Bible Question:
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) |
Bible Answer: 2 Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? Part Two: More REASONS and RESPONSES Following are the top reasons given to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and prove the NT was originally written in Hebrew. What I am asking for is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs and the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence is what I seek. Thanks to all who reply. Grace to you, kalos ____________________ 'Many have asked why we should believe the Hebrew and Aramaic are the original NT languages rather than the Greek.' 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) ******* '2. The NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament". 'RESPONSE: '1) Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT. The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX. '3. Testimonials "Such-and-such scholar said so". 'RESPONSE: 'These do not prove anything. In fact once can also quote various scholars which have declared that parts or all of the NT were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. '4. Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek. 'RESPONSE: 'Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect. '5. Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus". 'RESPONSE: 'Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic. '6. Greek was the common language of Jews at the time. 'RESPONSE: 'The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2). Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his time: 'I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2) 'Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language." 'Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters. The Dead Sea Scolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew. The Bar Kokhba letters are letters beteween Simon Bar Kokhba and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew here." (...) 'But regarding Paul's letters to the diaporia, Aramaic is the issue. 'It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the diasporia, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England.' ____________________ (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) |