New Testament (Archive 1)

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Bible Question (short): Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1

Question (full): Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1

DocTrinsograce, BradK, CDBJ, EdB, Emmaus, Hank, Makarios, Morant61, prayon, Searcher56, srbaegon and anyone else who wishes to reply:

I recently received the following article in my email. I have been asked to evaluate it. I would appreciate the input of any and all of those named above as well as that of ANYONE ELSE who wishes to participate.

In the following quoted article are the top reasons given by some to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and to prove that the NT was originally written in Hebrew.

What I am asking for when you reply is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs, giving us the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence for your agreement or disagreement is what I am looking for. Give as much or as little detail as you wish.

I am thanking in advance any and all who reply to this Question.

Grace to you,
kalos
____________________

[Following is the first of 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS and the RESPONSE to each. I will soon post the rest of the 10 REASONS and RESPONSES.]

'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS

'Some have asked why the NT portion of the Hebraic Roots Version Bible is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek. Many have asked why we should the Hebrew and Aramaic is the original rather than the Greek?

'For more info on the Hebraic Roots Version, the first Messianic NT Version to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek see the HRV website at: (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com)

'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account)

'1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek.

'RESPONSE:

'Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E..

'However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for.

'To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak.

'Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek.

'The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original.

'Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them.

'The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text.

'Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books.

'The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.'

____________________
(http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com)