect the original language of a person new to
English, scholars who read the Gospels in their original Greek can detect their
authors’ Aramaic accents. They term Greek phrases written with Aramaic style
23
24 Consensus
“semiticisms”. Mark’s Greek is rough, strongly Aramaic, and not surprizingly, full
of grammatical errors. At the same time, however, it is language which is lively
and appealing, like that of an enthusiastic young immigrant. Matthew’s Greek is
smoother than Mark’s, more correct, but still immistakably having an Aramaic
flavour, somewhat like the speech of an immigrant who has mastered his new
language, but speaks it with an accent. Luke, who was a physician of Troas in the
Western extremity of Asia Minor, wrote with mixed language. When writing
material which is exclusive to his Gospel, Luke’s Greek is excellent. But when it is
apparent that a written source was being used, Luke’s Greek becomes imperfect.^
Luke’s Gospel preserves no Aramaic words of Jesus. Neither does the Gospel of
John, which, though accented with Aramaic, has such a simple vocabulary it
almost seems as if this evangelist chooses not to make his work hard to
understand for readers who understood no Aramaic.
The question is why did Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels preserve those Aramaic
words and phrases of Jesus? It’s only a guess, but perhaps, like many people who
are new to a language, when stumped, fall back on their native words. This
almost could be the explanation for the word Mammon (loosely translated
“money” but meaning all material things) and Raka (which is an obscure term of
abuse loosely translated “you fool”).
But there is clearly a more important reason in the use of the Aramaic in some
of the other instances. In Talitha Kami, there is no reason to keep the Aramaic for
it means simply, “little girl, 1 tell you to get up”. This is a simple phrase in Greek
and Mark’s Gospel translates it into Greek immediately after the Aramaic words.
The reason it is preserved in Mark’s Gospel was probably because it records
Jesus’ words at the climax of one of his most shocking acts -- the raising to life of
a dead child. There is a great deal of eyewitness detail in Mark’s account of this
miracle: the girl’s age (12), Jesus telling her parents to give her something to eat
and his strict (and disturbing) command that they tell no one of what he had
done. An eyewitness (either Mark or Peter who might have dictated the Gospel)
would also remember Jesus’ exact words and feel a strong urge to record them.
No other Gospel writer records the Aramaic phrase Talitha Kami.
Another Aramaic word Mark records is Abba (14:36). This term was translated
as “Father” by most Gospel writers. But there is more behind it than simply
“Father”.^ The proper term for “father” was ab. Abba is the familiar form - it is
equivalent to “Daddy”, or “Papa”. Thus when Jesus prayed, he addressed God not
as the more formal “Father”, but actually the very familiar, “Papa”! The
implications of this stagger the theological mind! The close familiarity between
Jesus and God the Father verifies the ancient Christian teaching of Christ’s
equality with God the Father in the Holy Trinity. The use of Abba also shows the
strong, warm, heartfelt love Jesus devoted to God the Father.
Finally, there is the pathetic phrase Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani found in Mark
15:34 and Matthew 27:46. This has been translated “My God, My God, why have
you forsaken me?” These are the only words of Jesus from the cross that are
1. Modern Biblical scholarship assumes the Gospel of Mark was used to write Luke, as well as a .
theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings — the "Q" Document.
2. Of the use of this word, William Barclay writes in his commentary: "It must have been often on
Jesus' lips, and the sound of it was so sacred that men kept it in the original tongue."
Aramaic Logia 25
recorded in either Matthew or Mark and they are preserved in Aramaic. Again,
the fact that these words were recorded in the language of Jesus implies that the
Gospel writers were witnesses and had been deeply moved by what they saw and
heard. Rather than emphasizing the physical pain Jesus suffered as he slowly
died in agony, these words drive home the much more severe spiritual agony
Jesus suffered. Here was the man called God Abba who now was suffering so
deeply that he felt his Abba had rejected him. But there is much more to these
Aramaic words. They are the first verse of Psalm 22. The fact that Jesus cried
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani is undeniable because of the Aramaic remembered
and recorded. Put this together with the fact that these are the first words of
Psalm 22 and it can be concluded that Jesus was not only suffering for all of
mankind, but that he knew he was suffering for all of mankind. He knew he was
fulfilling the prophecy of the psalmist in the most minute detail. All who see me
mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their head; “He committed his
cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him.” (Psalm 22:7-8) My
strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost
lay me in the dust of death. (Psalm 22:15) . . . They have pierced my hands and
feet - I can count all my bones - they stare and gloat over me; they divide my
garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. (Psalm 22:16-18)
And Jesus knew he’d be finally victorious over death, for the Psalm concludes:
Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down . . . Posterity shall serve
him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his
deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it.
Why was Aramaic used by Matthew and Mark? Because the use of some of the
words that Jesus himself used was one of the ways these Gospel-writers verified
the events they reported and attested to the authenticity of these events to people
even of our generation.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2298&amp;context=consensus

The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons