Why was the letter in Ezra 4:7 written in Aramaic and not Hebrew? Historical-Linguistic Setting Ezra 4:7 notes, “And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his associates wrote to King Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic and translated.” During the 6th–4th centuries BC, Aramaic functioned as the diplomatic and commercial lingua franca of the vast Persian Empire (cf. Daniel 2:4). Inscriptions from Darius I at Persepolis, the Elephantine papyri from Egypt (c. 495 BC) and the Kandahar bilingual inscription (c. 311 BC) all confirm that imperial bureaucrats composed legal petitions, royal decrees, and provincial correspondence in Imperial Aramaic regardless of the writer’s native tongue. Judah’s exiles returned under that same administration (Ezra 1:1-4), so officials naturally framed any legal protest to the Persian throne in Aramaic. Persian Administrative Convention Every extant Persian-period document uncovered to date—the Murashu tablets (Nippur), the Hermopolis papyri, and the Persepolis Fortification Archive—shows the empire’s preference for either Aramaic or Akkadian in chancery use. Hebrew, though alive and well among the Judeans, was not recognized for imperial files. Therefore, local adversaries (Ezra 4:1) wrote in the sanctioned tongue to ensure the king’s clerks could process and docket the complaint. Scribal Fidelity and Eyewitness Accuracy Ezra, “a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6), included the letter verbatim in his chronicle. Preserving it in its original language demonstrates historical precision; any paraphrase into Hebrew could be challenged as interpretive or tendentious. The same principle appears in Jeremiah 10:11 and Daniel 2:4-7:28, where Aramaic sections safeguard the exact wording of foreign speech. This meticulous citation evidences the autographic integrity affirmed by Luke 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:21. Literary Structure and Thematic Function Ezra-Nehemiah alternates narrative, decree, and list. When the writer moves from Hebrew narrative (4:6) to quoting archival material (4:8-23), he signals it by switching to Aramaic—the archival language. When he resumes his own narration (4:24), he slips back into Hebrew. The language changes serve as built-in quotation marks, clarifying authorship and preventing later redactors from blurring divine revelation with hostile rhetoric. Theological Implications 1. Divine Sovereignty in Language: God’s choice to inspire Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and later Greek (the New Testament) illustrates His intent to speak through the common tongues of each era (Acts 2:6-11). 2. Verifiability of Revelation: By embedding primary-source material, the text invites historical scrutiny, echoing the apostolic appeal to eyewitness data about Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). 3. Unity of Scripture: The seamless weaving of Hebrew and Aramaic confirms canonical cohesion; diversity of language does not fracture the single redemptive storyline culminating in Messiah (Luke 24:27). Answers to Common Objections • “The language shift shows multiple authors.” The Dead Sea Scroll community, Josephus (Ant. 11.19-120), and the Masoretic scribes unanimously attribute the entire work to a single inspired compiler. A bilingual document does not imply multiple authors any more than Paul quoting Greek poets (Acts 17:28) fragments the epistle corpus. • “Aramaic undermines Hebrew primacy.” God’s Word is not tied to one ethnic language (Isaiah 66:18-19). The incarnation itself involved Jesus speaking Aramaic (“Talitha koum,” Mark 5:41), proving that revelation transcends linguistic boundaries. Practical Takeaway Because the Lord ensured that legal petitions opposing the rebuilding were preserved exactly as filed, believers today can trust the inerrancy of every historical detail. The same Spirit who oversaw Ezra’s pen guarantees the accuracy of the Gospels that proclaim the empty tomb, “for the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). |
    |