Original language of the New testament

It is generally accepted that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Only the book of Matthew has some connection to being written in Hebrew/Aramaic beforehand, and it may not be the best source (It's Papias saying that it was written in the Hebrew language [or Hebraic style the language can go both ways] and that everyone interpreted it as best they could). Also note that Hebrew was on decline as a spoken language since the Babylonian exile, and Aramaic was more commonplace, and Greek was widely used basically everywhere, and definitely in Judea and Galilee and Samaria as there were tensions between Hellenized Jews and traditional Jews. The authors of the New Testament that we know of "Peter, Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Jude" all could speak and write (or have a secretary write like in the book of Romans) in Greek.

I'm not aware of any early Hebrew NT texts, most of them are Greek with except to the Old Syriac version.

Aino said:

Hi!
Have any of you guys heard about the claim that the New Testament would have been written in hebrew after all and only later translated into greek? Would you support that claim, and what would be the evidence for or against it?

In a way, to me, it would make sense that it were that way because Jesus and the disciples spoke hebrew and the whole community wad basically hebrew... Save for the roman influence of course. Also, I'm not an expert on biblical greek so I wouldn't know but I've heard that a lot of the language in the NT is less than perfect, which could be more plausible if it were translated maybe? But then of course there's the issue that the majority of NT text findings. I'm not really aware of them either, are there any early hebrew NT texts?

Click to expand...

Manuscripts of at least parts of what became what we call the NT come down to us in quite a number of ancient languages (e.g., Old Latin, Armenian, Coptic, Gothic, Syriac, Georgian, Ethiopic as well as a smattering of others) aside from the "lingua franca" of the Greco-Roman world of the first century (not to mention Byzantine empire of later centuries), namely Greek (never mind variations in dialect). There are in existence so far as I know no ancient NT manuscripts in Hebrew or Aramaic (the latter being the language Jesus spoke, the former being the "rabbinic" language of the day). "Hebraisms" or "Semiticisms" in the Greek NT are found in the NT; these are Hebrew-like (or Aramaic-like, Aramaic being a cognate language to Hebrew) in form or grammar (cf. http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html), but are found in Greek. Greek style of various NT books certainly varies with author (and amanuensis), with some debate as to how well Peter, for example, understood the language.

In the days of Jesus, Aramaic was the provincial language of "backwater" Galilee and Jerusalem (or again Hebrew as a synagogue and rabbinic language), and aside from Paul the apostles came from provincial Palestine, so one might ask whether certain early Jewish written and oral sources (cf. Lk. 1:1-4) behind our NT were Aramaic or even Hebrew (aside from OT manuscripts). Cf. Eusebius in the 4th century citing Papias of the 2nd: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language." If so, no written "oracle" evidence remains to us. Greek was also quite present in Jerusalem in Jesus' day, while at least certain if not most NT manuscripts were almost certainly written originally in (Koine) Greek (e.g., Paul's letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, and Philippi).

Cataloging the New Testament’s Hebraisms (Dr. David Bivin, Jerusalem Perspective):
http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/cataloging-the-new-testaments-hebraisms-parts-1-5/

Semitisms:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

Aino said:

Hi!
Have any of you guys heard about the claim that the New Testament would have been written in hebrew after all and only later translated into greek? Would you support that claim, and what would be the evidence for or against it?

In a way, to me, it would make sense that it were that way because Jesus and the disciples spoke hebrew and the whole community wad basically hebrew... Save for the roman influence of course. Also, I'm not an expert on biblical greek so I wouldn't know but I've heard that a lot of the language in the NT is less than perfect, which could be more plausible if it were translated maybe? But then of course there's the issue that the majority of NT text findings. I'm not really aware of them either, are there any early hebrew NT texts?

Click to expand...

Greek was a military language used to conquer the world. It is very exact. In english we have one word: GO. In Greek there are 36 words for GO because when you command your troops you have to be very exact. To there is go up, go down, go around and so on.

The ancient Hebrew is said to be the language of creation. The Hebrews believe that God created the universe using 22 letters.

joshua 1 9 said:

Greek was a military language used to conquer the world. It is very exact.

Click to expand...

Some Greek dialects in Greece may in part have been homogenized or suppressed for example by the political and military success of Phillip II, father of Alexander the Great, but Greek was not a "military language" as if it had no vocabulary or use in the fields of agriculture or philosophy or astrology or religion or many trades or architecture or household management or rhetoric. And so on. Armies may find a certain military jargon useful ("phalanx," "catapult") like many other human institutions do their own jargon, and that jargon may not uniquely find its way into broader use, but that does not mean the Greek language was "a military language" either. Greek was a language of a complex and varied peoples, some of whom were inclined to the military as others from among so many other cultures and peoples.

If Alexander the Great's vast territories conquered ca. 330 B.C. were subsequently influenced to speak Greek in part on account of that conquest--with influence in the "Greco-Roman/Mediterranean world" somehow lasting at least down to apostolic days centuries later--there is evidence (e.g. in stone temples) that Greek culture had spread for example as far as Sicily centuries before Alexander. Think of Athenian lust for power, prestige, and riches in the age of Pericles. One must remember that the Mediterranean Sea was a ready avenue for sea travel and trade, in the long run probably a greater influence favoring the use of Greek language than Alexander in his very brief, if dramatic military career. Then too, Greek culture spread and was maintained in part via its educational system for the young (esp. the study of Homer)--not that Greek culture and language itself was ever a monolith.

What is remarkable about the Greek dialect that was so popular in apostolic days was not that it was "a military language" or more "exact" than other languages (this latter claim having in effect been adequately refuted by James Barr in the 1960s though Barr esp. addressed the nonsensical charge that Hebrew was inexact), but simply that Greek was popular. And the popularity of the Greek language combined with safety of travel under "Pax Romana" (cf. seller-of-purple Lydia traveling to Philippi from Thyatira on business, Acts 16) facilitated the rapid spread of of the gospel from Jerusalem to the uttermost part of the earth (which latter Luke illustrates as Rome in Acts).

Look Up said:

Some Greek dialects in Greece may in part have been homogenized or suppressed for example by the political and military success of Phillip II, father of Alexander the Great, but Greek was not a "military language" as if it had no vocabulary or use in the fields of agriculture or philosophy or astrology or religion or many trades or architecture or household management or rhetoric. And so on.

Click to expand...

I never studies military other then what you learn in basic training, so I do not know what other areas of science they may find useful. There are a lot of battles in the Bible, so perhaps there is an opportunity to study warfare by reading the Bible. Still I just do not see a connection so much between military and agriculture. Other then perhaps military can be used to protect land you have or military can be used to gain land you do not have. Sometimes you have people who produce and people that plunder. Of course we still have the food producer and food gather theory. So perhaps military could be an type of a food gatherers that plunder the work of food producers. So in the Bible you have good and evil, you have Abraham's son with Sarah that represents the spiritual and Hagars son that represents the flesh.

Getting back to language as you say you start off with Alexanders father who has an army that he needs to command and he needs a language to command them with. We have a situation in the Bible where God confused the languages at the tower of Babel. I would think if Alexander wants to conquer the world he will need a universal language. Their main claim to fame was that they began to train their soldiers as soon as they were weaned from the mothers at about the age of 3.

Whether it was written in Greek or Hebrew, it certainly was taught in Hebrew first as the doctrine of the various apostles and is understood best when heard as a Greek attempting to think like a Jew. Then you can correlate much more with the OT. I translate from Greek to Hebrew to assist in the shifting of the mind set.

shadowhunter said:

Whether it was written in Greek or Hebrew, it certainly was taught in Hebrew first as the doctrine of the various apostles and is understood best when heard as a Greek attempting to think like a Jew. Then you can correlate much more with the OT. I translate from Greek to Hebrew to assist in the shifting of the mind set.

Click to expand...

I understand the Hebrew a lot better then I do the Greek.

shadowhunter said:

Whether it was written in Greek or Hebrew, it certainly was taught in Hebrew first as the doctrine of the various apostles and is understood best when heard as a Greek attempting to think like a Jew. Then you can correlate much more with the OT. I translate from Greek to Hebrew to assist in the shifting of the mind set.

Click to expand...

The gospel? I think you mean it was first taught in Aramaic. However, once it left Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, it switched to Greek. That was VERY soon. The entire NT was written in Greek, and should not be translated into Hebrew for a "better understanding."

Open Heart said:

The gospel? I think you mean it was first taught in Aramaic. However, once it left Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, it switched to Greek. That was VERY soon. The entire NT was written in Greek, and should not be translated into Hebrew for a "better understanding."

Click to expand...

Not translating them has resulted in 'teaching for doctrine the ideas of men' as is evident in the parable of the mustard seed.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-jesus-isaiah-53.7910533/page-2#post-68759764

By 400AD the church had chased all the Jews out of the church and removed anything Jewish. Augustine even claimed the Septuagint was more reliable than the original Hebrew texts. Your response is not surprising in that context.

The Bible is a book written by Jews for Jews to be shared with gentiles. Insisting on applying Greek philosophy, logic and rhetoric removes the mystery of Christ which was hidden from the beginning from all of the Old Testament.

Any seminary teacher worth his salt will tell you you must learn to think Jewish.

The gospel went first to the Jews and then to the gentiles. Paul always preached in the synagogue first then told the Greeks what he taught. Peter (the gospel of Mark) didn't even like preaching to gentiles.

shadowhunter said:

By 400AD the church had chased all the Jews out of the church and removed anything Jewish. Augustine even claimed the Septuagint was more reliable than the original Hebrew texts. Your response is not surprising in that context.

Click to expand...

I spoke of the NT, not the OT. Please be careful that you don't misrepresent me.

Open Heart said:

I spoke of the NT, not the OT. Please be careful that you don't misrepresent me.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I am. I am sure you are speaking of the New Testament. The arguement is Jewish logic the same as Jesus uses.
He said that since God takes care of the birds, HOW MUCH MORE SO will he take care of you.

The logic follows:
If Augustine got rid of the original Hebrew manuscripts, HOW MUCH MORE SO would he have emptied the New Testament of hints of Jewish thought in his hermeneutic and interpretation.

The church has been thinking Greek ever since. I merely say that I am not surprised by your response, coming from a Greek-based church.

All the more reason to think Jewish

I do not think that the New Testament can be understood correctly without a thorough understanding of the Jewish context.

shadowhunter said:

The church has been thinking Greek ever since. I merely say that I am not surprised by your response, coming from a Greek-based church.

Click to expand...

I'm a Hebrew Catholic, a Messianic. I don't think like a Greek. But I do acknowlege that the NT was written in Greek for a Gentile Church.

Open Heart said:

I'm a Hebrew Catholic, a Messianic. I don't think like a Greek. But I do acknowlege that the NT was written in Greek for a Gentile Church.

Click to expand...

The Gospel of Matthew takes great pains to defend the idea that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah from Scripture (here =the OT) as if particularly forming an apologetic for a Jewish-leaning audience. The book of Hebrews surely assumes a very largely Hebrew Christian milieu. The Gospel of Mark has a penchant for Latinisms; tradition suggests Petrine-protege John Mark wrote to a persecuted church in Rome whatever the audience's ethnic composition.

To the church at the major cosmopolitan city of Corinth, Paul writes sometimes assuming of his readers an intimate knowledge of the Torah (e.g., "Do not muzzle an ox" etc., the wilderness wandering narratives are "written for us [Christians at Corinth]" etc.), but sometimes the apostle to the gentiles apparently uses pagan aphorisms ("all things are lawful to me," "knowledge puffs up," "it is good for a man not to touch a woman"--though the origins of some of these are debated), feels free to use metaphors and arguments not transparently alluding to Scripture (e.g., the church as the body of Christ having pagan parallels, or cf. if the dead are not raised, Christ is not raised) though doubtless not inconsistent with the OT. And Paul who confesses not to being a "trained speaker" (in Greek rhetoric) nonetheless displays intimate knowledge (he does have knowledge here too) and at times considerable skill in the use of rhetorical principles which appear in contemporary extant Greek and Roman texts concerning rhetorical method (cf. e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus).

Arguably to the churches at Ephesus and Phillipi, much of the apostle's writing either expects the audience would understand the OT only in rudimentary fashion or the OT is often avoided at least as far as direct citation or indirect allusion is concerned, again not that there are no thematic similarities or references to Judaism. One could say similar things of 1 John even if one forgets that Jesus was a Jew. Or on some other hand, judging from Paul's polemic, at Colossae(/Hierapolis?) a syncretistic Jewish-ish heterodox (to Judaism) minority of some kind may have gained a foothold; Paul writes accordingly.

Given the pattern of apostolic evangelism first at the synagogues of the diaspora according to Luke, then to gentiles (and given that the apostles were all Jewish), one could expect most apostolic-generation churches to contain a mix of believers from Jewish and gentile backgrounds (such as at Corinth or arguably at Rome). That the church was eventually virtually swamped by gentiles in terms of proportionate numbers may account for some of its migration to gentile interests (aside from the consequences of the sack of Jerusalem, for example). But at least insofar as the church is founded and directed by the OT and NT, escape from such heritage is a bit like denying the presence of select genes of one's body.

Look Up said:

The Gospel of Matthew takes great pains to defend the idea that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah from Scripture (here =the OT) as if particularly forming an apologetic for a Jewish-leaning audience. The book of Hebrews surely assumes a very largely Hebrew Christian milieu. The Gospel of Mark has a penchant for Latinisms; tradition suggests Petrine-protege John Mark wrote to a persecuted church in Rome whatever the audience's ethnic composition.

To the church at the major cosmopolitan city of Corinth, Paul writes sometimes assuming of his readers an intimate knowledge of the Torah (e.g., "Do not muzzle an ox" etc., the wilderness wandering narratives are "written for us [Christians at Corinth]" etc.), but sometimes the apostle to the gentiles apparently uses pagan aphorisms ("all things are lawful to me," "knowledge puffs up," "it is good for a man not to touch a woman"--though the origins of some of these are debated), feels free to use metaphors and arguments not transparently alluding to Scripture (e.g., the church as the body of Christ having pagan parallels, or cf. if the dead are not raised, Christ is not raised) though doubtless not inconsistent with the OT. And Paul who confesses not to being a "trained speaker" (in Greek rhetoric) nonetheless displays intimate knowledge (he does have knowledge here too) and at times considerable skill in the use of rhetorical principles which appear in contemporary extant Greek and Roman texts concerning rhetorical method (cf. e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus).

Arguably to the churches at Ephesus and Phillipi, much of the apostle's writing either expects the audience would understand the OT only in rudimentary fashion or the OT is often avoided at least as far as direct citation or indirect allusion is concerned, again not that there are no thematic similarities or references to Judaism. One could say similar things of 1 John even if one forgets that Jesus was a Jew. Or on some other hand, judging from Paul's polemic, at Colossae(/Hierapolis?) a syncretistic Jewish-ish heterodox (to Judaism) minority of some kind may have gained a foothold; Paul writes accordingly.

Given the pattern of apostolic evangelism first at the synagogues of the diaspora according to Luke, then to gentiles (and given that the apostles were all Jewish), one could expect most apostolic-generation churches to contain a mix of believers from Jewish and gentile backgrounds (such as at Corinth or arguably at Rome). That the church was eventually virtually swamped by gentiles in terms of proportionate numbers may account for some of its migration to gentile interests (aside from the consequences of the sack of Jerusalem, for example). But at least insofar as the church is founded and directed by the OT and NT, escape from such heritage is a bit like denying the presence of select genes of one's body.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful post. My post contained the general idea, yours contained the detail. There is something to be said for both approaches.

Open Heart

Open Heart said:

Thank you for your thoughtful post. My post contained the general idea, yours contained the detail. There is something to be said for both approaches.

Open Heart

Click to expand...

You're welcome. While I agree there is a place for and value to summaries as for expansions of the same topic and while I intended in my post to support some of what you wrote (my earlier post # 3 on this thread seems to also, see above), I would argue that my most recent post here (# 16) is mis-characterized as simply comprised of "details" to your "general idea." For one thing the mix of NT argument for which I have already provided samples, some to those of Jewish background and others targeted to those of gentile background (noting also the record of Acts), suggests the early church was not simply "a Gentile Church" for which "the NT was written" as you claimed (although shadowhunter and I also refer on this thread to a post-apostolic church that became dominated by gentiles). The churches outside Israel in the apostolic period often had a mix of those from Jewish and gentile backgrounds (or perhaps sometimes predominantly Jewish) if the NT is to be believed, and the NT was written first to such a mix.

I also wished to suggest (to you and shadowhunter) that "thinking like a Greek" or the like may not adequately reflect human capacity or practice. Those of (e.g.) Greek or Hebrew backgrounds are capable of "thinking like" members of the opposing group--Jews thinking like gentiles and gentiles like Jews; if memory serves, even Jewish nationalist Bar Kokhba once bemoaned in Greek (ca. A.D. 132) that he could not write in Hebrew. And probably the mother tongue of most Jews of the diaspora to whom the apostles first proclaimed the gospel was Greek (cf. 1 Pt. 1:1).

Granted, the cultural sea in which one swims influences one to think in a perspective that makes thinking outside that culture a challenge. But as I had written, Paul seems capable of addressing those of Greek and Jewish backgrounds with a decent understanding of how each thinks, and to have expected the mixed-ethnicity church at Corinth to have understood both backgrounds well enough to weave his argument back and forth between underlying cultures. I may feel more at home with Pauline didactic epistles than the agricultural parables of the Gospels, but that does not mean I cannot understand the parables--if I have ears to hear. Cross-cultural communication is not easy, but it is possible. The more homogeneous the culture, on the other hand, the more difficult it may be from the inside to begin to "think like" an outsider. And as I wrote, Paul and John apparently accommodated gentile backgrounds in places for the benefit of gentile readers.

Then too, what we are capable of thinking and what we wind up thinking may be distinct from each other. What the church of Jesus can do and what it does are distinct. Mark (esp. chs. 6 & 8) particularly records varied misunderstandings of the disciples before Peter's "You are the Christ" confession and then before the resurrection. The later church may not face the unthinkable crucifixion of the Messiah in hindsight with the same confusion Jesus' disciples did under His misunderstood predictions before the cross, but we too have our own misunderstandings, such as arguably regarding varied applications of the relationship between the Mosaic and new covenants, to speak historically of the church aside from contemporary debates (which we hope not to digress into on this thread).

But in my opinion, the heated controversy of Acts 21 that in some sense started the Jew-Christian schism is the most tragic (and oldest) in the history of the church. If this schism was exacerbated by linguistically based misunderstandings or cultural divides (assuming someone would want to argue it was), the root surely concerns worship and morality and the contents of what we believe more than linguistic and culture-specific patterns and conventions. One can say the same thing in many languages and cultures even if in different ways (to allude for one thing as per my post # 6 again to James Barr). Christians can be thoroughly Christian (such as in thought) and yet speak different languages and come from different cultures (as I'm sure you agree) even if, in the church, birds of a feather still prefer to flock together.

My point, simply, is that the metaphor used in the New Testament has it's foundation in the old as exemplified by the parable of the mustard seed. Some are content to say that the kingdom starts small and gets large, but with a Hebrew thought process you see that Christ is the seed of the woman and the least of all the seed, the greatest herb we can eat and the the sacrifice on the cross. I choose to preach Christ and him crucified. To some the preaching of the cross from the symbols of Genesis and the parables is foolishness.

Look Up said:

suggests the early church was not simply "a Gentile Church" for which "the NT was written" as you claimed

Click to expand...

I made a generalization. Of COURSE the church began as a Jewish sect, of which the members were primarily Jewish. And the church at Jerusalem stayed Jewish, living by the Torah. But the other churches, while having a few Jewish members (primarily hellenized Jews) were Gentile. Thus, for example, when Paul writes to the church at Galatia, he is writing to Gentiles. There are obvious exceptions to the "NT was written to Gentiles" rule, such as Matthew and Hebrews. But the rule stands.