Regardless of whether he could speak English or not, he would probably not even realize you were talking to him by referring to him as “Jesus,” “J.C.,” or the even more popular “J-dawg.”
OK, you folks have finally got me hitting up Bible Gateway at work.
John Chapter 12 says that shortly before the crucifiction, some visiting Greeks came up to Phillip who was from Galilee and said they’d like to see Jesus. Andrew and Phillip then took them to Jesus. This suggests that the Greeks, Phillip, and Jesus had some language in common in which they could converse fairly fluently, or at least it does to me. On the other hand, I don’t know enough to speculate about what language that was.
As the fully divine Son of God, during his time on earth, I would suspect Jesus would be able to speak modern English in all its dialects if the incentive were strong enough. He certainly never seemed to have any difficulty communicating with people. On the other hand, this question seems about as relevant to practical theology as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
It’s been a fascinating discussion, though. By the way, did the Samaritans speak the same language as the Jews? I know the two cultures came from the same root, but the enmity between them doesn’t necessarily mean they spoke different languages.
CJ
Yep, Jesus was way cool.
Well, he didn’t even know the name of the dude printed on the money, did he? Had to ask the crowd.
:rolleyes: But not half as ridiculous as the phrase, “practical theology.”
Actually, I think it does touch a signifiant theological problem. Did Jesus have an universal knowledge? For instance did he know who people approaching him were? What they had in mind? What they will do? If you go to an even larger picture : could he not have fully understand something? Could he have been mistaken? Could he have failed (for instance when he’s been tempted in the desert or on the Olive mount?)? If the answer is “no” to these questions, then, how could one state he was fully human?
The ability to understand and speak languages he had not learned is just part of a larger issue, and an huge one at that : the human and/or divine nature of Christ.
If they were Greeks, they probably spoke Greek. If they spoke another language, or were unable to speak Greek (the lingua franca of that time/place) they probably wouldn’t have been referred to as “Greeks”. If Jesus was bilingual (which would not be particularly remarkable), Greek would be his most likely 2nd language (Aramaic being his first). So even if we assume that he was able to speak to these “Greeks”, that’s extremely weak evidence for him being able to understand any random language.
So, you’re saying that while Jesus LOOKED like an infant in swaddling clothes, he was actually omniscient in the manger? That he knew EVERYTHING from day one, but still chose to wait 30 years to begin his mission?
I’m not convinced.
:shrug: It’s what the Church has taught. The point is made quite clearly in iconography as well – the infant (or even fetal, as in the icon of the Platytera ton Oranon) Christ is shown as a small adult, sometimes with a receding hairline or other indications of maturity, facing and blessing the viewer, with a nimbus that has written in it “O On” – “He Who Is”.
Once again something that can be explained by faith is turning into a debate on linguistics, etymology and the history of how different languages are related.
I realize this is GD, but the OP isn’t talking about Jesus as a regular citizen of Nazareth. So I’ll take a few liberties in incorporating the religious aspect of Jesus as alluded to in the OP. I’m not making up new parameters, just following the OPs premise.
If Jesus was just a regular Joe and fooled billions of people into believing he is the Savior, there is no way in hell he’d understand any English speaker back then. (And English is Germanic, no need to try to link it to Greek, Latin or Swahili.) Link Germanic to what you will, English is Germanic.
That said, here’s why Jesus (as the Messiah) would understand anything we said to him today. (And as a Catholic I just know I’m going to hell for even having the gall to defend Him today of all days. Pride is a bitch of a sin, let me tell ya.) Nevertheless, this is based on the assumption He is the Son of God.
Based on faith, God is the Creator of Man and is omniscient. Therefore, any languages past, future or present are already known by Him. Given that Jesus knew what His Father wanted, they had some sort of rapport. There was at least a trace of communication between them.
Based on Christian faith, Jesus was sent to Earth to spread the Gospel, or, loosely translated, God’s message, to everyone in His mission. I have serious doubts a language barrier (see Tower of Babel) would prevent Jesus, as the Messiah, to be hampered by a translation error.
Again, this is based on faith. (Not a popular subject in GD, but it’s what the OP was getting at). Should Jesus return to Earth tomorrow on Main Street, Anywhere, I have a feeling that even if He didn’t learn the language as a kid, God would somehow make the words understandable to both parties.
If not? Then God doesn’t really have a Messiah. Or the Messiah is only sent to save those that speak Aramaic, Latin, and possibly Hebrew and Greek. If that’s the case, Christianity is a moot point as it doesn’t apply to everyone.
So either God, sending His Son to Earth as the Savior to save Mankind is true (in which He would understand any language) is true.
Or Jesus wasn’t the Savior, and would only understand the languages He learned as a mortal.
To me, it depends on who, or what, you believe Jesus to be.
First, there is no evidence He wandered blindly through life until He hit 30 to start His mission. Of course, there’s no evidence He started His mission at age 16, but He didn’t have access to blogs and message boards, so we can’t really know when it started.
It’s called faith. It’s valid for billions of people including non-Christians. The OP was asking if Jesus would understand modern English, not if He was the actual Messiah.
If you want to debate the merits of His historical impact, a new thread may be the best option. If that’s too much hassle, keep the hijack going. Not my thread so I have no say in it.
Actually, there is one other possibility. They could have been Greeks, right down to their native language, who also were also reasonably fluent in Aramaic.
Duffer, while their may be no evidence as to when Jesus started his actual ministry, Luke 2:41-52 suggests he did have a bit more on the ball than the average teenager. This is the story which tells how, when he was 12, his parents went to Jerusalem for Passover and didn’t realize their son had stayed behind until they were on their way home. When they went back to get him, they found him in the Temple teaching and amazing people. When they started to yell at him, he said to them, “Where did you expect me to be?”
While I’m tackling odds and ends, I figured I’d explain what I mean by “practical theology”. Practical theology, to me, is what does my faith say about homosexuality, associating with non-Christians, and ethics in every day life. Impractical theology, for lack of a better word, can be a lot of fun, but is more of an intellectual exercise which won’t serve me as well when I’m trying to figure out how to respond to tailgaters on my morning commute. Then again, those are my eccentric views alone, and this discussion has been fascinating.
Are you trying to tell us something here, Siege? 
Hang it, I knew I was going to spell it wrong!
Nope, it’s just that going to (counts on fingers) 4 services, 1 concert, and 2 rehearsals in 5 days at my church, coupled with doing taxes is frying my brain.
Who me? Religious fanatic? Never!! 
:o
Then, could you answer my question : did he have universal knowledge, or was his knowledge somehow limited to languages? If he had unversal knowledge, how can he be told to be fully human, since this is definitely not an human trait? Also, how could have he, for instance, doubted on the cross, if it were true?
I definitely think it isn’t as easy a question as you put it. It touches on the nature of Christ (from a theological point of view, not from a believer/atheist point of view), an issue that was debatted for centuries, and caused major chisms.
OK, it’s been a number of years back but I was obtaining a degree in philosophy and religious studies but quit one class shy because I realized I hated it. (I then found a very cozy home in the science building,but that’s an entirely separate story…) But I’m pretty sure I remember this part of my education…
I’m actually fairly certain that in that area and time period very few people actually SPOKE Aramaic as a conversational language. It was primarily the language of Hebrew literature, and only scholars and priests would have known it. Most scholars agree that at some point in time Jesus had access to and took advantage of formal religious education and was thus learned in this area, meaning he knew ancient scripture/literature and could probably read Aramaic, but would not have ever been speaking it to anyone.
I’m less sure but still think I’m right in saying that he spoke Hebrew which was the language of Jewish commoners. Maybe I have confused that but I’m pretty sure that is what I was taught. If so, then my guess is this was probably his first language that he learned in babyhood.
And lastly I’m almost positive that by that point in time everyone in the region spoke Greek. It was the language of the marketplace, so to speak. Greek was the language that the Romans used to conduct business and nobody would have gotten by if they hadn’t learned it. Ach, most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek so it was definitely more commonplace than Aramaic.
But to the question at hand, we have no claim that Jesus exited the womb walking talking and potty-trained so we must assume that he went through the motions of learning to be human. Therefore while on Earth he probably would not have been able to understand English of any kind. However, I choose to believe he was divine and capable of miraculous things, so I am undecided if the human Jesus would have understood the human me.
I’m not aknowledgeable in such matters, but I’m prety certain you got it backward. Hebrew was the language known by priests and scholars, and Aramaic the spoken language of the “vulgum pecus”.
Actually, Hebrew had completely dissapeared as a spoken language until its revival by zionists, while Aramaic never ceased to be spoken, and still is in some places, though on the verge of dissapearing, if I’m not mistaken.
OK. I did confuse Aramaic with Hebrew. Hebrew was the original language of the Jews and after centuries of being assimilated into various other empires and cultures Aramaic developed, which was the commoner language in the rural areas of Jewish populations. Aramaic has more in common with languages that were Arabic in nature.
I wonder at what point this changed because modern Hebrew as spoken now in Israel has very little in common with Aramaic and uses the Hebrew alphabet with English-ized additions.
I recall having to translate various Old Testament passages in my biblical Hebrew classes and my default answer for the hard sections was “This must be one of those Aramaic sections…”
I think the only real sections where Aramaic was found in large chunks were the books of Daniel and Esther. Which now that I think of it makes sense because the Jews were under oppression by Persia (?) at those points.
Wow it’s been a while since I thought about/discussed a lot of this. I enjoy the scholarly nature of it.
If only to indulge your scenario for a minute, what would make you think he could understand ANY English?
Correct me if I’m wrong (because I don’t really know the first thing about the bible), but where do you get the idea that he’s some sort of omnilingual (through time, as well as geography apparently) in the first place?
I have to say it’s really interesting reading the responses here… as a non-religious person, I’ve always found this question to be something that should be simple but invariably turns out to be very complex.
I’ve asked Deeply Faithful & Devout Christians, who either answer with “Of course He could, He is the Son Of God and is therefore Divine”, or “Err, No, it doesn’t quite work like that…”, whilst non-religious people tend to lean towards the “No, of course He couldn’t… He was a remarkable person, but nothing more” school of thought.
The OP was intended from the point of view that Jesus really was The Son Of God, however, if that helps.