The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in- volved no great linguistic revolution, as it was simply a transition from one Semitic language to another, and that a closely cogTiate one. It was, however, only very gradually effected, and was chiefly due to the predominance to which Aramaic attained in Western Asia during the Persian period, coming, as it did, to be, with dialectical differences, the lingua communLi from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. While, however, Aramaic thus gradually superseded Hebrew as the li^-ing tongue of Palestine, and by the time of Alexander the Great had probably reached a position of ascend- ency, if it had not gained entire possession of the field, yet Hebrew remained, though with some loss of its ancient purity, the language of sacred litera- ture, the language in which Prophet and Psalmist wrote, and as the language of the books ultimately embraced in the OT Canon, continued to be read, with an accompanying translation into Aramaic, in the synagogues, and to be diligently studied by the professional interpreters of the Scriptures. It is, therefore, quite possible that Christ possessed a knowledge of Hebrew, and had thus access to the Scriptures in the original.
With Alexander the Great, however, there came a fresh disturbance of the linguistic situation. Thenceforward Greek entered into competition with Aramaic. And though, as a non-Semitic language, the adoption of Greek could not come so readily to the Jews as Aramaic, yet the circum- stances were such as to tend in no small degree to counterbalance the disadvantage under which Greek thus lay. For not only was it the official language alike of the Lagid, Seleucid, and, after the Maccabaean interregnum, of the Idumsean- Boman rulers to whom the Jews were successively
subject ; but its cause was furthered by the HeUenizing policy which these rulers generally followed, and by the existence, more or les^, all through of a party among the Jews themselves favourable to that policy. The result on the linguistic situation of the political conditions thus obtaining cannot be certainly determined from the historical data bearing directly thereon. It is, however, clear that Mhatever headway Greek may have made before the MaccaWan reVolt, — which Mas a revolt against the HellenLzing policy referred to, as pushed to extremes by Antiochus Epiphanes, — it suilered a decided set-back, and was practi- cally expelled the country during the Maccabsean regime. And though it had again made consider- able progres* by the time of Christ, and especially through the influence of Herod the Great, who particularly aflected Greek culture, there is nothing to show that the political conditions were such as to secure for it the ascendency claimed by some scholars, and notably by Dr. Roberts in Ids book, Greek the Ixinguagc of Christ and His Ajtcstles.
At the time of Christ, then, Palestine was bi- lingual, Greek as well as Aramaic being, to some extent at least, spoken. The question, therefore, to be answered is. Which of these languages did Christ speak, or, if He knew and spoke both, which of them did He mainly, if not exclusively, employ as the veliicle of His teaching? Consideration need be given to the question only in its latter form. For, as undoubtedly spoken by some of the Palestinian Jews, as the language of perhaps the great majority of His c-ountrymen scattered throughout the Roman world, as the predominant language of the representatives of the Gentile world in Palestine and of that Gentile world itself, which, though wide, was not yet Mider than He conceived the scope of His mission to be, and as, besides, the language of the Septuagint Version of the OT, which had no doubt acquired consider- able jKjpularity, it may reasonablv be assumed that Christ would acquire some ^owledge of Greek, and be able, in some measure at least, to speak it. Was it, then, Aramaic or Greek that Christ habitually employed in His public ministry ? The question resolves itself into that of the rela- tive prevalence of the t«o languages in the country at the time, so far as that can be deter- mined by such evidence, direct and indirect, as is available. And this evidence, though somewhat meagre, is decisive for Aramaic. That furnished by the reported words of Christ Himself does not go very far, but yet goes some length towards that conclusion. All that it certainly establishes is that Christ knew Aramaic, and, apart from His employment of Aramaic terms and proper names, on which perhaps little stress is to be laid, as these terms and proper names may have formed part of the ordinary vocabulary of Greek-sjieaking Jews, expressed llimself in Aramaic on three difl'erent CKcasions. The three expressions are: (l)Ta\e<0d Koi'fi, the Gr. transliteration of the Aram, tf^frs or rp K^i'hc Mk 5* ; (2) iKfxpadd, euphonic for the Aram. n?eriK Mk 7** ; and (3) i7Xei ijXei \aiia. (ra^Sax^avei (Mt 27^1, or according to Mk 15^ eXt'i, eXai. Xe/^a ffa3ax6aP€i, the Aram. •;?-;?■ k:^ -n^? T^? or •'rK •'-k. How these three Aramaic expressions alone can:e to be preserved is matter of conjecture. An obvious explanation is that they alone were preserved becau.«e they were exceptional, Greek being the language for the most part used by Christ. That, however, is not the only possible explanation. More probable is it that they alone were preserved becarLse associated with moments of exceptional emotion on Christs part, and there- fore felt to be exceptionally precious. The cry upon the cross was peculiarly a cry de profundis. In the case of the deaf and dumb man, Christ, for