Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Keryg 2021: Jesus and Pilate - what language did they speak?

Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
edited January 19 in Limbo
John 18 vv28-40 tells of Jesus' interview with Pilate:

https://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A28-40&version=KJV

The thought occurred to me (for no obvious reason) as to wonder what language they used?

«1

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I guess it’s most likely that they used Greek as it was the lingua franca of the ancient Mediterranean. It’s unlikely that either Jesus had Latin or Pilate had Aramaic. It’s not impossible, though, that there was an interpreter whose presence wasn’t considered significant enough to warrant a mention.
  • The thought occurred to me (for no obvious reason) as to wonder what language they used?

    Probably Greek. It was a kind of lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.

    It's also possible a translator was used. The more interesting question is "who is reporting this conversation?" John explicitly tells us that none of Jesus' accusers were present and we're pretty sure that none of Jesus' followers were present for that conversation. The presence of a translator would resolve this difficulty.
  • There would also be the ubiquitous servants, many of whom wound up in the early Christian church. I don't know of any specifically from Pilate's household, but some from Herod's have been mentioned, so it seems likely.
  • John 18 vv28-40 tells of Jesus' interview with Pilate:

    https://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A28-40&version=KJV

    The thought occurred to me (for no obvious reason) as to wonder what language they used?

    Probably Greek.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The thought occurred to me (for no obvious reason) as to wonder what language they used?

    Probably Greek. It was a kind of lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.

    It's also possible a translator was used. The more interesting question is "who is reporting this conversation?" John explicitly tells us that none of Jesus' accusers were present and we're pretty sure that none of Jesus' followers were present for that conversation. The presence of a translator would resolve this difficulty.

    Jesus ould have related this after the ressurection.
  • Yes, I wondered whether it might have been Greek. Jesus seems to have been well-educated, so I guess he would be at least conversant with it.

    I also wondered about who reported the conversation. The idea that it was Jesus himself, after the Resurrection, is interesting.

  • I also wondered about who reported the conversation. The idea that it was Jesus himself, after the Resurrection, is interesting.
    Or Pilate could have told people.

    It’s pure conjecture, of course, but I’ll admit to rather liking the idea that some in Pilate’s household learned what had happened and later became believers and shared the story.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I also wondered about who reported the conversation. The idea that it was Jesus himself, after the Resurrection, is interesting.
    Or Pilate could have told people.

    It’s pure conjecture, of course, but I’ll admit to rather liking the idea that some in Pilate’s household learned what had happened and later became believers and shared the story.

    Mrs Pilate ?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I also wondered about who reported the conversation. The idea that it was Jesus himself, after the Resurrection, is interesting.
    Or Pilate could have told people.

    It’s pure conjecture, of course, but I’ll admit to rather liking the idea that some in Pilate’s household learned what had happened and later became believers and shared the story.

    Mrs Pilate ?

    I believe the correct term is "co-Pilate."
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited September 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I also wondered about who reported the conversation. The idea that it was Jesus himself, after the Resurrection, is interesting.
    Or Pilate could have told people.

    It’s pure conjecture, of course, but I’ll admit to rather liking the idea that some in Pilate’s household learned what had happened and later became believers and shared the story.

    Mrs Pilate ?
    Another possibility. We are told that she had opinions on the matter. (Though that same reference to her, the only one on the gospels, says she wasn’t present. But I’ll bet she asked Pilate what happened when she could.)

  • There is some thought that Joseph and Jesus may have done carpentry work in Ceaseria, the seat of the Roman government. Jesus may have picked up some Latin while working there.
  • AFAIK you really had to work at it to have any true privacy inside an ancient city like Jerusalem. I doubt Pilate thought his Q and A sessions with Jesus were so sensitive that he took those measures. Servants, minor functionaries, soldiers... Any of them could have relayed the stories. And since Jesus was particularly attractive to the not-rich-and-famous, there's a higher chance those witnesses would eventually make their way into the church.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    there was an interpreter whose presence wasn’t considered significant enough to warrant a mention.

    The only time interpreters get noticed is when they are bad at their job. A good interpreter is as near invisible and forgettable as possible.

    (By the way, I'm not sure if I know any Africans, of any standing, who don't see speaking at least two and more often three languages as the universal norm, for whom contemporary Western monolingualism is a source of quiet astonishment if not amusement).
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited September 2021
    Eutychus wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    there was an interpreter whose presence wasn’t considered significant enough to warrant a mention.

    The only time interpreters get noticed is when they are bad at their job. A good interpreter is as near invisible and forgettable as possible.<snip>

    Indeed
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I expect that both Jesus and Pilate would be fluent in Greek, it's possible (but I think unlikely) that Pilate spoke Aramaic, and it's also possible that Jesus spoke Latin (again, unlikely because that would only be needed when dealing with Romans in official situations). As noted Greek was the language which it could be reasonably expected everyone spoke in the region for any sort of trading etc. Jesus and the disciples seem quite happy to travel through the Decapolis and other Gentile regions where Aramaic would be less commonly spoken, and I'd say that that would almost certainly need some form of conversational Greek. Maybe Zealots learnt enough Latin to tell the Romans to go home.

    Also Pilate and Jesus wouldn't have been alone together (for a start, there'd be guards - imagine the reaction of the head of Pilate's bodyguard to the suggestion that Pilate be alone with someone charged with serious offences against Roman rule!). The important bit isn't so much whether there were just the two of them there, but that the Jewish leaders who were making the accusations weren't there and it may be relevant that Pilate also made his decisions alone without consulting any advisers etc.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2021
    Interesting replies - thank you, all.

    I suspect @Alan Cresswell may be right in supposing that Pilate made his decisions on his own - the Jewish leaders were conspicuous by their absence at this point, but I daresay there were indeed various other people around.

    I've always thought of Pilate's famous question *What is Truth?* being said quietly, although it was addressed to Jesus, in a musing tone (and probably therefore in Latin!). Someone must have overheard it, in order to report it later...unless it was Jesus himself who did so...
  • BTW, what do others think about @Telford's intriguing thought that Jesus himself told others (perhaps his mother, perhaps St John) about his colloquy with Pilate?

    The apostles, and the rest of Jesus' friends, family, and followers must have had about a zillion questions to ask him, post-Resurrection...
  • AFAIK you really had to work at it to have any true privacy inside an ancient city like Jerusalem. I doubt Pilate thought his Q and A sessions with Jesus were so sensitive that he took those measures. Servants, minor functionaries, soldiers... Any of them could have relayed the stories.

    True enough, but how many of those minor functionaries would be paying close enough attention to their boss questioning some minor rabble-rouser that they could give a verbatim transcript years later?
    Maybe Zealots learnt enough Latin to tell the Romans to go home.

    Video illustration.
    I've always thought of Pilate's famous question *What is Truth?* being said quietly, although it was addressed to Jesus, in a musing tone (and probably therefore in Latin!).

    Nah, even the Romans used Greek for philosophical musings, or at least the ones with enough education did. "What is truth?" sounds like the theme of a Socratic dialogue.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2021
    OK, so Pilate probably said:

    τι ειναι η αληθεια?
    ti einai i alitheia?


    ...rather than:

    quid est veritas?

    (Translations courtesy of Professor G Oogle, so accuracy not guaranteed).

    Perhaps Pilate did indeed have a Socratic dialogue in mind.

    I'm afraid all this is rather idle speculation, of course, but I have a bit of time on my hands at the moment...
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    AFAIK you really had to work at it to have any true privacy inside an ancient city like Jerusalem. I doubt Pilate thought his Q and A sessions with Jesus were so sensitive that he took those measures. Servants, minor functionaries, soldiers... Any of them could have relayed the stories.

    True enough, but how many of those minor functionaries would be paying close enough attention to their boss questioning some minor rabble-rouser that they could give a verbatim transcript years later?
    It depends on who the minor functionary was. We know from the Gospels themselves that there were disciples of Jesus within the Sanhedrin, and in the household of Herod. It isn't impossible that there was a disciple of Jesus or at least a sympathiser, even more than one, within the household of Pilate. The Gospels certainly imply that the arrest of Jesus was quite big news in Jerusalem at the time (He may have been seen as a minor rabble-rouser, but also only one of two that were in custody at that time), I could see how a disciple or sympathiser might want to get the duty of serving Pilate when Jesus was brought in and be close enough to hear what's going on. Even someone who didn't know Jesus or much care might be attentive to what's being said just so that they have the best gossip, a good story to tell later - "hello dear, how was your day?", "you know that Jesus of Nazareth bloke the priests arrested? He was brought to see Pilate and rather than just send him to be crucified to keep the priests happy, Pilate had a long talk with him about whether Jesus claimed to be a king - a kingdom not of this world he said."
  • The Gospels certainly imply that the arrest of Jesus was quite big news in Jerusalem at the time (He may have been seen as a minor rabble-rouser, but also only one of two that were in custody at that time), I could see how a disciple or sympathiser might want to get the duty of serving Pilate when Jesus was brought in and be close enough to hear what's going on.

    Given that there were two others crucified at the same time as Jesus there had to have been at least four people in custody who qualified for that punishment. But the fact that (at least according to the Gospel account) there were only those four in custody argues that from a Roman perspective this was regarded as a small-time operation, not "big news". After all, if this Jesus person was important they would have gone after his followers too. (e.g. At the end of the Third Servile War the Romans crucified 6,000 followers of Spartacus along the Appian Way.)
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    there was an interpreter whose presence wasn’t considered significant enough to warrant a mention.

    The only time interpreters get noticed is when they are bad at their job. A good interpreter is as near invisible and forgettable as possible.

    (By the way, I'm not sure if I know any Africans, of any standing, who don't see speaking at least two and more often three languages as the universal norm, for whom contemporary Western monolingualism is a source of quiet astonishment if not amusement).

    This is a very Anglophone and Francophone thing - there are lots of Western and Northern Europeans who speak multiple languages as a matter of course. My Flemish Belgian friend for instance speaks Flemish, French, English, and Dutch - and that's very normal for Flemings. My Swedish friends all speak English fluently along with other Scandinavian languages and most Danes and Swedes can also speak German.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Well, I was thinking of "minor rabble-rouser" rather than just general criminal. There was only one other candidate for the (rather bizarre) "release a well known criminal to keep the mob happy" practice. The other two crucified were probably not well known enough for anyone except immediate family to care, and their crimes would qualify for the "well, he deserves it" treatment - whereas Barabbas appears to have been a rebel against Roman rule and thus have a lot of sympathisers in the crowd (and, thus also qualifies as "rabble-rouser", and minor because there's no way Pilate would have let a major figure in the rebel movement go free). Of course, there are lots of problems with the whole thing about letting a prisoner go free - that could easily be an entire thread on it's own right.

    I'm not claiming the arrest of Jesus was "big news" to the Romans, even those in Jerusalem at the time. But, Jesus had made a splash among the Jews and His arrest and trial could easily have been the talk of Jerusalem. Many of those who served Pilate would have been ordinary citizens of Jerusalem (though, certainly shown themselves to be loyal to Rome) and would have been fully aware of that.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The Gospels certainly imply that the arrest of Jesus was quite big news in Jerusalem at the time (He may have been seen as a minor rabble-rouser, but also only one of two that were in custody at that time), I could see how a disciple or sympathiser might want to get the duty of serving Pilate when Jesus was brought in and be close enough to hear what's going on.

    Given that there were two others crucified at the same time as Jesus there had to have been at least four people in custody who qualified for that punishment. But the fact that (at least according to the Gospel account) there were only those four in custody argues that from a Roman perspective this was regarded as a small-time operation, not "big news". After all, if this Jesus person was important they would have gone after his followers too. (e.g. At the end of the Third Servile War the Romans crucified 6,000 followers of Spartacus along the Appian Way.)

    "big or small deal" is pretty subjective. And lots of things that start off small-seeming go on to balloon, and vice versa. I really expected the Capitol thing in January to fall apart under the weight of "we never do these things," and how wrong I was.

    So I expect Pilate had his eye on the Jesus thing, just as he had on a couple of other trouble spots no doubt, and would have escalated it to picking up followers as well if he thought it necessary. In fact, that was probably one of the decisions he was making as he interviewed Jesus--is this going to take off, or can I deal with this one guy here and call it a day?

  • Poor old Pilate - mostly remembered in Western Christianity as the one who crucified Jesus (*suffered under Pontius Pilate*), but IIRC venerated as a saint (sort of) by some Eastern churches.

    Either way, I always have a sneaking sympathy for the poor chap, caught between a rock and a hard place in what must have been one of the most fractious and hard-to-please places in the Empire.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited September 2021
    It was very normal for Roman society to be multicultural, and this was often used to Roman advantage in services like translation, diplomacy etc. So I think the existence of an unnamed translator is actually very likely. How likely is it that someone of Jesus' background (aside from the Son of God thing) would know Greek? Would it have needed a certain level of education, akin to Latin mostly being a language of learning/literacy in medieval Europe?
  • Nope. It was a language of the marketplace, so very likely to be picked up by anyone who traveled at all. Which Jesus certainly did.
  • Nope. It was a language of the marketplace, so very likely to be picked up by anyone who traveled at all. Which Jesus certainly did.

    Yes, and we don't really have much idea as to where he went (prior to the Gospel accounts), or how well he was educated.
  • I'm assuming typical village boy education at the local synagogue, plus whatever his parents could give him (for Joseph, that's going to be primarily carpentry skills). And if they did indeed pop over to Herod's new building project to do work there, that would have been the most likely place for Jesus to pick up Greek.

    I do not subscribe to the ideas that Jesus went traveling internationally (other than as a refugee in Egypt) during his teens and twenties. That would just be so unusual for a boy of his class and location, and would tend to contradict the overall impression the Gospels give us, of someone whose ... oddity ... was rarely glimpsed before his public ministry began.

    The locals certainly were surprised to hear his first sermon. They wondered where he'd gotten all that stuff. If he'd been a great traveller, I doubt anyone would have asked. Instead we'd have had grumbling about "damn furriners" and their crazy ideas, etc.
  • Nope. It was a language of the marketplace, so very likely to be picked up by anyone who traveled at all. Which Jesus certainly did.
    Plus, the Gospels indicate that the version of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus and the disciples were familiar with was the Septuagint. And we have Luke telling that Jesus read from the prophets at the synagogue in Nazareth, and what he is recorded as reading was (as I understand it) the Septuagint version.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nope. It was a language of the marketplace, so very likely to be picked up by anyone who traveled at all. Which Jesus certainly did.
    Plus, the Gospels indicate that the version of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus and the disciples were familiar with was the Septuagint. And we have Luke telling that Jesus read from the prophets at the synagogue in Nazareth, and what he is recorded as reading was (as I understand it) the Septuagint version.

    Well, that gets kinda iffy...

    You see, the writers get to make editorial decisions as well. And if they are multilingual (which they almost certainly were!), they could easily remember the story (or have had it told them) in Aramaic, and when they go to retell it, they hit a Bible-passage-being-quoted, and either physically or mentally reach for the Septuagint--regardless of what language the original was in, because they're writing in Greek, you know? My husband does the equivalent all the time. It's just easier than to do a brand-spanking-new translation on the spot out of Hebrew or whatever.

    To prove that Jesus actually used the Hebrew in preference in a particular situation, you'd have to find a distinctive reading (variant) where the Hebrew had X but the Septuagint has Y--and it would have to be something that survived translation into Koine Greek by the Gospel writer. And it would have to be something where we ourselves still possess a Hebrew manuscript with that variant (a lot of them got destroyed, so iffy).

    to illustrate:

    Jesus says, "Blessed are the tomatoes," which is a direct quote from 1 Hezekiah 32:4 in a Hebrew manuscript tradition. Except the Septuagint has "Blessed are the watermelons." The Greek of the Gospel has "μακάριοι οἱ τωμήτως," so the Gospel writer has preserved the Hebrew variant. We can then be fairly sure that Jesus was quoting the Hebrew and NOT the Septuagint.

    If, on the other hand, Jesus favored the Septuagint (all the time, or just on occasion), we would never know, because this is very likely to be the Gospel writer's own default, and how could you tell them apart? I suspect the only time we'd be sure is if it was an occasion on which Jesus was making a honking big deal of a variant found only in the Septuagint (say, for some doctrinal reason), and never in any extant Hebrew manuscript--because we could then see that whatever his source was, it contained the variant (and was therefore either the Septuagint or a Hebrew manuscript now lost that led up to the Septuagint translation). So I take it back. We just can't be sure--since we have no proof of any variants that occur ONLY in the Septuagint and not in their (contributory, now lost) Hebrew manuscripts. Because we don't have most/all of those manuscripts.
  • Sometimes the start of a conversation is to choose the language and then this is supplemented with phrases and words from others. With my father as he became very old, we talked in a mix of English, German, French and Spanish. Because of me the base language was English. I expect Pilate had contributors to interview, whispering in his ears also.
  • BTW, what do others think about @Telford's intriguing thought that Jesus himself told others (perhaps his mother, perhaps St John) about his colloquy with Pilate?

    The apostles, and the rest of Jesus' friends, family, and followers must have had about a zillion questions to ask him, post-Resurrection...

    That's the usual Orthodox take. How did the disciples know all this stuff that only Jesus was privvy to? He told them. Duh. They had a few days between the resurrection and the ascension to hash things over.
  • Thanks, @Lamb Chopped, and all fair points. I’m certainly no expert on this; I was just drawing what I’ve read various places (including, I think, the Ship) over the years.

  • Pomona wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    there was an interpreter whose presence wasn’t considered significant enough to warrant a mention.

    The only time interpreters get noticed is when they are bad at their job. A good interpreter is as near invisible and forgettable as possible.

    (By the way, I'm not sure if I know any Africans, of any standing, who don't see speaking at least two and more often three languages as the universal norm, for whom contemporary Western monolingualism is a source of quiet astonishment if not amusement).

    This is a very Anglophone and Francophone thing - there are lots of Western and Northern Europeans who speak multiple languages as a matter of course. My Flemish Belgian friend for instance speaks Flemish, French, English, and Dutch - and that's very normal for Flemings. My Swedish friends all speak English fluently along with other Scandinavian languages and most Danes and Swedes can also speak German.

    I'd imagine multilingualism is very common in parts of the world where

    a) it is advantageous to learn a dominant language on top of your own, such as the Northern European example above, or

    b) there is significant linguistic diversity. For example, in southern India, it would be common for the educated to speak the official language of the state they are from and/or the language used by their community as their native language and have significant command of both Hindi and English on top of that.
  • I could see Jesus answering some questions maybe, but I'm having a hard time imagining him narrating the whole thing. (That would have been harrowing indeed) It's not in any way a point against him doing so--it just doesn't sound right to me, but that's most likely because we have no examples of him ever doing very long narration, and so my ears aren't trained to it!
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    The synoptic version is simple enough to be very indirectly relayed.

    It's also simple enough that if that was a complete representation Pilate could even have done his role in Aramaic or Jesus in Latin (which would then explain the silence after).

    John's version includes some extra steps which would only work with proper communication (Greek?) though.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    I'm impressed it took that long for someone to post that! (watching an interesting thread from the gallery)

  • Jesus would be able to talk to Pilate in any language.

    We have Christians all over the world and Jesus needs to be able to hear their prayers.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Jesus would be able to talk to Pilate in any language.

    We have Christians all over the world and Jesus needs to be able to hear their prayers.
    Post-resurrection and ascension, I’d agree. Pre-resurrection and ascension is a different situation, I’d think.


  • Yes, but Jesus did reveal some of his *miraculous* powers before his arrest etc., so maybe @Telford is right, in a sense.

    In any case, the impression I get from John's account is that, somehow, Jesus and Pilate understood each other very well...
  • Since Jesus could both read the contents of other peoples' hearts and knew what Nathaniel was experiencing when he was some miles away, I think it's reasonable to assume that from his baptism at the latest, he could understand Pilate whatever language Pilate was speaking in. There is, though, no reason to imagine that Pilate had any reciprocal ability.

  • Here is an interesting article from Tyndale House that strongly suggests Jesus knew Greek. For instance, the Sermon on the Mount was near the Decapolis, the ten cities where Greek would have been the common language. Moreover, when you study the Beatitudes you will note the Greek wordplay. One other word that seems to be a giveaway is the word hypocrite which is a definite Greek word. There is no Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent according to the article.
  • But Jesus didn't know when the end was coming. It is risky to attribute various omnipotent capacities to the pre-risen Christ.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    There’s an aspect of cross-cultural gestural significance that has always intrigued me in this drama. Pilate was a military man, Roman and fluent in Greek: he knew the Jewish community well, he had been governor of the province for at least a decade, appointed Jewish High Priests and worked closely with Caiaphas. For the Pharisees, the ritual washing of hands had been elevated into a tradition of the elders (Matt 15: 2).

    Here, Pilate was under pressure from the Judaean authorities and anxious about provoking more unrest, needing to placate the crowds. It was emotional blackmail and his response was couched as a performative Jewish ritual, to stand in public before the crowd (as a Roman demagogue might, exhibiting by his dress and posture the force of the occupying power) and then to call for a bowl of water, ritually wash his hands of the uncleanliness associated with the murder he was being forced to order. By words and actions, Pilate declared himself innocent and passed on responsibility for the death of Jesus to those who would understand that symbolic washing of hands. This ritual would hold deep significance for those Jewish spectators present and Pilate was addressing them in their own frame of reference.
  • MaryLouise wrote: »
    There’s an aspect of cross-cultural gestural significance that has always intrigued me in this drama. Pilate was a military man, Roman and fluent in Greek: he knew the Jewish community well, he had been governor of the province for at least a decade, appointed Jewish High Priests and worked closely with Caiaphas. For the Pharisees, the ritual washing of hands had been elevated into a tradition of the elders (Matt 15: 2).

    Here, Pilate was under pressure from the Judaean authorities and anxious about provoking more unrest, needing to placate the crowds. It was emotional blackmail and his response was couched as a performative Jewish ritual, to stand in public before the crowd (as a Roman demagogue might, exhibiting by his dress and posture the force of the occupying power) and then to call for a bowl of water, ritually wash his hands of the uncleanliness associated with the murder he was being forced to order. By words and actions, Pilate declared himself innocent and passed on responsibility for the death of Jesus to those who would understand that symbolic washing of hands. This ritual would hold deep significance for those Jewish spectators present and Pilate was addressing them in their own frame of reference.
    Sorry, @MaryLouise. I'm not persuaded by all of what you say.

    First, irrespective of how long he'd been in Judea, from other references there is every reason to suppose that Pilate was an oppressive yob.

    Second, nobody knows how good Pilate was at languages. He may have been. He may not have been. He may have been relatively fluent. Or his exchanges may never have been at any level higher than 'kitchen kaffir' and I've chosen that term with every awareness of its history and the sensitivities it may arouse.

    Third, washing one's hands publicly is a symbolic act which makes good sense in every culture. I find it impossible to believe otherwise. It's not dependent on knowing anything about C1 Judaism. The gospels were written for gentiles as well as Jews. Nobody felt there was any need to explain what Pilate meant by referring to Jewish traditions that a gentile might not understand. Yes, though, I agree, Pilate deliberately chose a gesture that had a clear symbolic message.

    Fourth, irrespective of whether Pilate imagined he was exculpating himself, I don't think any of the gospel writers or any theologian since has ever accepted that by his gesture he succeeded. The underlying message is that whatever both Jewish and Roman leaders might have done to try and shift moral responsibility for executing the Son of God onto each other, both of them are fixed with it.

  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    @Enoch, you might not be aware of this but the term 'kitchen kaffir' is extremely offensive in my part of the world and I would not expect to find it used on a global forum.

    I agree with you that Pilate was not able to exonerate himself, that is the irony of the drama. It was not a sincere gesture, it was a calculated ploy to place responsibility back with the Judean authorities and with the crowds calling for blood. Although there's a history in the early church of that claimed Pilate was a good man (apocryphal literature argues he converted later and in fact was declared a saint by certain faith communities) who saw the justness and innocence of Jesus, history has weighed in on the side of culpability. Each time we repeat the Apostles’ or Nicene creed, we recall that Christ suffered and died under Pontius Pilate.

    All I wanted to touch on, in the light of this thread, was the cross-cultural aspect of the handwashing gesture.

  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I'd be surprised if Pilate managed to rise to the position he had if he wasn't fluent in Greek. Any diplomatic discussion he held (whether friends in Egypt or enemies in Syria) would have been conducted in Greek. There would be large parts of the Roman army who did not speak Latin, and Greek would have been the language used - by the time he reached the position of governor he only needed to talk to senior officers, who probably would speak Latin, but earlier in his career he'd have surely had to deal with more junior officers where Latin could not be guaranteed to be understood. Greek was quite simply the language that everyone who was anyone (and a lot of people who were considered no-one) spoke.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    edited September 2021
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One other word that seems to be a giveaway is the word hypocrite which is a definite Greek word. There is no Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent according to the article.

    The bolded text strikes me as extremely unlikely.
  • tclune wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One other word that seems to be a giveaway is the word hypocrite which is a definite Greek word. There is no Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent according to the article.

    The bolded text strikes me as extremely unlikely.
    The sentence containing the bolded is incorrect. The only thing the article says on the Greek word hypokrates is:
    So Mary, Joseph and Jesus may have had extensive exposure to Greek in that city [Sepphoris, 4 miles from Nazareth]. It’s also interesting to note that Sepphoris had a theatre. Does Jesus’s use of the word “hypocrite” (Greek hypokrites, ὑποκριτής, meaning “actor”) stem from the fact that Greek plays would have been regularly performed just over an hour’s walk from his house?
    That’s it. Nowhere does the article say or suggest that there is no Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent to the Greek hypokrates.

  • MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Enoch, you might not be aware of this but the term 'kitchen kaffir' is extremely offensive in my part of the world and I would not expect to find it used on a global forum.

    A completely racist phrase which is unacceptable here or anywhere, in my mind.
Sign In or Register to comment.