WORD STUDY – THOU SAYEST – ARAMAIC

Matthew 27:11: “And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.”

It is Easter Sunday and I am, of course, meditating on the Easter Story. I decided to read it this year in the Peshitta or the Aramaic version of the Bible. Jesus spoke an Old Galilean form of Aramaic and I was very intrigued by the interaction between Jesus and Pilate. Roman rulers spoke the language of the people they were governing so Pilate would have spoken Aramaic. However, he would have spoken a Palestinian or South dialect of Aramaic which was distinct from the Old Galilean. Very little is known about this conversation between Pilate and Jesus The few recorded remarks were most likely reported by servants or Jews who were eavesdropping at the time.

Thus, there would be some confusion with words and terminologies on the part of Pilate as there was on Nicodemus when he asked about being born again in John 3. The Southern dialect was more formal so when Jesus said; “You must be born again.” Nicodemus took it literally where someone from the North would have immediately picked up on the metaphor. Jesus deliberately used the term born again knowing full well that Nicodemus would misunderstand. This gave Jesus an opportunity to do what any good rabbi would do and that is to use the misunderstanding to bring home a point.

In the case of Pilate, Jesus masterfully led Pilate to the only correct understanding of the charge that he was a king. First He used a Northern Aramaic idiom to drive home a point while at the same time using a pronoun (Aleph Taw – you) which has an esoteric understanding that Pilate would not have picked up on. Oddly, when Jesus said: “Thou sayest” or “You sayest” he used the Aramaic feminine form of the pronoun ‘at and not the masculine form ‘atah. Pilate as a Roman official of the nobility class would have spoken Latin as his native language. Technically, Latin has not third person pronoun like in English but they do have equivalents. So Pilate would have thought nothing of Jesus say ‘at or you in the feminine rather than atah you in the masculine as he knew that technically gender in the Aramaic was more a grammatical thing than an indication of one specific gender and with Aramaic not being his native language he would have thought nothing of being called you in the feminine.

The next word after that was ‘armarat for the word said. Literally, what Jesus said in Aramaic is “you are saying this.” I don’t know about you but from my study of this Roman government and their paranoia over rising leaders calling themselves a king and the fact that this is really the charge that was laid against Jesus, that He was calling himself a king, such a response would have immediately convicted Him if he were admitting to being a king. Practically every modern translation says either: “You have said so” or “It is as you say,” or “You said it.”

Even as I child when I heard this it raised a red flag with me. Why did Jesus not say “Yes” or “No?” I couldn’t believe Jesus was trying to con the old boy by being wishy washy with His answers. Was Jesus admitting to being the king of the Jews or not? In English we have an idiomatic expression: “Well, that is what you say.” In other words your said it I didn’t. The Old Galilean dialect of Aramaic also has an idiom almost identical to the English idiom at ‘armarat or you are saying this. It is almost identical but different than the English idiom. The English idiom has the idea of maybe, maybe not but that is what you say. The Aramaic idiom is maybe or maybe not but I never said it. In fact Jesus never referred to Himself as the King of Jews, others said that. He only called Himself the Son of man. Of course He never denied it the prior week during his triumphal entry. So there was enough evidence to convict Jesus even if He did not answer yes or no. The problem was that Jesus needed to make Pilate understand that He was a spiritual king not a political king. Whether Pilate picked up on this idiom or not is hard to say, he likely took it as a no. So he questioned Jesus further to get at the truth.

In this response, Jesus used the Aramaic third person feminine singular pronoun ‘at or you. This is grammatically correct following with the word ‘amarat but esoterically He was saying something that maybe if there were Jews eavesdropping they would have picked up on it. The word ‘at is Aleph Taw. In Hebrew the Aleph Taw is pronounced eth and is the sign of the direct object. It is also the first and the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet or the beginning and the end. In Revelation 1:8 Jesus said: “I am the Alpha and Omega (Aramaic – Aleph and the Taw) the beginning and the end.”

It is hard to say if Pilate picked up on this. But John 18:37 gives us a little more detail; “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” Again Jesus did not admit to being a king but gave a peculiar answer that He was bearing witness to the truth. Pilate’s response was even more peculiar – “What is truth?” Then he went out and said he found no fault in Jesus.

Rome was filled with first century philosophers who were going around asking: “What is truth?” or even suggestion that they have an answer to what is truth. So it would make sense that Pilate just passed Jesus off as another philosopher, in this case a Jewish philosopher to whom the word king was totally non-political.

Indeed, Jesus was a king but not a political or earthly king. Jesus was not evading Pilate’s questions nor was He being dishonest, He only led Pilate to the right conclusion. That He was indeed a king, not a political king but a spiritual king. He was their God, their King, the Aleph Taw the beginning and the end.