The Logic of Faith

(7) Linguistic Fossils

Linguistic fossils provide another means of deciding whether a particular document fits its time and whether it has been copied from generation to generation with accuracy, and in this it is similar to the argument from undesigned coincidences. An argument based on linguistic fossils is founded on either (or both) of the following observations:

1. Languages are different
2. Languages change with time

The significance of this is seen when one language is translated into another. If the translation is very literal then we will probably find phrases that seem "clumsy" in the translation. This may be because the two languages do not share the same sentence structure, or because an idiom in the original language is not matched in the new one. For example, if we read the sentence

"I have, for fifteen years, in Manchester lived."

we might conclude that it was originally written or spoken in German (or in a language with similar grammar) and then translated literally into English, without any adjustment in the word order.

The sentence:

"I am going to House"

contains the phrase "to House" in place of the word "home". This is because a German would use the phrase "zu Haus" to describe the action of going home.

Finally the sentence:

"I gave him a wave with a fence-post"

shows signs of being translated from German as it contains a German idiom.

An account written in England at the time of Chaucer (14th century) would be written in a very different language to that of Shakespeare (16th century) or Kipling (19th century). Thus, if an account purporting to be from Chaucer's time was excavated in an archaeological dig, one could gain a good idea of when it was written by its grammatical and linguistic form. Not only that, but if the manuscript had been copied many times one would expect any corrections or interpolations to be in the language of the time when they were interpolated.

Similar analysis can be applied to the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments.

The Gospels were, it seems, written in Greek. Not only are the oldest manuscripts of the gospels in Greek, including some written before 70 AD, but there are no very early manuscripts of the gospels in any other feasible language. However, Greek was not the only language spoken in New Testament Palestine; it was not even the most commonly spoken language.

In fact four different languages were used in the area before 70 AD. These were:

• Greek This was the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire, used in trade and government. Its use in Palestine in the time of the gospels is attested by inscriptions and documents dug up by archaeologists. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a considerable number of Greek documents. That the use of Greek was common can also be seen from the existence of Greek theatres in several towns such as Sepphoris and Beth Shan. These theatres were large enough to hold audiences of several thousand; over a matter of several nights most of the inhabitants of these towns and the surrounding countryside must have visited them. As the only plays in existence in any quantity were in Greek, nearly everyone in the area must have been a competent Greek speaker.

• Aramaic Aramaic was the language of the Syrians, Assyrians and Babylonians. It was closely related to Hebrew and used the same system of letters. As many of the words in Aramaic are the same as those in Hebrew it is easy to confuse the two. The use of Aramaic in New Testament times is also attested by inscriptions and documents from the time. The language also appears in the Gospels with phrases such as "Talitha Cumi" [Mark 5⁴¹], "Ephphatha" [Mark 7³⁴] and "Rabboni" [John 20¹⁶].

• Hebrew This was the language of the Bible and of scholarly Judaism. As such it would be spoken by the Scribes and Pharisees, at any rate. More and more evidence is coming to light to show that it was understood by a large proportion of the population, especially in Judea; many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew and Hebrew inscriptions outnumber other language inscriptions in Jerusalem, where they appear on private objects such as in funerary inscriptions as well as in public inscriptions.

• Latin This was the language of Rome, although most educated Romans would use Greek in preference. When the inscription was placed on Jesus' cross it was written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew [Luke 23³⁸].

This leads on to the question of what language Jesus spoke in his ministry. It would most likely have been a mixture of languages, as Jesus was probably multilingual (as would be most of the other speakers in the gospels). The Gospels are written in Greek. We would, however, expect evidence to show that some of the words were translated from other languages, especially Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The text of the gospels does, in fact, provide evidence of the use of at least two languages by those whose speech is recorded in them.

For example, consider the form of much of Hebrew/Aramaic poetry. Unlike European poetry, including Greek poetry, this does not rely on a parallelism of sounds (which we call rhyme). Instead it relies on a parallelism of ideas, phrases which put very similar thoughts in juxtaposition. For example, consider the form of Psalm 27¹:

The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

In Hebrew this parallelism is even more marked (note that Hebrew writing is read from right to left):

The same kind of structure can be found in the words of Jesus in the Gospels:

Luke 6^27-28 Love your enemies, do good to them who hate you,
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them who despitefully use you.

The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, also contain turns of phrase which are characteristically Hebraic (or Aramaic). These provide further evidence that these words of Jesus were originally delivered in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Examples of these are:

Luke 6²² cast out your name as evil.

Luke 9²⁹ The appearance of his countenance was altered.

Luke 9⁴⁴ Lay these sayings in your ears.

Not every word spoken by Jesus or the disciples was in Hebrew or Aramaic. The same evidence that points to a Hebrew/Aramaic original for some sayings points to a Greek original in others. For example:

Matthew 5¹⁷ Think not [me nomisete] that I am come to destroy the law [nomon]

or

Luke 8¹⁵ But that on the good [kale] ground are they, who in an honest [kale] and good heart.

Luke 21¹¹ famines [limoi] and pestilences [loimoi]

It is even possible to find passages where the characters change from one language to another. For example:

John 20^15-16 Jesus saith to her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith to him, Sir, if thou hast borne him away, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith to her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith to him, Rabboni.

The gospels were written in Greek because they were for a Greek speaking readership to whom Hebrew or Aramaic would mean little. The fact that many of the sayings of Jesus have an underlying Hebraic form shows that they were not made up by the person who wrote the gospel. Why make up an Aramaic form when writing a gospel in Greek? The people who read the gospel initially would be completely unaware of the Hebraisms within it. It would take a very astute linguist indeed to concoct a passage like John 20 where Mary changes language part way through a conversation.

The reporting of these Hebraisms shows that the speech of the people in the Gospels has been recorded accurately. If there had been flaws in the memory of those who wrote them down, or if the speech had been made up the Hebraisms would have disappeared. The Hellenisms show that the entirety of the Gospels was not written in Hebrew or they too would have disappeared. Finally the Gospels were copied for generations by people who hardly understood Greek, and certainly would not recognise the Hebraisms. If there had been even tiny and subtle errors in the copying the Hebraisms would have vanished.

Thus we can be confident that the Gospels contain an accurate record of the various events and sayings that they contain, and that they have been transmitted with accuracy down the ages to the modern day.

The Hebrew language in which most of the Old Testament was written changed from the time of Abraham to the time of Jesus. This change can be used to show the ages of the various books in the Old Testament.

For example, the book of Daniel contains accurate prophecies of the future, so accurate that some critics have claimed that the book must have been written after the prophecies were fulfilled. However, an analysis of the Aramaic of the book of Daniel shows that it comes from a period very close to the one in which the book purports to have been written.