• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Aramaic vs Hebrew

Status
Not open for further replies.

lfi

Active Member
Oct 7, 2006
168
0
✟291.00
Faith
Word of Faith
I've recently been researching on how The Original Ancient Biblical Scriptures (the entire bible) were first written in Aramaic, and later transferred to Hebrew and Greek.

Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

And do you believe Jesus language when He walked as a man was Hebrew, Or do believe that the Original language our Messiah spoke was indeed Aramaic?

I have one more question:

Do you believe when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago that He casted out demons out of people to heal them from their infirmities such as illness, sickness and disease or why do you think Jesus casted out demons out of people? What was the purpose of Him doing that?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you reading

Have a blessed day
Lfi
 

leothelioness

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2006
10,306
4,234
Southern US
✟127,055.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

I'm not quite sure what the Bible was first written in, but I do know that some parts of the Bible were written in Aramaic. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained the prophetic book of Isaiah and others, were written in Aramaic.

And do you believe Jesus language when He walked as a man was Hebrew, Or do believe that the Original language our Messiah spoke was indeed Aramaic?

Well, I would tend to believe that since Jesus was an ethnic Jew he most likely spoke Hebrew. You also have to remember that at that time Israel was ruled by the Greco-Roman empire and had a Hellenistic culture. A vast majority of the people in the Middle East spoke both Greek and Latin.

I have one more question:

Do you believe when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago that He casted out demons out of people to heal them from their infirmities such as illness, sickness and disease

Yes.

or why do you think Jesus casted out demons out of people? What was the purpose of Him doing that?

To show the power and majesty of God and to show that He was the Son of God. He also proved that evil will never prevail against the power of God.

He healed the people of their afflictions and told them to go tell the people what the Lord had done for them.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've recently been researching on how The Original Ancient Biblical Scriptures (the entire bible) were first written in Aramaic, and later transferred to Hebrew and Greek.

Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

And do you believe Jesus language when He walked as a man was Hebrew, Or do believe that the Original language our Messiah spoke was indeed Aramaic?

I have one more question:

Do you believe when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago that He casted out demons out of people to heal them from their infirmities such as illness, sickness and disease or why do you think Jesus casted out demons out of people? What was the purpose of Him doing that?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you reading

Have a blessed day
Lfi

One thing you must remember, in the times that Jesus walked the earth, the average Jew spoke four different languages. Hebrew was the language spoke in the temple, for the ancient scrolls were written in Hebrew. The common language of the people was Aramaic. What is meant by that is when in the home, or in groups of Jews by themselves, they spoke Aramaic as their language usually in the marketplace. Greek was still spoken during this time also for many of the schools of the time had scrolls or books, if you will, which were written in Greek. So Greek was the language used in most scholarly settings and in schools. And last but not least, the people had to know how to speek Latin as that was the language of the Romans.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained the prophetic book of Isaiah and others, were written in Aramaic.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, were orginally written by the Essenes. They were a religious group that lived a mostly life of celibacy and in a communial group setting. With the most notable group being (largely agreed upon) located in the ruins of Qumran. Josephus and Philo discuss these people in great detail. So it would not seen to out of reason to understand why the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Aramaic. Plus the fact that they were largely a society of scribes, so to speak.

So we may never know with 100% accuracy whether or not the Bible was written in Aramaic and translated into Hebrew and Greek later. However, we do know that the New Testament was written almost entirely in Koine Greek.

I however, subscribe to the theory that the Old Testament was handed down as written in Hebrew and the New Testament as written down in Greek.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟65,913.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I've recently been researching on how The Original Ancient Biblical Scriptures (the entire bible) were first written in Aramaic, and later transferred to Hebrew and Greek.

Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

Well the OT was written in Hebrew: and we have the hebrew texts.
Only for a few parts of some deuterocanonical books (that anyway are 100% inspired Bible) we miss the original hebrew text.

About the NT the problem is very different: we have only a greek text and most scolars think the whole NT was written directly in greek.
On the other side the more ancient Fathers of the Church strictly believed that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and only later translated in greek. A few modern scolars believe that at least Matt Luke and Mark were originally written in aramaic (but the first chapters of Luke that were orinally written in Hebrew).
This idea of gospels in aramaic cannot be accepted by the most scolars simply because it dates back the 3 Gospels in the 40-50, while the mainstrean scolars thought the Gospels were written after the 70 (IMO for wrong reasons).

About the language spoken at Jesus time, it was aramaic.
Hebrew was like latin in the Italy of XIX century: a religious language, no more used in family or spoken, but anyway well known and strictly used for any religious services. (Hebrew and Aramaic are quite similar, like Italian and Latin)
Greek was like English in the Not English speaking countries: a few greek was known for commerce and relationships with strangers: for sure Peter and the Apostles could not speak greek.
It is not true that any school was in greek: some schools were in greek, but such hellenistic schools were rejected by most of the Jews that had their children to study Hebrew instread of Greek (see the facts of 175 bc)
Latin was known only by the roman soldiers.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well the OT was written in Hebrew: and we have the hebrew texts.
Only for a few parts of some deuterocanonical books (that anyway are 100% inspired Bible) we miss the original hebrew text.

About the NT the problem is very different: we have only a greek text and most scolars think the whole NT was written directly in greek.
On the other side the more ancient Fathers of the Church strictly believed that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and only later translated in greek. A few modern scolars believe that at least Matt Luke and Mark were originally written in aramaic (but the first chapters of Luke that were orinally written in Hebrew).
This idea of gospels in aramaic cannot be accepted by the most scolars simply because it dates back the 3 Gospels in the 40-50, while the mainstrean scolars thought the Gospels were written after the 70 (IMO for wrong reasons).

About the language spoken at Jesus time, it was aramaic.
Hebrew was like latin in the Italy of XIX century: a religious language, no more used in family or spoken, but anyway well known and strictly used for any religious services. (Hebrew and Aramaic are quite similar, like Italian and Latin)
Greek was like English in the Not English speaking countries: a few greek was known for commerce and relationships with strangers: for sure Peter and the Apostles could not speak greek.
It is not true that any school was in greek: some schools were in greek, but such hellenistic schools were rejected by most of the Jews that had their children to study Hebrew instread of Greek (see the facts of 175 bc)
Latin was known only by the roman soldiers.

While I respect you POV brother, what you posted and what I posted show two different POV's and two entirely different schools of thought.

In the realm of scholarly invention, there exists a minority report that the New Testament documents were written first in Hebrew then later translated into Greek. You might ask why this is an important question to ask at the outset. It is quite important due to certain accusations that “unstable people” twist in order to discredit the New Testament documents and certain theological ideologies surrounding key Christian doctrines concerning Christ and God. Their intent is to parade their own agenda in attempting to reinterpret the New Testament in light of Hebrew idioms and syntax, rather than the Greek language. This holds huge complications for the Greek language because, simply stated, Greek is not Hebrew, and Greeks did not think like Hebrews. Within this debate, then, the very character of God is placed on the line. Not only this, but the wisdom of God is called into question. God used Greek to transmit the message of the Gospel, and those who oppose this are calling into question the wisdom and providence of God as to the use of His means for the end of the salvation of souls.
Through the history of the church the question as to whether Greek was the original language of the New Testament autographs was not called into question. At times, Roman Catholic theologians attempted to “inspire” the Vulgate written by Jerome for their own purposes (which was written in Latin), and raised it above the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, yet, scholars and theologians through the history of the church had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the original Hebrew Scriptures to be written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament to be written in Greek. The burden of proof completely lies within the boundaries of those who deny the claim. As it stands to date, no one has adequately presented a case, or proof for the case, that the entire New Testament was first written in Hebrew and then later translated into Greek. This theory is unrecognized in the modern world. Only those who dare to overthrow core orthodox doctrines adhere to this view. This would include the cults, and factions of those cults in modern day Christianity.
Do we have any reason to say the New Testament documents were written in Hebrew? A simple answer to this statement is “no.” All of the current archeological evidence, MSS (manuscript) data, and social background of the New Testament era prove otherwise. As a matter of fact, prior to the New Testament era of Christ and the Apostles, there was already a massive undertaking to Hellenize the Jewish culture due to Roman influence. This would already have existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles; a time that Paul calls, "fullness of the time” (Galatians 4:4). This “fullness” demonstrates historically that God’s plan to bring forth the Christ (a Greek term meaning the “anointed” of God) was positioned in the midst of a Hellenized Jewish Palestinian setting which sat within the boundaries of a Roman culture which was predominately Greek speaking.
In looking at the history of Biblical MSS and textual criticism, there is no reason for us to believe that the entire New Testament was written in Hebrew then retranslated into Greek. Evidence to this is completely lacking. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Also, there is no reason for us to believe that the documents themselves have been corrupted from their original intent and meaning although we do not have the original autographs. Turretin states that, “there is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testa­ment and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated…” The reason orthodoxy maintains this position is from the overwhelming amount of evidence that the transmission of the text(in both the Old Testament and New Testament) has been done so in a manner in which the copies have been preserved by a meticulous method. We can be sure that what we have today in the Biblical record is accurate to the text, meaning and message of the original documents. The Westminster Confession states this succinctly, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
In proving the documentation of the New Testament MSS as having been written in Greek, one simply has to look at the tremendous amount of textual evidence for this. We do not have in our possession one original MSS from either the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament or Greek New Testament. The original MSS from both are lost or destroyed by age, or other means. We do, though, have the largest collection of MSS copied for both the Old Testament and New Testament in the world, over and against other copies of any other literature ever written. In thinking this through, we must ask the basic question, “what copies do we have of the Old Testament and the New Testament?” This is not hard to answer. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls alone, one of the most important finds for textual critics concerning Hebrew MSS of the Old Testament, we have almost the entire Hebrew Scriptures preserved in that one archeological find (95% of the text is present). With other MSS previously attained we have the entire Hebrew Old Testament exemplified throughout the combinations in relation to the Masoretic Text, the Nash Papyrus, the Cairo Codex, the Codex of the prophets of Leningrad, the Babylonicus Petropalintanus, the Erfurt Codecies, the Aleppo Codex, the British Mudem Codex, the Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, the Samaritan Texts, and the Targums (which are paraphrases of the Old Testament). Geisler and Nix comment, “The first collection of Hebrew manuscripts, made by Benjamin Kennicott (a.d. 1776-1780) and published by Oxford, listed 615 manuscripts of the Old Testament. Later Giovanni de Rossi (1784-1788) published a list of 731 man­uscripts. The main manuscript discoveries in modern times are those of the Cairo Geniza (c. 1890ff.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947ff). In the Cairo synagogue attic storeroom alone were discovered some 200,000 manuscripts and fragments, some 10,000 of which are biblical. According to J. T. Milik, fragments of about 600 manuscripts are known from the Dead Sea Scrolls, not all biblical. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein estimates that the total number of Old Testament Hebrew manuscript fragments throughout the world runs into the tens of thousands.”

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The historical fact of the Hellenism of the Jews cannot be doubted. F.F. Bruce states, “Greek would be also used in the Hellenistic synagogues of Palestine, such as the Jerusalem synagogue of the Freedmen of Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia where Stephen debated with his opponents (Acts 6:9); indeed the fact the Greek was the language of these synagogues may have been a principal reason for their members being designated Hellenists.” Here we know that the Greek language played a primary part of the common manner in which Jews communicated in the Dispersion. Bruce continues, “This division between Hebrews and Hellenists was primarily linguistic and cultural, but probably it had theological implications too. The Hebrews were evidently Jews who habitually spoke Aramaic, whose homeland was Palestine (or any other area where Aramaic-speaking Jews lived). The Hellenists, on the other hand, were Jews who spoke Greek and whose way of life, in the eyes of stricter Palestinians, smacked too much of Greek customs. Many of them would belong to the Greek-speaking Diaspora, even if they resided in Palestine for longer or shorter periods; but Palestine had its native Greek-speaking Jews.” There is even a distinction made in the Mishnah (Gittin 9:6, 8) which shows the difference between the Aramaic speaking Jews and the Hellenistic Jews who spoke Greek. Stephen himself belonged to a Hellenistic synagogue in Jerusalem called the synagogue of the Freeman. Its membership embraced Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia (cf. Acts 6:9).
Language had an immediate impact on the manner in which the New Testament was written and how the Gospel would be introduced to the nations. This is obvious. Would the New Testament writers, like Paul and Peter, who were sent to the Gentiles, (Acts 13:47, “"For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "), write in Hebrew for their audience? Or would they send the Gentiles letters written in Hebrew – a language they would have never understood in Hellenized Rome? We know there were four primary languages used in Palestine in the first century: Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Latin was the scholar’s language at that time and was spoken little. Hebrew was spoken in some synagogues, those who had not been influenced by Hellenization. Aramaic was spoken in certain provinces in the Roman empire, but Koine Greek was the predominate language. If you went to the grocery store, Greek was the language of choice. Stambaugh and Balch bring out an interesting note by the use of coins in those days, “The situation for Greek may be typified by the coins struck by rulers. The Hasmonaeans used exclusively Hebrew until Alexander Jannaeus, who began to use bilingual (Hebrew and Greek) coins in addition. His grandson was the first Jew to issue coins with only a Greek identification. The Herodian princes and Roman procurators also issued only Greek coins.” Greek is also confirmed as the language of common use by Jews in the letters and inscriptions of the day. A letter written by Bar Kokhba himself reads, "Now this has been written in Greek because a desire has not been found to write in Hebrew."
From Jerusalem there is the famous first-century synagogue inscription of Theodotus, a priest and archisynagogos who built the synagogue and a guest house for visitors from abroad and supplied them with water. There are many ossuary inscriptions from Palestine, two thirds in Greek alone, one tenth in Greek and Hebrew (or Aramaic)." Since sepulchral inscriptions probably best indicate the language of the common people, it is significant that the vast majority of those published are in Greek. Books were written in Greek by persons from various social strata and religious parties in the two centuries [b.c.]: 1 Maccabees, Tobit, the additions to Esther, and the additions to Daniel. Many scholars today conclude that Greek was widely used in first-century Palestine by Christians as well as other Jews. I find it especially interesting that most of the burial chambers and sepulchers of the first century Christian Jew were written in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew. Stambaugh and Balch also point out that there is a current debate according to the measure of Aramaic and Greek spoken in Palestine in the first century. However, for our purposes it is important to note that scholars conclude “the evidence for He­brew in the century in which Jesus lived is sparse.” This is exceedingly important when dealing with the questions of New Testament Greek MSS.
The Roman church is a good example of what has been said so far. Even by 54 A.D., 20 years after the death of Christ, if Paul had arrived in Rome, as he desired, he would have found a large Jewish population, with groups of Christians coexisting either within the synagogues or as separate house churches. As we know, he came to Rome as a prisoner, escorted by a centurion, but while in Rome he was permit­ted to rent his own lodgings and to circulate freely (Acts 28:30-31). At this point, the Christians seem to have been mostly of eastern origin. They spoke Greek, the language in which Paul had written to them, and they derived their instruction, inspiration, and leader­ship from easterners. For all its diversity, the church in Rome up until the first half of the second century A.D. continued to be a Hellenistic community, speaking Greek and maintaining close contact with the Christian churches in the east. The evidence indicates that some upper-class Romans began to be attracted to Christianity in the first half of the century, but it seems likely that their education and cultural taste made them feel at home in the Hellenistic environment of the church in Rome. It is only around the middle of the second century that we can document any significant conversions among lower-class Romans, who did not speak Greek and would need a translation of the New Testament into Latin. (Bruce, F.F., New Testament History, Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New York, New York: 1971. p. 161-64)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/McMahonNTWrittenGreek.htm

So it may well seem that Greek was indeed the language of the New Testament writters and that the New Testament may well have been written entirely in the Greek. But hey, I'm not here to knock your beliefs, just wanted to share my own.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟65,913.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
...In the realm of scholarly invention, there exists a minority report that the New Testament documents were written first in Hebrew then later translated into Greek. You might ask why this is an important question to ask at the outset. It is quite important due to certain accusations that “unstable people” twist in order to discredit the New Testament documents and certain theological ideologies surrounding key Christian doctrines concerning Christ and God.

Some points:
- no one believe that the whole NT was written in Greek. We speak only of Matthew, and probably Luke and Mark.
- we do not have any original of the NT. The Codex we have are of the IV canturies. Last century we discovers lots of papyrs, most of them dating the III century and anyway very short. We have only a papyr on about the 150 with a few lines of John in Greek.
- it is not true that we can go beck to the original text of the NT: ad instance there have been LOTS of inclusions, as John 7:1-8 that do not exist even in the best codexes
- i dont say that the greekwas not used by Jews, but surely not for any religious matter: the Mishna was not in greek. Pelase remeber the heavy reaction of the Jews to the hellinization: even to speak about God in a language different from Hebrew was considered blasphemy.
- Keep alwasy in mind the difference between Jews in Palestina (who use aramaic and not greek) and the Jews out of Palestina, as well as the first christian communities, who used mainly greek.

The possible translation from aramaic to greek shall be dated on the half of the I century (in fact we can assume that a greek text of the gospel was known by the very early apostolic fathers, even if there is not any direct quotation).
So the problem of the possible translation from aramaic to greek is striclty tied with the problem of datation of the Gospels: if they were written after the 70, for a christian community already out from Palestina, probably they were written originary in greek.
But I remember you that the datation of the Gospel after the 70 is based ONLY on two reasons: 1) to explain the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels 2) to leave a certain number of years to let built the 'myth' of the risen.

If Matthew was written in the 40, and Luke in the 50, so probably they were written in aramaic for the community of Jerusalem, and later translated in greek for all the christians out of Palestina.

On the other hand the greek text of Matthew is clearly written (or translated) by someone that was thinking in Aramaic!

P.S. in the link you gave me, the very only base fact to support your idea, is the strong statment of the The Westminster Confession ! Catholics have surpassed the phase that the Vulgata is the Bible because it is said by the concil of Trent, your apologetic site is already tied to the Westimister Confession (that anyway are not at all inspired by God, nor are at all written by scolars of the history of the Bible)
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
a_ntv said:
P.S. in the link you gave me, the very only base fact to support your idea, is the strong statment of the The Westminster Confession ! Catholics have surpassed the phase that the Vulgata is the Bible because it is said by the concil of Trent, your apologetic site is already tied to the Westimister Confession (that anyway are not at all inspired by God, nor are at all written by scolars of the history of the Bible)

See that proves our differences. You hold to the council of trent and other Catholic councils. Which is great for you. The Puritans and Baptists see things differently. That was all I was trying to say. I happen to like the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

Anywho, thanks for the info.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟65,913.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
See that proves our differences. You hold to the council of trent and other Catholic councils. Which is great for you. The Puritans and Baptists see things differently. That was all I was trying to say. I happen to like the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

I was simply saying that the Westminster Confession cannot be used as a proof for whichever study on the history of the Gospels (as well as the Council of Trent)

But your apologetic website is built on such statment in the Westminster Confession.

Catholics no more uses the Council of Trent as a source for these kinds of research. Your site still do it.

More,I dont think that any statment about the fact the Gospel were written in greek or in aramaic shall stay in a apologetic site: that is NOT a basic matter in our faith, that is true in both the cases. :)
 
Upvote 0

Gal328

Regular Member
Mar 10, 2006
494
4
NY
✟676.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've recently been researching on how The Original Ancient Biblical Scriptures (the entire bible) were first written in Aramaic, and later transferred to Hebrew and Greek.

Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

And do you believe Jesus language when He walked as a man was Hebrew, Or do believe that the Original language our Messiah spoke was indeed Aramaic?

I have one more question:

Do you believe when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago that He casted out demons out of people to heal them from their infirmities such as illness, sickness and disease or why do you think Jesus casted out demons out of people? What was the purpose of Him doing that?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you reading

Have a blessed day
Lfi


The old testament was written for the most part in Hebrew. The N.T was written in gree. The Messiah spoke aramaic and possible Hebrew.

As far as the roman Solders, He could have been speaking Greek or maybe Latin.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 21, 2003
5,058
171
Manchester
Visit site
✟28,683.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm not quite sure what the Bible was first written in, but I do know that some parts of the Bible were written in Aramaic. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained the prophetic book of Isaiah and others, were written in Aramaic.

Sorry, but most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew not Aramaic.

The Great Isaiah scroll was written in hebrew of the Assyrian script.

There are many sections of different books written in Aramaic, that being Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah. But mostly, the Old testament was written in Hebrew.

As for the New Testament, there's evidence that they were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then were translated into Greek not soon after. Although Luke would have written His Eye witness account and His book of Acts in Greek.

Problem is, we don't have a single Hebrew/Aramaic copy of the New Testament books, we do have very old Greek manuscripts of them though.

Also, the Messiah probably spoke fluent Hebrew and Aramaic, probably knew a little Latin and quite a lot of Greek.

we do not have any original of the NT. The Codex we have are of the IV canturies. Last century we discovers lots of papyrs, most of them dating the III century and anyway very short. We have only a papyr on about the 150 with a few lines of John in Greek.

Err, actually, we have many manuscripts that have been dated to being quite a bit earlier than the third Century.

P4, 64, 67 (between 100-175 CE)

In fact, Papyrologist Carsten Thiede actually gives P64 a Pre-66 CE date, and has a few Papyrologists backing Him, but the common consensus is that they definantly belong to at least the middle of the last half of the second century, but many argue for a pre 125 CE dating.

P32 has also been given a Pre 150-200 CE date, along with P46, P52, P66, P77, P87, P90, P98, P104 and P109

In fact, P52, 46 and 66 are usually given a pre 125 CE date, if not an even earlier date, perhaps even the late first century due to P46 having very close letter forms to that of P.Oxy 270 (94 CE) P.Med 70.01 (55 CE) P.oxy 2987 (78-79 CE) and P.Oxy 3051 (89 CE).

The rather fabulous book of the transcriptions of the Greek of all the Papyri dated before 300 CE are to be found in the Book Text of the Earliest NT Greek manuscripts done by Philip Comfort and David barret, who go into quite a lot of detail regarding all of the manuscripts.

Also, they contain quite a lot more than just "a few verses" - P46 contains the bulk of Pauls letters, Namely Romans, 1 and 2 corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews (in Early Codex's hebrews is contained as one of Pauls letters), P66 contains nearly the whole of the book of John.
 
Upvote 0

greeker57married

Regular Member
Nov 13, 2003
478
27
80
Alabama
Visit site
✟30,772.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've recently been researching on how The Original Ancient Biblical Scriptures (the entire bible) were first written in Aramaic, and later transferred to Hebrew and Greek.

Was the bible first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and Greek?

And do you believe Jesus language when He walked as a man was Hebrew, Or do believe that the Original language our Messiah spoke was indeed Aramaic?

I have one more question:

Do you believe when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago that He casted out demons out of people to heal them from their infirmities such as illness, sickness and disease or why do you think Jesus casted out demons out of people? What was the purpose of Him doing that?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you reading

Have a blessed day
Lfi

The Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, there are some Aramaic places. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic as well as Greek in all probablity.

Yes Jesus did cast out demons.

God Bless
Greeker
 
Upvote 0

greeker57married

Regular Member
Nov 13, 2003
478
27
80
Alabama
Visit site
✟30,772.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Some points:
- no one believe that the whole NT was written in Greek. We speak only of Matthew, and probably Luke and Mark.
- we do not have any original of the NT. The Codex we have are of the IV canturies. Last century we discovers lots of papyrs, most of them dating the III century and anyway very short. We have only a papyr on about the 150 with a few lines of John in Greek.
- it is not true that we can go beck to the original text of the NT: ad instance there have been LOTS of inclusions, as John 7:1-8 that do not exist even in the best codexes
- i dont say that the greekwas not used by Jews, but surely not for any religious matter: the Mishna was not in greek. Pelase remeber the heavy reaction of the Jews to the hellinization: even to speak about God in a language different from Hebrew was considered blasphemy.
- Keep alwasy in mind the difference between Jews in Palestina (who use aramaic and not greek) and the Jews out of Palestina, as well as the first christian communities, who used mainly greek.

The possible translation from aramaic to greek shall be dated on the half of the I century (in fact we can assume that a greek text of the gospel was known by the very early apostolic fathers, even if there is not any direct quotation).
So the problem of the possible translation from aramaic to greek is striclty tied with the problem of datation of the Gospels: if they were written after the 70, for a christian community already out from Palestina, probably they were written originary in greek.
But I remember you that the datation of the Gospel after the 70 is based ONLY on two reasons: 1) to explain the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels 2) to leave a certain number of years to let built the 'myth' of the risen.

If Matthew was written in the 40, and Luke in the 50, so probably they were written in aramaic for the community of Jerusalem, and later translated in greek for all the christians out of Palestina.

On the other hand the greek text of Matthew is clearly written (or translated) by someone that was thinking in Aramaic!

P.S. in the link you gave me, the very only base fact to support your idea, is the strong statment of the The Westminster Confession ! Catholics have surpassed the phase that the Vulgata is the Bible because it is said by the concil of Trent, your apologetic site is already tied to the Westimister Confession (that anyway are not at all inspired by God, nor are at all written by scolars of the history of the Bible)

The orginal textof Matthew as well as Mark was written in Koine Greek, even though there are some hebriac or Aramaic expressions that were written in the Koine Greek which Greek expressions forthe Aramaic those in the Greek speaking world could understand.

God Bless
Greeker
 
Upvote 0
Feb 21, 2003
5,058
171
Manchester
Visit site
✟28,683.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The orginal textof Matthew as well as Mark was written in Koine Greek

Was it? As Irenaeus and Jerome seem to think quite differently:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue..." (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses)

"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed..." (Jerome - Of Illustrious Men 3)

Where do you get your information from that Matthew was originally written in Greek?
 
Upvote 0

greeker57married

Regular Member
Nov 13, 2003
478
27
80
Alabama
Visit site
✟30,772.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Was it? As Irenaeus and Jerome seem to think quite differently:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue..." (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses)

"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed..." (Jerome - Of Illustrious Men 3)

Where do you get your information from that Matthew was originally written in Greek?

"MATTHEW. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions to the Old Testament, 43 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the book is intensely Hehraistic. He has ithe instinct of Hebrew parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought is and general outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is "colourless Hellenistic (Greek) of the average type" (Moulton, Camb.Bibl.Essays, p. 484). WE need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis is correct." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, by A.T. Robertson, pp. 119-120)

GodBless
Greeker
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.