Language Of Christ

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Language OF CHRIST. —Recent historical and critical research has narrowed the ground which it is necessary to cover in the discussion of the question as to the language spoken by Christ. It has ruled Hebrew out of court. The practically unanimous verdict of recent scholars is that, considerably before the time of Christ, though when is uncertain, Hebrew had ceased to be spoken in Palestine, and its place as the vernacular had been taken by Aramaic, the language represented in OT by  Ezra 4:8-16;  Ezra 7:12-26,  Jeremiah 10:11, and  Daniel 2:4 to  Daniel 7:28, and mistakenly named ‘Chaldee.’

The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic involved no great linguistic revolution, as it was simply a transition from one Semitic language to another, and that a closely cognate 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 communis from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. While, however, Aramaic thus gradually superseded Hebrew as the living tongue of Palestine, and by the time of Alexander the Great had probably reached a position of ascendency, if it had not gained entire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 literature, 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 circumstances 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 Idumaean Roman rulers to whom the Jews were successively subject; but its cause was furthered by the Hellenizing policy which these rulers generally followed, and by the existence, more or less, 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 whatever headway Greek may have made before the Maccabaean revolt,—which was a revolt against the Hellenizing policy referred to, as pushed to extremes by Antiochus Epiphanes,—it suffered a decided set-back, and was practically expelled the country during the Maccabaean régime. And though it had again made considerable progress by the time of Christ, and especially through the influence of Herod the Great, who particularly affected 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 his book, Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles .

At the time of Christ, then, Palestine was bilingual, 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 vehicle 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 countrymen 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 wider 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 considerable popularity, it may reasonably be assumed that Christ would acquire some knowledge 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 relative prevalence of the two languages in the country at the time, so far as that can be determined 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-speaking Jews, expressed Himself in Aramaic on three different occasions. The three expressions are: (1) ταλειθὰ κούμ, the Gr. transliteration of the Aram. Aramaic טַלִיֽתָא or טָלִיחָאקוּם  Mark 5:41; (2) ἐφφαθά, euphonic for the Aram. Aramaic אִתְפַתַּח  Mark 7:34; and (3) ἠλεὶ ἠλεὶ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί ( Matthew 27:46), or according to  Mark 15:34 ἐλωί, ἐλωί, λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί, the Aram. Aramaic אֵלִחִיאֳלָהִילִמָאשְׁבַקחַּנִי or אֵליאֵלי. How these three Aramaic expressions alone came to be preserved is matter of conjecture. An obvious explanation is that they alone were preserved because 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 because associated with moments of exceptional emotion on Christ’s part, and therefore 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 some reason or other, was unwontedly moved, for it is said that ‘he looked up to heaven and sighed.’ And, though it is not stated, the spectacle of Jairus’ child-daughter lying cold yet beautiful in death, was calculated to touch profoundly the heart of the great Child-Lover.

The two main sources of direct evidence conclusively proving the predominance of Aramaic as the popular language, are the Book of Acts and the Works of Josephus .

1. In  Acts 1:19 it is said with reference to the suicide of Judas in the field which he had purchased ‘with the reward of iniquity,’ ‘And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their own tongue (τῇ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν) Akeldama.’ Now Akeldama is the Aram. Aramaic חֲקלדּֽמָא, and points not only to the fact that Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the vernacular, but that at the time of Christ it was the popular language, even of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Equally conclusive on the latter point are two other passages in the Acts. In describing his conversion to Agrippa, St. Paul said, ‘And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying, in the Hebrew tongue ’ (τῆ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ),  Acts 26:14. By ‘Hebrew’ St. Paul undoubtedly meant Aramaic. The terms Ἑβραΐδι and Ἐβραϊστί, as is generally admitted, are used both in the NT and by Josephus when not Hebrew but Aramaic is meant. Thus in  John 19:13 it is said that ‘Pilate sat down in the judgment-seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha’ (Ἐβραϊστὶ δὲ Γαββαθά); and Γαββαθά is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. That the ascended Christ should have spoken to Saul in Aramaic is unintelligible except on the supposition that that had been the language which He had spoken when on earth, and that it was the prevailing language of Palestine.

Quite as significant is the circumstance mentioned in  Acts 22:2 that Paul addressed the infuriated Jerusalemites in Aramaic, and that when they ascertained from his opening words that he was to speak to them in that language, ‘they kept the more silence’ (μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν), the reference being to the fact that Paul had not attempted to speak until by a gesture indicative of his desire to be heard he had stilled the uproar, and, as it is said, ‘there was made a great silence.’ It does not necessarily follow, as has been maintained, that the people expected Paul to address them in Greek, and that the fact that they were prepared to give him a hearing when they expected him to speak in that language, proves that they were familiar with it. The simple fact that, as his gesture indicated, Paul was going to address them was in itself sufficient to secure their quiet attention. And in any case, even though they had expected to be addressed in Greek, the deeper silence into which they settled when they found that they were to be addressed in Aramaic, proves that they were more familiar with the latter language than the former, and that the latter was the language generally spoken by them.

2. The evidence of Josephus is as direct and conclusive as that furnished by the Acts of the predominance of Aramaic. In BJ v. vi. 3, Josephus records how during the siege of Jerusalem the Jewish watchmen warned their compatriots of the discharge of the Roman missiles by crying out in their native tongue (τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ), ὁ ἰὸς ἔρχεται. In the same work, vi. ii. 1, he tells how in his capacity of intermediary during the same siege he communicated the proposals of Titus to the besieged in their native tongue (τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ). In the preface to BJ he records how that work was at first written in Aramaic and afterwards translated into Greek.

The passage runs: ‘I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate these books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our own country , and sent to the Upper Barbarians,’ i.e. to the Aramaic-speaking peoples, whom he describes in the following paragraph as ‘the Parthians, Babylonians, the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni.’

That a Palestinian Jew such as Josephus, who was of a distinguished priestly family, who received a careful rabbinic education and studied in the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, should not only characterize Aramaic as ‘the language of our own country,’ but should write his first book in that language, is in itself conclusive proof that Aramaic had not then been materially driven from its position as the vernacular of Palestine. Suggestive also in this connexion, and giving added weight to the case for Aramaic, is Josephus’ own confession of the difficulty he experienced in acquiring such mastery of Greek as that which he ultimately attained. In the preface to his Antiquities he tells how he found the writing of that work a hard and wearisome task, ‘it being,’ as he says, ‘a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign and to us unaccustomed language’ (εἰς ἀλλοδαπὴν ἡμῖν καὶ ξένην διαλέκτου συνήθειαν), and how he was able to continue and accomplish the task only by the encouragement and help of a friend, Epaphroditus. To the same difficulty he refers in the closing paragraphs of the Antiquities  :

‘I am so bold as to say, now that I have completed the task set before me, that no other person, either Jew or Greek, with whatever good intentions, would have been able to set forth this history to the Greeks as accurately as I have done; for I am acknowledged by my countrymen to excel them far in our national learning. I also did my best to obtain a knowledge of Greek by practising myself in the grammar, though native habit prevented me from attaining accuracy in its use.’

Josephus’ difficulty with Greek is very significant. For if that difficulty obtained with him, what of his countrymen generally? Stress has been laid, as, e.g. , by Dr. Roberts, upon the attainments in Greek of such men as Peter and James and John, as shown in the speeches or writings attributed to them, and it has been argued there from that a knowledge of Greek must have been common among the rank and file. But even though Peter and James and John were the authors of the speeches and writings referred to and did speak or write such Greek as is found therein, which is open to question, they cannot fairly be regarded as representative of the people generally in this respect. The very fact of their not only being of the number of the Twelve, but forming the inner group of that favoured circle, differentiates them from the crowd. ‘Unlearned and ignorant men,’ the Council at Jerusalem dubbed them ( Acts 4:13); but the contemptuous epithets were but the expression of a twofold prejudice, the prejudice of antagonism and the prejudice of the Schools. In virtue of their discipleship, Peter and James and John have to be placed in a different category from the mass of the people of their social rank, who, as compared with them, must have been ‘unlearned and ignorant’ in the broader sense of the terms.

3. The case for Aramaic as the prevailing language of Palestine in the time of Christ, and the language, therefore, which Christ must necessarily have employed generally in His teaching, is thus incontestably established by the direct evidence of the Acts and of Josephus. And though less direct and certain, there is other evidence to the same effect to which reference may be made, and specially that furnished by the Targums and what is known as The Aramaic Gospel .

( a ) The Targums are Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the OT books, and cover the whole of those books with the exception of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The two principal Targums are (1) that on the Pentateuch, known as the Targum of Onkelos, which is characterized by its almost slavish literalism; and (2) that of Jonathan ben-Uzziel on the Prophets, i.e. the Historical books and the Prophets properly so called, which is largely paraphrastic. The dates of these Targums are uncertain, and by scholars they have been made to range from the end of the 1st to that of the 4th cent. a.d. The important point, however, is that they undoubtedly embody material from a much earlier time, and were the outcome of the practice, originating in the gradual disuse of Hebrew as the vernacular, of translating the synagogue readings of the OT into Aramaic for the benefit of the people generally. Written Targums were at first forbidden. The translation was required to be oral, the translator (מְהֻדְנְּבָן) giving his translation after each verse of the Pentateuch and every three verses of the Prophets. Whether the rule which forbade written Targums had fallen into desuetude by the time of Christ cannot be definitely determined. Probably it had. But even though it had not, and there were no written Targums till a later date, yet the existence of written Targums at that later date points conclusively to the prevalence of the practice of the oral translation of the synagogue lessons into Aramaic, and therefore to the prevalence of that language as the vernacular.

As against this, the supporters of Greek hold that the Septuagint version was in such general use that it may be described as the ‘People’s Bible.’ The special arguments in favour of this theory are: (1) that copies of the Septuagint could be had at a much smaller cost than Hebrew or Aramaic Manuscripts, that indeed the price of the latter was prohibitive so far as the people generally were concerned; and (2) that the OT quotations in the NT point to a very general familiarity with the Septuagint, inasmuch as the majority of them are verbatim or practically verbatim, or show unmistakable traces of the Septuagint, and particularly as in some cases the Septuagint is followed when it differs from the Hebrew. The price argument scarcely deserves notice, and very little weight is to be attached to the quotation argument. For while it must be admitted that those who were responsible for the quotations were familiar with the Septuagint, it by no means follows that such familiarity obtained with the people generally. And while it was to be expected that the writers of the NT books would not only be familiar with the Septuagint, but in quoting from the OT would take advantage of a translation ready to hand, it is yet a significant fact that that translation was not always taken advantage of, not a few of the quotations showing an entire independence of the Septuagint.

( b ) The question of an Aramaic Gospel ( Ur-Evangelium ), while important chiefly in connexion with the Synoptic problem, bears closely upon that of the language spoken by Christ. If Christ spoke Aramaic, such a Gospel was to be expected, and at the same time its existence would furnish weighty proof at once of the prevalence of Aramaic and of the use of that language by our Lord. And the labours of recent critical scholars, if they have not conclusively established the existence of an Aramaic Ur-Evangelium , have at least made it much less open to question. Of special interest in this connexion is the series of articles in the Expositor (Ser. iv.), by Professor Marshall, on ‘The Aramaic Gospel.’ The theory which Professor Marshall in these articles works out with great ability and skill is that the variant Greek words in parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels can be traced to one original Aramaic word; and the result of the application of his theory is that the Aramaic Gospel contained, speaking generally, the ministry of Christ in Galilee. That Professor Marshall’s theory will ever find anything like general acceptance is perhaps unlikely. But whether or not it may be possible by his or any other method to recover with certainty and to any extent the precise Aramaic words used by our Lord, there can be no doubt that Aramaic had the supreme honour of being the language in which He gave expression to His imperishable thoughts.

Literature.—Pfannkuche, Language of Palestine , Clark’s Cabinet Library, vol. ii.; Roberts, Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles , 1888; W. H. Simcox, Language of the NT , 1889; T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of OT and NT , 1891, p. 129; A. Meyer, Jesu Mutter-sprache , 1896; Dalman, The Words of Jesus , English translation 1902; Schultze, Gram, der Aram. Aramaic Muttersprache Jesu , 1899; Marshall, Expositor , Ser. iv. ii. 69 ff., iii. 1 ff., 109 ff., 205 ff., 275 ff., 375 ff., 452 ff., iv. 208 ff., 373 ff., 435 ff., vi. 81 ff., viii. 176 ff.; Exp. Times , iv. 260; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] i. i., ii. ii.

James Young.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

LANGUAGE OF Christ . The records of our Lord’s words and discourses have descended to us in four Greek Gospels. Some early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; but the Greek St. Matthew has universally, and from the first, been accepted as an authoritative and inspired document. It is not improbable that the writer published his book in the two languages, and that the Greek edition alone has survived. Josephus, who wrote in Greek, prepared a Semitic edition of his Wars for the benefit of those who understood only their vernacular.

At the present day, perhaps, most scholars would admit that the vernacular of Palestine in the time of our Lord was Semitic, and not Greek; but a difference is observed between their theory and their practice; for in all kinds of theological writings, critical as well as devotional, the references to the text of the Gospels constantly assume that the Greek words are those actually uttered by our Lord. But if Greek was not commonly spoken in the Holy Land, it is improbable that He who ministered to the common people would have employed an uncommon tongue. It follows that the Greek words recorded by the Evangelists are not the actual words Christ spoke. We may think we have good grounds for believing that they accurately represent His utterances; but to hear the original sounds we must recover, if that be possible, the Semitic vernacular which underlies the traditional Greek.

The evidence as to the nature of the Palestinian vernacular may be thus stated. In the first century of the Christian era the Holy Land was peopled by men of more than one race and nationality, but there is no reason to suppose they had been fused into one people, with Greek for their common tongue. Most of the inhabitants of Judæa were Jews, being descendants of the returned exiles. In Galilee there was a mixture of races; but the name ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ was a survival of the description of an earlier condition. The Syrian and Assyrian in vaders of the Northern Kingdom had passed, though leaving their mark, and a period of Jewish ascendency had followed, created by the victories of the Maccabees. The Idumæan princes, though Inclined to alliance with Rome, sought to pose as Judaizers. Herod the Great, while in sympathy with Hellenism, was famous as the builder of the third Temple. The strict, orthodox Jews, who were opposed to Hellenism, and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, would lose no opportunity of re-occupying their fatherland, from Jerusalem in the south to the north of Galilee, and would take with them the ancient customs and the ancestral tongue. Samaria, however, preserved its integrity as a foreign colony, with its own Semitic dialect. Beyond the Jordan, and in the border lands of the south, there was some mingling with the neighbouring Moabite, Idumæan, and Arab tribes, and probably many dialects were spoken, the records of which have perished for ever. Yet the Hebrew of the Jerusalem Pharisee, the language of the Samaritans, the speech of the men of Galilee, and the patois of the borderers, were all Semitic dialects. No place is found for the alien speech of Greece. Yet it must not be forgotten that Greek was the language of trade and literature. It would be heard in the seaports, and in the neighbourhood of the great roads by which communication was kept up through Palestine between Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It was spoken by many in the Roman garrisons, and was the adopted tongue of the Jews of the Dispersion, who cultivated Hellenism, and brought their foreign customs to Jerusalem, when they came to worship or for temporary residence (see  Acts 6:1 ). But the language of the Palestinian home, of the Palestinian synagogue, of farmers, artisans, and labourers, as well as of educated Jews, who cultivated the ancient ways, was Hebrew, using that, term for the moment in a somewhat extended sense. Very significant is the reference to the vernacular in   Acts 1:19 , and the obvious inference is confirmed by the description of the title on the cross. Besides the official notice in Là tin, which probably few could read, the accusation was written in Greek and in Hebrew. If the majority of the passers by would understand the former, the latter was superfluous. Even if the Hebrew was added only to please the mob, this fact would prove that the lower classes were partial to their vernacular, and were at least bilinguists, and not in the habit of using Greek exclusively (cf.   Acts 22:2 ).

The story of Peter’s denial incidentally adds another confirmation. He conversed in a language which was understood by the servants and others of the same class assembled round the fire, but he was recognized as a northerner by his accent. There is no evidence that the Galilæans pronounced Greek differently from the Judæans, but it is known that their pronunciation of some of the Hebrew letters differed from that of the southerners. Peter and the servants had a Semitic vernacular in common, though with dialectic differences of pronunciation, and possibly of vocabulary.

In the Syrian Church historical documents have been handed down which, whatever be the dates of the existing works, undoubtedly represent very ancient traditions, and depend on documents such as would have been preserved amongst the archives of Edessa. In the Doctrine of Addai this remarkable statement occurs: ‘Him whose Gospel has been spread abroad by the signs which his disciples do, who are Hebrews, and only know the tongue of the Hebrews, in which they were born.’ In the same Church there was a tradition that their national version of the NT was rather a second record than a translation, and dated from Apostolic times. Such a view (whether true or false matters not now) depends on an assumption that some language related to Syriac, if not Syriac itself, was the vernacular of the Apostles.

The greater part of the NT consists of writings intended for the benefit of Jews who resided outside Palestine, and of converts from heathenism. For such readers the vernacular of Palestine would have been unsuitable; and those of the writers who were not familiar with Greek could employ a translator. St. Peter is said to have been attended by Mark in this capacity. We have already referred to the tradition that Matthew, who wrote for the benefit of his countrymen, composed a Gospel in Hebrew. That some one should have undertaken a work of that nature is highly probable; but the circulation would be limited, for the native Jewish Church did not long retain the position of importance it possessed at first ( Acts 21:20 ), and the collection of sacred writings into a Canon was the work of Greek-speaking Christians. The Epistle of St. James is one of the earliest books of the NT, but though intended for Jewish Christians it was written in Greek, as a literary vehicle. An apparent, though not a real, difficulty is presented by the style of certain pieces included in the sacred narratives. The Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis , and Lord’s Prayer, for example, which must be translations, in accordance with our view of the use of a Semitic vernacular, are thought to savour rather of original composition than of translation. But it should be remembered that the ancient idea of a version was different from ours. Literal rendering often (though not always) yielded to the demands of commentary. Perhaps (to take another, and, as some think, crucial instance), the angel could not have saluted Mary in the native dialect with the famous alliteration Chaire kecharitômenç  ; and yet the Evangelist may have recorded the ‘ Hail! highly favoured ’ in that form, influenced by the style of OT diction, in which play on words is a marked feature.

The majority of the quotations in the Gospels appear to be derived from some form of the Septuagint Greek text of the OT. It does not follow that the speakers habitually used Greek. All we can safely infer is that the Evangelists, when writing in Greek, employed a version which had acquired considerable authority by usage, to express the quotations they recorded.

It has been thought that the conversations between our Lord and the woman of Samaria and the SyrophÅ“nician woman must have been carried on in Greek as a common language. It is forgotten that Syriac, Samaritan, and the so-called Hebrew of Palestine, were nearly related. Many to whom one or other of these was the vernacular, would have some slight acquaintance with the others. However, the object of this article is not to deny that Christ knew, and sometimes spoke, Greek, but to reinforce the arguments by which we conclude that the vernacular of Palestine was Semitic, and that therefore Christ’s teachings were, for the most part, delivered in a different tongue from that in which they have come to us in the Greek Gospels.

By far the greater number of personal and place names connected with Palestine in the NT are of Semitic derivation, but they afford no evidence in relation to our inquiry. The preservation and use of such names would be consistent with a change in the vernacular. Place names are practically permanent; personal names are often sentimentally borrowed from a dead ancestral tongue. Nor would we lay stress on the occurrence of Semitic words, as rabbi, korban, pascha (‘passover’), in the Greek text. The men of our Lord’s day, whatever dialect they spoke, were the heirs of a religious and social system which had its roots in Hebraism, and of which there were constant reminiscences in the daily use of words belonging to the ancient terminology. But other non-Greek expressions are recorded in connexions which lend them a much greater significance. In   Acts 1:19 we are informed that the Semitic name Akeldama , which was given to a certain field, was in the ‘proper tongue’ of ‘the dwellers at Jerusalem.’ Our Lord’s words on two occasions are given in Semitic, Talîtha kûmi (  Mark 5:41 ), and Ephphatha (  Mark 7:34 ). On the cross He uttered a cry which might have been a quotation from   Psalms 22:1; but the form preserved in   Mark 15:34 varies dialectically from the Hebrew of the opening words of that psalm.

These and other Semitic remains preserved in the pages of the NT, even when account has been taken of all place and personal names and single words, as well as of the few phrases, afford but limited evidence, and are only a few specimens of the Palestinian vernacular. Yet they suffice to show that the dialect was neither ancient Hebrew nor the classical Syriac. It had arisen through corruption of the ancestral tongue, under the influence of surrounding languages, especially Aramaic. Probably it varied considerably in different parts of the Holy Land, and there were ‘dialects’ rather than ‘a dialect’ of Palestine. But all the evidence tends to the conviction that Christ habitually employed some form of the vernacular in His discourses, and not the alien language of Greece.

G. H. Gwilliam.