Radix Fidem Blog

In order to handle one particular Bible passage, we need a wealth of background explanation. All the more do we need it because we need to clobber some false notions common in our day.

Abraham was referred to in Scripture as “Aramaen”. We need to understand that this was not precisely an ethnic identity, but simply noting that he spoke the Aramaic language. He probably was literate in other languages, to include Akkadian and Sumerian. Those were both Semitic tongues. Sumerian was one of the oldest known written languages, eventually replaced in daily use by Akkadian, while Sumerian remained a formal ceremonial language. Akkadian was replaced in turn by Aramaic because the latter was far more easily written on what were then modern materials. It was no longer restricted to poking a stick into clay tablets, but could be written in a script on scrolls or papyrus. Aramaic became the most common language used in commerce and routine record keeping.

Because of Abraham’s rather high social status, it’s quite likely he was familiar with other languages not related to any Semitic tongues. For the upper classes in Mesopotamia, it was the rule to be conversant in the languages you were likely to encounter. For the middle classes, it was only a little less so necessary. For the lower classes, it was likely they were at least familiar with several languages, depending on their exposure.

Apparently Abraham used Aramaic at home, but would have taught his descendants all the languages he knew they would likely encounter. Given that Palestine in those days was just a highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia (and beyond), we should expect the Patriarchs to be multi-lingual based on the dominant caravan traffic of the day. In turn, it was quite likely caravans always included people who spoke Aramaic simply because it was in those days the language of trade to the point Egyptians would be familiar with it.

It turns out that most of the Canaanite nations also used a variation of Aramaic that remained mutually intelligible. No one should be surprised that the Patriarchs drifted closer to Canaanite languages in their daily usage. During the sojourn in Egypt that drift would have stopped for a few centuries. After the Conquest, since it was only partial, the drift would have returned. This is when the classical Hebrew language was established. By the time of the Babylonian invasion, the difference between what was by then the Hebrew language and the old Aramaic would have been substantial. Still, keep in mind that the upper and middle classes would still be able to converse in Aramaic for the sake of trade and imperial correspondence. We note that Nebuchadnezzar’s officials also knew the Hebrew dialect well enough to parley with troops on the walls of Jerusalem.

During the Exile, the common language of the Judeans in Mesopotamia drifted back to Aramaic as it was at the time there in Babylon. The small group who returned had some struggle with reading the old Hebrew Scriptures because it was a little different. The upper classes knew the old Hebrew, and some of the middle classes would have, but the lower classes were quite unlikely to know it well enough. Thus, in public readings of the Hebrew Scriptures, they had people stand around offering a targum (rough translation) for the lower classes.

So it went with each imperial conquest. The conquering officials would be familiar with Aramaic because, who wasn’t? But in order to curry favor, the Judean leadership would learn their rulers’ languages as much as possible. Learning Persian was tough, but Alexander was very friendly and evangelistic about teaching everyone Greek. When the Romans took over what was left of the Greek Empire, they played things a little differently. Seizing upon the convenience of the existing ubiquity of Greek language everywhere they went, they reserved Roman for their official correspondence and communicated in Greek with all their subjects.

By this time we had one existing center of Hellenistic culture in Alexandria, Egypt. The Old Testament was translated into a rather clean scholarly Greek, which we refer to as the Septuagint (“LXX”). The majority of upper and middle class Jews knew how to read it. Rabbis in particular would have been able to read it, along with their own old Hebrew, and of course the common Aramaic of their own people.

There’s no reason to doubt that Jesus passed through at least some rabbinical training, because He was treated as a recognized rabbi. There is evidence that one did not get that title easily, yet it was used of Him in terms that were not entirely sarcastic. We should assume He could read and converse in Greek and Old Hebrew, but in most cases, would have used Aramaic in His preaching and teaching. Whoever among His disciples was in business would also have been equally able in Greek. Since many of them appeared interested in religion (some were disciples of John the Baptist at first), they would have taken the time to study Old Hebrew, too.

Savor that for a moment. The populations of the Ancient Near East were multilingual as a rule because that’s how people survived. Only the lowest classes off the beaten path could afford to deal with only their local tongue.

For all our scholarship today, we are still uncertain about some things, including Greek usage from those days.

In Matthew 18, Jesus teaches quite a bit about forgiveness. Please note: He is talking about forgiving those who share the same covenant. This does not apply fully to folks outside the Covenant, but to your fellow believers. His teaching assumes you know how to draw the boundaries of the Covenant, but give people the benefit of the doubt until they make it obvious they aren’t covenant family. How do we keep His fundamental law of loving our brothers and sisters as He does?

Matthew records His cousin’s conversation in Greek. Peter asked a lot of questions, since he had been a disciple of John the Baptist for at least a couple of years and was familiar with the rabbinical debates John had with the Pharisees. He was also the eldest of the Twelve, the presumed “second in command”.

Having heard the Pharisees suggest that you should forgive your fellow Hebrew three times on any particular sin against you, Peter was trying to be generous in suggesting seven times (v. 21). This was, after all, the sacred number of completion (i.e., the full number) in Hebrew culture. After that, you could then take some kind of revenge.

The subject of revenge was rooted deep in Hebrew history, all the way back to Genesis 4:24 and Lamech’s vow to take vengeance. The number is distinct in the Hebrew texts we have: 77 times. Jesus was referring to this when He told Peter that seven wasn’t enough. The problem is how His answer is translated.

Jesus quotes the Septuagint, obviously, but these days we aren’t quite certain how the numbers in Greek work with the addition of a suffix that translates into English as “times” or “-fold”. We don’t have enough Greek materials that demonstrate clearly how one would say in Greek “77-fold” versus “70 times 7”. It’s a question of actual usage of suffixes. Lately, scholars are thinking it should have been translated “77-fold” because that’s what Lamech said.

Not that it makes a whole lot of difference in moral terms. It’s one thing to casually remember someone making the same mistake three times, maybe even seven times. But if you keep counting up to 77 times, you aren’t forgiving in the first place, much less 490 times. Jesus was plainly trying to reverse Lamech’s vow of vengeance with a vow of forgiveness, so if you want to nit-pick, it should be 77.

(Note: Hesier misses some of this in his attempt to cover this in Naked Bible 105: Q&A 13.)