What Evidence Is There That The NT Was Originally Written In Greek? :-)

[The Thadman]

I am an Aramaic primacist, that is I believe that the NT was (for the most part) originally written in Aramaic or Syriac with a few books in Greek.

I've been trying to find some good proofs to look over concerning the belief that the NT was originally written in Greek, but I have yet to come across any. It's like it's always assumed to be true.

If anyone's curious about Aramaic primacy, I could share a couple proofs with ya and point you in the direction of a few articles I've written

Come let us reason!

Shlomo! (Peace!)

-Steve Caruso
(aka "The Thadman")

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally posted by The Thadman
I am an Aramaic primacist, that is I believe that the NT was (for the most part) originally written in Aramaic or Syriac with a few books in Greek.

I've been trying to find some good proofs to look over concerning the belief that the NT was originally written in Greek, but I have yet to come across any. It's like it's always assumed to be true.

If anyone's curious about Aramaic primacy, I could share a couple proofs with ya and point you in the direction of a few articles I've written

Come let us reason!

Shlomo! (Peace!)

-Steve Caruso
(aka "The Thadman")

I would be glad to read results of studies performed by linguists or reputable scholars But no less, I would like professional proof

God Bless

 

[The Thadman]

I'm the webmaster of a website that deals specifically with the issue of Aramaic primacy. I'm constantly looking for people to share my research with as well as listen to the research of others concerning Biblical linguistics.

ht tp://www. AramaicNT.org

(Cut, paste, and rid of the spaces, the forum won't let me post URLs yet )

If this isn't satisfactory, look up William Cureton, Dr. George Kiraz, Dr. Lamsa, Paul Younan, and Dr. James Trimm.

Hope you enjoy it

Shlomo! (Peace!)
-Steve Caruso
(aka "The Thadman")

 

[vegan]

I am curious. I have never even heard this debated before.
WHat are you talking about - the individual books of the NT or some sort of consolidation of texts?

I never knew this was something open to debate.

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by vegan
I am curious. I have never even heard this debated before.
WHat are you talking about - the individual books of the NT or some sort of consolidation of texts?

I never knew this was something open to debate.

Most of the books of the Bible, most notably the Canonical Gospels and Paul's letters, have really strong evidence that they were originally penned in 1st Century Aramaic instead of Greek as what is assumed.

The Eastern spread of Christianity (Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox) by the Apostles such as Addai (Thaddeus) and Thooma (Thomas) preserved these Aramaic MSS. I could bring up specific examples here, or I could redirect you to my website (it's in my Signature). What would ya like?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[vegan]

I will look at your webpage, thank you.

 

[Ioustinos]

Thadman,

I too will take a look at your website I have read a little concerning this topic but not a lot of sholarly works.

Be Well


Jesaiah

Ps. Are you one of those that feel the NT is "tainted" because we rely on Greek manuscripts?

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Jesaiah
Ps. Are you one of those that feel the NT is "tainted" because we rely on Greek manuscripts?

Tainted in the sense of "I wouldn't trust ANYTHING Greek!"? Nah.

Tainted in the sense of "I'd prefer to use the Aramaic texts over the Greek when dealing with those books most likely penned in Aramaic in their original autographs." Yeah.

For the VAST majority (I'm talking 98-99% sorta vast) the Aramaic and Greek textbody are in agreement with eachother, but those few differences (caused to really silly scribal mistranslations or poor translation of ambiguous phrasing) are things that we can learn a -GREAT- deal from.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally posted by The Thadman
Tainted in the sense of "I wouldn't trust ANYTHING Greek!"? Nah.

Tainted in the sense of "I'd prefer to use the Aramaic texts over the Greek when dealing with those books most likely penned in Aramaic in their original autographs." Yeah.

For the VAST majority (I'm talking 98-99% sorta vast) the Aramaic and Greek textbody are in agreement with eachother, but those few differences (caused to really silly scribal mistranslations or poor translation of ambiguous phrasing) are things that we can learn a -GREAT- deal from.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Ok I have no problem with that.

I would like to ask where you obtained the Aramaic texts and how do we determine their reliability? For example translators use 1000's of different manuscripts written in Greek, so what is available as far as Aramaic texts?

Be well

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Jesaiah
Ok I have no problem with that.

I would like to ask where you obtained the Aramaic texts and how do we determine their reliability? For example translators use 1000's of different manuscripts written in Greek, so what is available as far as Aramaic texts?

Be well

There are a couple Aramaic versions of the New Testament with one that seems to bear it's authenticity in numbers.

First, there's the "Old Syriac" which is represented by the Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Curetonian MSS. It is a fragmented version of the 4 Gospels that shows heavy Greek influence.

Secondly, there's the Diatesseron, which is admitted to be a translation from Greek. Unfortunately, all that is left of it is fragments.

Thirdly, there's the Harklean which quotes the Greek identically (and is another admitted translation), including HORRENDOUS Aramaic renderings. We do, however, have entire copies of it.

Fourthly, there's the Crawford MSS of Revelation, which has some interesting quirks that aren't found in any other versions of Revelation that explain some strange occurrences in all Greek MSS of Revelation to a T (the articles on Revelation on my website deal with the Crawford MSS, and there's a copy of it I've made available in PDF format).

Finally, the most important Aramaic Wittness of all is the Eastern Pe****to. Over 250 MSS of the Eastern Pe****to have been unearthed, and all have been IDENTICAL save for a few spelling changes. Complete Pe****to MSS date back to the same decade as complete Greek MSS, and the Eastern churches claim that these texts were given to them by the Apostles themselves. Inspecting the text of the Pe****to, there are many instances that make it (imho) unmistakably the closest we'd have to an original.

Things to keep in mind though, is that the Pe****to doesn't have all of the books that are in the NT. The ones that are in our cannon, but were left out in the Pe****to cannon (with the exception of Revelation) I believe were most likely written in Greek, whereas the others in Aramaic. My personal research (most of which I've posted on my webpage) confirms this

Any other questions I can answer?

Shlomo!

 

[filosofer]

Finally, the most important Aramaic Wittness of all is the Eastern Pe s h i t to. Over 250 MSS of the Eastern Pe s h i t to have been unearthed, and all have been IDENTICAL save for a few spelling changes. Complete Pe s h i t to MSS date back to the same decade as complete Greek MSS, and the Eastern churches claim that these texts were given to them by the Apostles themselves. Inspecting the text of the Pe s h i t to, there are many instances that make it (imho) unmistakably the closest we'd have to an original.

Great similarity in manuscripts of the same langauge does not indicate originality. Also, while some of these date from the 5th century as you indicate, why the gap 350 year gap in which no Aramaic manuscripts? That is, there are many Greek manuscripts (individual books or collections of books or fragments of books) between 125 and mid 4th century. Also, the earliest complete NT in Greek is Sinaiticus, which is dated in the 4th century - nearly a century earlier than the earliest dated Aramaic/Syriac manuscripts (only a few date from the 5th and 6th century). If the originality of the NT Aramaic texts were accepted, there would be some kind of manuscript evidence prior to the 5th century.

Also, the Pe s h i t to shows evidence of being closer to the Byzantine texts in the Gospels, yet closer to the Western text in the Book of Acts. As for the books not included in the Pe s h i t to/Syriac: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

The claims, even repeatedly, of the Eastern Church that these texts were given to them by the apostles does not make it so; the Western Church (RCC) claims that they have a direct line back to Peter and his authority. Making the claim, even repeatedly does not make it so.

Interesting that the only evidence of a possible Aramaic writing in the NT is a reference contained in Eusebius about Papias, a 2nd century author who mentioned Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Many scholars now conclude that Matthew wrote two "originals" - one in Greek, another in Hebrew/Aramaic.

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by filosofer
Great similarity in manuscripts of the same langauge does not indicate originality. Also, while some of these date from the 5th century as you indicate, why the gap 350 year gap in which no Aramaic manuscripts? That is, there are many Greek manuscripts (individual books or collections of books or fragments of books) between 125 and mid 4th century. Also, the earliest complete NT in Greek is Sinaiticus, which is dated in the 4th century - nearly a century earlier than the earliest dated Aramaic/Syriac manuscripts (only a few date from the 5th and 6th century). If the originality of the NT Aramaic texts were accepted, there would be some kind of manuscript evidence prior to the 5th century.

This is one of the biggest hurdles in Pe$hitto primacy. The only explanation that I can give you is that the Eastern Churches record that they had MSS since the 1st century, and they have different copying traditions. Before the 4th and 5th centuries, Aramaic MSS would have been recorded on papyrus instead of vellum, most of which (if in the conditions of the eastern world) would disintegrate.

Also, the Khaboris MSS is dated to the 4th Century.

Originally posted by filosofer
Also, the Pe s h i t to shows evidence of being closer to the Byzantine texts in the Gospels, yet closer to the Western text in the Book of Acts. As for the books not included in the Pe s h i t to/Syriac: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

Not as close as many people claim. An online colleague of mine, Paul Younan, has compiled many instances which show that the Gospels do not follow Byzantine tradition to the extent that is accepted in today's Greek-oriented circles.

Originally posted by filosofer
The claims, even repeatedly, of the Eastern Church that these texts were given to them by the apostles does not make it so; the Western Church (RCC) claims that they have a direct line back to Peter and his authority. Making the claim, even repeatedly does not make it so.

Point taken.

Originally posted by filosofer
Interesting that the only evidence of a possible Aramaic writing in the NT is a reference contained in Eusebius about Papias, a 2nd century author who mentioned Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Many scholars now conclude that Matthew wrote two "originals" - one in Greek, another in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Er, not necessarily. The Greek texts betray themselves. I'm talking about 50-50 MSS variances that seem to stem from one Aramaic word with two different meanings. Blatant mistranslations ("Elee elee lama sabachtani?" (Eel eel, l-mana shveqtanee) was most likely rendered differently, given the Aramaic verb "shovaq"), and scribal quirks (The "Alpha" and the "O"?)

Give my site a look. Check out the Article list to begin with, and it'll point you in the direction of what I'm talking about.

Shlomo d-Moryo la-kh! (The Peace of Lord YHWH be with you!)

 

[judge]

Originally posted by filosofer


Interesting that the only evidence of a possible Aramaic writing in the NT is a reference contained in Eusebius about Papias, a 2nd century author who mentioned Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Many scholars now conclude that Matthew wrote two "originals" - one in Greek, another in Hebrew/Aramaic.

 

Hi filosofer!

 

There may in fact be more indications that at least some books were originally penned in Aramaic, or the hebrew dialect/tongue.

Another interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
        chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
        Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

        "Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
        far as India, where he appears to have found that
        Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
        hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
        Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
        and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
        Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
        Pantaenus's mission."

        Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
        History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
        pages 213-214.


Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

 

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first <GOSPEL>is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

&nbsp;

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They <THE Nazarenes>have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"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, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators <THE Greek Septuagint>, but
that of the Hebrew."
(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

&nbsp;

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there <INDIA>preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)

&nbsp;

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His <MATTHEW'S>book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)

&nbsp;

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he <CLEMENT of Alexandria>has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew
tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)

&nbsp;

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

&nbsp;

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)

&nbsp;

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22) that:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; made some quotations from the Gospel according to
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel"

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now this claims that in the days of Hegesippus, a Syriac
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gospel existed, and that it was a different book from the
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gospel according to the Hebrews.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And in the Passio Sancti Procopii Martyris, (annexed
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by Valesius to the Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius, lib. viii. c. 1,
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ed. Amsterdam, 1695. Annotatt, p. 154,) the martyr is said
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to have been born at Jerusalem, and to have passed his
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; life at Scythopolis, where he performed three functions in
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the church,- " unum in legendi officio, alterum in Syri
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; daemones manus impositione consummans ;" until his
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; martyrdom, under Diocletian, A. D. 303

&nbsp;

It is probable that many of the quotes, however, have their origin in the original alleged remark of&nbsp;papias.


&nbsp;

The question arises as to what was meant by the Hebrew language or dialect. what was the language of the hebrew people in the days of our Lords earthly life?

I think there is good evidence that the everyday language of the hebrews was Aramaic at this time rather than hebrew, not the least of which is the Aramaic words that remain in our english translations.

&nbsp;

all the best.

 

[The Thadman]

Hey judge! I wasn't sure you posted here How're things?

To those who aren't familiar: It's at least pretty certain that when the New Testament said "hebraris" (that is, the Greek word for "the language of the Hebrews") it meant "Aramaic." The perfect example is the word "Golgotha" (Gogultho). It was in "hebraris" but Golgotha is NOT a Hebrew word by any means

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[filosofer]

[/i]judge wrote:[/i]
I think there is good evidence that the everyday language of the hebrews was Aramaic at this time rather than hebrew, not the least of which is the Aramaic words that remain in our english translations.

Yes, most likely the language was Aramaic. Certainly the post-exilic period and the intertestamental period demonstrated the rise of Aramaic as the language of the people. The Scriptures were still read in Hebrew, but there were the targums (Aramaic translations) to help the people understand the Word. So I don't think it is a question of what language was spoken in Palestine among the common people; it was Aramaic. Most likely most of them were conversant in Greek as well. Aramaic being the heart language, Hebrew being the Scripture language, Latin being the official Roman language, and Greek the common economic/commerce language throughout the eastern Roman Empire of the first century.

If the writings of the NT were for Jews living in Palestine, then Aramaic might make sense - which is why I think that Matthew may have written two Gospels. But most Jews lived outside of Palestine and many did not know Aramaic or Hebrew. That was the prime impetus behind the Jews translating the Scriptures into Greek (LXX, ca 200 BC). Thus, in the first century AD, most Jews would have understood Greek better than Aramaic, except for those living in Palestine itself. Also, look at where the NT writings were done: Paul wrote while in Ephesus, Corinth, Athens, Rome - all with Jewish populations, all who would be familiar with Greek, not with Aramaic. John wrote from Patmos, again a Greek origin. Peter wrote to the Jews who were dispersed (1 Peter 1), which means they would have known Greek, but not Aramaic.

Regarding the church fathers, it seems that most of the church fathers are alluding to the quote from Pappias. Even the "Gospel of the Hebrews" might be a reference to Matthew writing in the "Hebrew dialect."

 

[The Thadman]

Then, in terms of what language seems to be the original composition, what is your stance concerning the evidences that I have posted on my website?

Shlomo d-Aloho Kailthono!

 

[The Thadman]

Better question for now:

Who the heck voted "English" on the poll?!

Shlomo!

 

[dignitized]

I think we must remember to whom each text was addressed. It makes no sense to write a text to the hellenistic world in HEBREW or even Aramaic.

Matthew of the Gospels alone, being aimed at the Jewish people - has strong evidences of being authored in either Greek or Hebrew. However, that does not make a case for all of the canon. What more, there is strong evidence that the apostles used the LXX translation of the Hebrew canon into Greek as their reference for their scriptural quotations. The scriptural quotes from the LXX in the writings of the Apostolic and Anti-Nicaean fathers are word for word from the LXX.

I’m sure the case can be made that the epistle to the Hebrews would have been in Aramaic, but its foolish to think that the letters to the Corinthians would be authored in a language spoken ONLY in a limited area of Palestine. Paul would have addressed the Hellenistic peoples in Greek. Greek was the “universal” language of the day as well as the Language of Scholarship.

Anyhow - God bless

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Br. Max
I think we must remember to whom each text was addressed. It makes no sense to write a text to the hellenistic world in HEBREW or even Aramaic.

To this day the Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox churches (founded by the Apostles Thaddeus and Thomas) write their addresses in Aramaic, no matter who the recipient is. The texts themselves show markers (in the Greek) of their Aramaic authorship

Originally posted by Br. Max
Matthew of the Gospels alone, being aimed at the Jewish people - has strong evidences of being authored in either Greek or Hebrew. However, that does not make a case for all of the canon. What more, there is strong evidence that the apostles used the LXX translation of the Hebrew canon into Greek as their reference for their scriptural quotations. The scriptural quotes from the LXX in the writings of the Apostolic and Anti-Nicaean fathers are word for word from the LXX.

The evidence that the Apostles used the LXX only exists in the later MSS tradition The oldest MSS (mainly the Western and Alexandrian) don't follow the LXX For example, in Ephesians 4:18, in most if not all Greek versions, Paul quotes a reading that only survives in an Aramaic Targum

Also, in other language versions, like the Aramaic, the quotes seem to come from the Pe****ta Old Testament and Targums, where the Hebrew versions quote from the Massoretic.

In other words, the only "evidence" that the Apostles used the Greek texts is in the Greek texts.

Originally posted by Br. Max
I'm sure the case can be made that the epistle to the Hebrews would have been in Aramaic, but its foolish to think that the letters to the Corinthians would be authored in a language spoken ONLY in a limited area of Palestine. Paul would have addressed the Hellenistic peoples in Greek. Greek was the "universal" language of the day as well as the Language of Scholarship.

Anyhow - God bless

Give my website a peek. I'd love to quote specific examples in Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians concerning quirks in the Greek texts.

Also, it wasn't a teeny area of Palestine, it was the WHOLE of Judea. Coins struck in the area bear Aramaic inscriptions on them which confirms this.

Shlomo d-Moryo la-kh!
(The Peace of Lord YHWH be with you! )

 

[kern]

Originally posted by filosofer


Interesting that the only evidence of a possible Aramaic writing in the NT is a reference contained in Eusebius about Papias, a 2nd century author who mentioned Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Many scholars now conclude that Matthew wrote two "originals" - one in Greek, another in Hebrew/Aramaic.

However, what Eusebius said was that Matthew compiled "the sayings of the Lord" in Aramaic -- and the Gospel called "Matthew" is a lot more than just sayings. A lot of scholars use this passage as further proof for the document "Q" which is commonly thought to have been composed in Aramaic.

-Chris