Abraham would have been multilingual. If you investigate on the net the issue gets confusing with so many overlapping cultures in the region and in Abrahams travels.
Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Abraham would have been multilingual. If you investigate on the net the issue gets confusing with so many overlapping cultures in the region and in Abrahams travels.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, yes. Only about 8k words. That doesn't mean the authors didn't have ways of expressing more complex ideas, though.
Genesis 1:1 uses a synechdoche to refer to the idea of a universe.
Likewise, the multiplicity of "heavens" in the chapter corresponds to the idea of planets in orbit.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Have you read any of the Amarna Letters? They are a collection of letters between Pharoah and his vassal-kings (suzerains) among the Canaanites, either during or slightly after Abraham's day. None of them shows any hint of speaking multiple languages.
Why would they? If you were sufficiently important... say, if you were the SAR over a mid-sized nomadic tribe operating in Egyptian territory with Pharoah's blessing... then you had people for that. People who would bend over backwards for you... literally. The traditional practice for a MALAK meeting his lord's messenger was to prostrate himself 7 times on his front and on his back.
Yes, they could express complex ideas and concepts with their language. However, there's no indication that they understood "planets in orbit."
The reason they described different levels of the heavens is simply because they could see that the clouds floated above the air space where the birds flew, and that the sun, moon, and stars could go behind the clouds.
Wick, I'm not sure you realize this but bilingual and even multilingualism is the norm world wide not the exception. In UR, and many other parts of what we call the Middle East, it's quite common for even common people to speak several languages. Jesus would have known Hebrew, spoken the common Aramaic of his day and place and known Greek as well.
What Language Did Abraham Speak?
http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-language-did-abraham-speak.html
Good points.
However, all we know from scripture is that Jesus spoke "Hebrew" (Acts 26:14). It's also interesting to note that there are numerous references in the 4th Gospel that indicate those in Judea spoke "Hebrew" (e.g. John 5:2; John 19:13; John 20:16).
It was also "Hebrew" that was written above the cross of Jesus (and no mention of Aramaic, John 19:20).
Abraham probably spoke Hebrew as well, since he was a descendant of "Eber" who lived after languages were assigned when Babel was destroyed (Genesis 11:14-15).
Greg Jennings
New member
For what it's worth, I was taught in my religion classes at university that Jesus (and most Israelites of the time) spoke Aramaic mainly, but also Hebrew and Koine Greek
I was told in seminary that Jesus "probably spoke Aramaic" too. However, I never had a seminary professor who could provide any evidence to support the idea. Why shouldn't we just believe the evidence we have in scripture instead of speculating about it?
As a side thought ... is it reasonable to think that the ancient Hebrews in Judea who were zealous for their sacred scriptures would have chosen to speak a heathen language? In fact, we have evidence in scripture that the native-born Jews (even in the church) tended to discriminate against visiting Grecian Jews who did not speak the native Hebrew language (Acts 6:1-2).
Greg Jennings
New member
Because we know what the average Jew in that region spoke thanks to documentation. I think it's fair to assume that an educated Jew like Jesus would speak several languages.
When the Jews ran Israel, you are probably correct. But in Jesus' time, Rome ran Israel. And in order to curry favor with and better communicate with the Romans, Jews spoke their language.
That being said, Roman consulates and governors of the region likely knew Hebrew and/or Aramaic as well for the same purposes
The only "documentation" we have about the language Jesus actually spoke is found in scripture (Acts 26:14). Why should we ignore the first-hand information and transfer authority to other "documentation" that says nothing about Jesus and his disciples? If we depended upon that other "documentation", we wouldn't have any reason to think Jesus ever existed.
It's reasonable to think that Jesus and/or his disciples recognized and understood non-Hebrew dialects because they wrote in Greek and also apparently recognized that others were born outside of Judea on the basis of the foreign dialects they spoke (e.g. the Canannite woman, Matthew 15:2).
Greg Jennings
New member
The documentation I refer to is not biblical. I mean Roman writings that tell us what life in Roman Judea was like, including languages spoken and religions exercised.
I don't think that because the bible doesn't explicitly mention how many languages Jesus conversed in means that he only spoke one. Absence of information is not the same as information not existing at all. From the non-biblical sources we know that people of the region, of which Jesus and his disciples were, spoke three languages.
The bible makes next to no mention of Jesus' childhood. Are we to conclude from that that he didn't have one?
I'm just suggesting that we be careful about what is considered "evidence." Modern scholarship tends to run amuck with speculation about every new archeological development that comes along because that is how they get theology books published.
You are right that "silence" is not "evidence." However, it is also fallacious to assume that understanding Jesus and the apostles should be restricted by what might have characterized other people who lived around them. Speculation doesn't constitute "evidence" either.
You may find this interesting. Josephus noted that Hebrew was dead as a common language at the times of Jesus. It's comparable to Latin although there are still Latin masses. The scriptures would have been Hebrew of coarse, but Aramaic was the common language. Josephus indicates that Greek wasn't in vogue in Palestine until later in the last half of the first century. So any original notes or narratives written by the apostles would have been Aramaic, latter translated into Greek by the gospel writers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus
Last edited:
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Actually, there are indications they did. Biblically, see Ezekiel's wheels within wheels. Extra-biblically, the Book of Enoch spells it out in some detail. Ancient peoples were avid watchers of the night sky, since they didn't have Netflix.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Hi Caino,
After reading your linked article, I'm not sure I have enough common ground to discuss this with you intelligently. I believe Abraham is a title, belonging to multiple persons who filled the office of SAR over a tribal culture in the Levant from Bronze II - Iron I.
Did one or more of those people speak more than one language? Maybe? The area in question has long been a buffer state between Egypt and the other powers of the Middle East, so it's conceivable.
However, based on primary written evidence originating in that date and place, it was not typical for MALAKIM or SARIM to do so, as they had a common system of writing in cuneiform, which facilitated communications without the need to actually speak each others language. Go read the Amarna Letters. You'll see.
BTW, the article you linked is full of speculation presented as fact, right beside good information. I disagree with much of what Ms. Linsley states there. It appears to me that her hobby horse is African cultures and language, and she takes every chance to elevate their importance, perhaps at the expense of the truth.
Follow the breadcrumbs of internal evidence in the Bible, and it appears the tribes under Ab-raham (father-head of many) and Sar-ah, were an offshoot of the failing Mittani empire before they ever made contact with Egypt, and after their contact with Egypt, were absorbed into and became a head of a nation that was predominantly Edomite.
Where Ms. Linsley would have us believe that the Egyptians passed to the Israelites the worship of Ra and Horus as God Almighty and his invincible son, I believe the opposite is true. It was Joseph (as Imhotep) who introduced to the Egyptians the concept of a single supreme God, EL, who is distinctly Hurrian in origins, as well as founding a mystery school which would eventually become Egyptian Hermeticism. Maybe it would be best to say the two influenced each other... the Exodus account and the digs at Timna prove that the Israelites took some of Egyptian religion with them as well.
That is correct.
6days
New member
Your addition of secular ideas into scripture warps the gospel. God did not use millions of years of death to create.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" Rom.5:12
6days
New member
Greg, the theologian? :hammer:
6days
New member
The belief that God's Word is inerrant is based on evidence; There is the evidence of His Word, and secondarily, the evidence of the world around us.
Crucible..... your approach to scripture seems illogical. You seem to pick and choose which miracles you want to believe. Various Bible authors, and even Jesus refer to Genesis as true history. I also accept Genesis as true history, and in that way I don't have to try and re-explain / compromise other parts of scripture (Such as the reason Jesus had to physically die)
Greg Jennings
New member
I've taken more religion classes than yourself, I'd wager.