New Testament Languages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wm777

Guest
Am doing some research into the original languages of the New Testament, like even before Latin translations; and I thought the original texts would be in Greek and/or Hebrew, since the Apostles were Jewish.

But, while I have found the Greek, I haven’t really found much Hebrew at all.

There seems to be an additional Syriac language, but I dont know much about the Syriac language, although it is interesting.

I guess I am just wondering why there doesnt seem to be much (if any) Hebrew versions of the New Testament writings.

I mean, Jesus was Himself Jewish, right? So why wouldn’t the apostles have stuck to their native language? The only thing I can think of might have been one just doesn’t put new wine into old wineskins. Meaning - either the authors were run so far out of Jerusalem they had to adopt a completely new language, or the old Hebrew somehow couldn’t express the intentions of the New Covenant.

Any thoughts? 🙂
 
Hebrew was only really in use as a liturgical language in the first century. Greek was in widespread use as a trade language; it was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. The entire New Testament was composed in Greek. There are some who advocate for Aramaic primacy of Matthew and Mark, but that’s a minority position without strong historical or textual support.

-Fr ACEGC
 
It’s thought that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew—

Eusebius–
“Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote”
Click to expand...
and Papias quoted by Eusebius–
“ Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Hebrew Dialect, and everyone translated them as well as he could”
Click to expand...
and Irenaeus–
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
Click to expand...
being items in support of that theory.

But in general, remember how quickly Christianity spread through the Empire. Greek was the language of trade, and was one of the major/official languages of the Roman Empire.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Originally, Christians were merely Jews who recognized that their Messiah had come. However, as persecution drove them out of Jerusalem, they spread their message— and it was embraced by people besides the original core audience. So if you compare the map above to a map of where Paul’s letters were sent—

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

it makes sense that many of them (and thereby a big chunk of the NT) would have been written in Greek.

Likewise, the Gospels were composed as that first generation of Christians were dying out. They were originally expecting the Second Coming in their lifetime. But as it became obvious they were mistaken, they started writing down the Gospels so that that information wouldn’t become forgotten. So, looking at where the centers of early Christianity were— it makes sense that at that point, they would be composed in Greek, rather than Hebrew.
 
midori said:
But as it became obvious they were mistaken, they started writing down the Gospels so that that information wouldn’t become forgotten. So, looking at where the centers of early Christianity were— it makes sense that at that point, they would be composed in Greek, rather than Hebrew.
Click to expand...
You see, that is the problem I am trying to reckon…

If they wanted to preserve Jesus’ original intent, then why not stick to Hebrew as best they could - even if it meant making multiple copies of the texts (for example, one in Greek and another in Hebrew)?

It’s very interesting to see how trade and commerce played a role.

I don’t know for sure, but I would hazard a guess the economic systems of the Jews and the Gentiles and Christians were all very different. By “trade” I do not mean oral tradition, nor exclusively a written tradition, but the actual accounting for and thinking about the buying and selling of merchandise. This emphasis on economic trade was likely something Jesus would have vehemently opposed, so it’s hard to fathom why the original Hebrew as a religious (not a financial) tradition wouldn’t have been upheld.

Terms like “trade” and “redemption”, as well as terms like “the law” and “witness”, etc… are commonly used in the Gospels - in a sort of spiritual and ethical sense; whereas, those same words were also used back then in legal and economic senses, also. They would probably have very different implications depending upon the context in which they were used, so I still tend to wonder why they wouldn’t have defended the Hebrew.

Hebrew is still defended today… And, for that matter, Traditionalists still defend Latin in Catholicism - and the Vulgate was written until much later than the Gospels…

I know some people on here don’t agree with me parsing these texts as such, but its just interesting to try to unearth these meanings. When I stop to contemplate that the Apostles never saw planes, trains or automobiles, nor did they have a radio, cell phone or HDTV, and they didnt even have the educational or legal systems we have today - I sometimes wonder if we can ever really identify with the depth of how Jesus and the Apostles thought -whether it be in a traditional sense or a more modern context…

Somehow the language of the scriptures denote exchanges occurring as a dialogue between God and mankind, but life was so much different back then… it’s just hard to know if we really know what they meant on divine levels…
 
When one stops to consider how Paul speaks at times, like when he chastises some of the groups, it does seem possible it could have been (in one sense) a good thing to have the NT written in Greek.

If Greek was the more popular language, especially among traders, then it would have been a rife opportunity to evangelize.
 
Last edited:
Wm777 said:
…Somehow the language of the scriptures denote exchanges occurring as a dialogue between God and mankind, but life was so much different back then… it’s just hard to know if we really know what they meant on divine levels…
Click to expand...
Bishops to the rescue. The office of bishop was instituted by the Apostles, they are tasked with receiving, preserving, transmitting all that the Apostles taught, in both writing and speech. We have the Catechism, which is often in many ways unambiguous, and so long as we really believe the New Testament’s in many ways unambiguous record of the institutionalization of the office of bishop, by the Apostles, during the Apostolic era, we are not only obligated to, but we are also free to believe that when the bishops offer simplification, we can receive it confidently and thankfully.

We can and already do know what God and mankind were saying. In a way, what God said was, “I’m going to take care of this, I’m going to make something called the office of a bishop, that is My solution to all these troubling questions that you’ll have, these office holders, bishops, will receive and preserve and transmit what the Apostles teach, and they teach with My teaching authority, because I gave it to them.”

The only problem is when Christians don’t heed their bishops anymore, at that point, there are sheep outside the fold, they have scattered, they are overboard during a hurricane. The only thing they have as a life preserver is the Scripture, except their Scripture is plucked like feathers and is missing some books, especially some wisdom literature. So it’s not even an ideal life preserver, what they’ve got out there. And they don’t want to be rescued either, that’s part of the problem with them.

Thanks.
 
When the Church Fathers refer to a Hebrew edition of a particular NT book, it is - for the most part - ambiguous if they are referring to a Classical Hebrew or an Aramaic text.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Classical Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Jews, and it was most likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic day-to-day.

There are lots of possible reasons why the NT writings were ultimately preserved in Greek: historical, linguistic, social, political, etc. I think one of the more interesting theological explanations comes from Pope Benedict XVI: he wrote on numerous occasions that he believed Hellenistic philosophy to have offered the most accurate and nuanced model of thought for early Christians, and so God will the dominance of the Greek language as a lingua franca across the Mediterranean.
 
Wm777 said:
If they wanted to preserve Jesus’ original intent, then why not stick to Hebrew as best they could
Click to expand...
Jesus probably spoke Aramaic on a daily basis, not Hebrew.
In the 1st century, the Mediterranean area in general,
and Judea in particular, was a big melting pot with quite a lot of different languages spoken - just look at the list in the Pentecost narrative (Acts 2). It would have made sense to use the common language to write down such important events. It would particularly have made sense considering that the Gospels were written a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and that the intent, at that point in time, was to make them available to an ethnically diverse Christian community rather than to preserve an exact wording, which was the job of oral tradition.

Also, it is estimated that roughly two thirds of the OT quotations in the NT come straight from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, which would indicate that at least some NT authors were extremely familiar with it, to the point of quoting it from memory. Greek simply was a familiar and daily language for them, in which they were at ease, probably much more so than Hebrew.
 
Jesus probably used Aramaic in everyday life, not Hebrew. The two are similar, and probably related, but Aramaic is closer to Syriac than to Hebrew.

The New Testament was probably written outside of the area where Jesus taught. Jews outside of Israel has already translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. It would not be odd for the Christians to circulate their books in Greek, since it was what most understood.

The Peshitta is a syriac language version of the bible that some think is the preGreek biblical text. Most people think it is a translation from Greek into Syriac.

Matthew Black’s an aramaic approach to the gospels and acts is a svholarly examination of theissue you raise. It is not easy reading, but it is worth the effort.
 
Jesus would have known Aramaic and spoken that language commonly. Jesus would have read and spoken Biblical Hebrew as a devout Jew , especially at Synagogue and the Temple. Jesus would also have had knowledge of trade languages, Roman, Greek,
 
Wm777 said:
If they wanted to preserve Jesus’ original intent, then why not stick to Hebrew as best they could - even if it meant making multiple copies of the texts (for example, one in Greek and another in Hebrew)?
Click to expand...
That’s one of the interesting things— there are several places where the Gospel writers felt compelled to preserve Jesus’ original words in their original Aramaic. (“Talitha koum”; “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani”; “Ephphatha”; etc.) In other places, the dialogue was translated into Greek. (ie, all the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.)

But you always write for your audience. It’s a little difficult, because literacy is so widespread these days, and we’re not quite as Empire-based, and we have things like Babelfish or Fiverr if we need to get something translated from Language A into Language B. But suppose you have a religion that begins in Turkey, and it gets persecuted, and the followers spread out throughout the Mediterranean and Asia, where they begin picking up followers. And now all of a sudden, they have disciples who are Italian, and French, and Egyptian, and Indian, and Spanish, and German, and Libyan, and Algerian, and Moroccan. Would it make sense to keep everything in Turkish, and expect your Germans and your Moroccans and your Italians to know what’s being said? Or would you go through the effort of writing a letter to your Algerian followers in Arabic and Berber, but translate it into ten or twelve or fifteen languages/dialects so that everyone else can get a copy, too? Or would it be most likely to start corresponding in French or English, because those are widespread enough languages in that territory that there’s likely a large number of people who can understand it?
 
Wm777 said:
I guess I am just wondering why there doesnt seem to be much (if any) Hebrew versions of the New Testament writings.
Click to expand...
Hebrew was essentially a dead language by the first century. The language of the region was Aramaic (Syriac), although the language of business in the wider world of the eastern half of the Roman Empire was Koine Greek. Jews living in Palestine would have probably been fluent in both.
 
Wm777 said:
I guess I am just wondering why there doesnt seem to be much (if any) Hebrew versions of the New Testament writings.
Click to expand...
Because by the time of the New Testament Jews didn’t speak Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew was the formal religious language, much as Latin is for Catholics. So of course Jewish religious leaders and scholars would be familiar with Hebrew, and probably all Jews would know some Hebrew, just as we all know some Latin. But we don’t write in Latin. Nor did they write in Hebrew at that time.

And keep in mind that the Jews of Alexandria had already translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, and it’s this version that’s the foundation of the Catholic Old Testament. Why did they translate it? Because they spoke Greek!
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
And keep in mind that the Jews of Alexandria had already translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, and it’s this version that’s the foundation of the Catholic Old Testament. Why did they translate it? Because they spoke Greek!
Click to expand...
Well… more because King Ptolemy II commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures for his library in Alexandria, right? (I mean, there’s a whole legend about quarantining the 70 to ensure an undoctored translation was produced, but aside from that legendary tale, it seems that Ptolemy was the cause of the Septuagint…)
 
Wm777 said:
If they wanted to preserve Jesus’ original intent, then why not stick to Hebrew as best they could - even if it meant making multiple copies of the texts (for example, one in Greek and another in Hebrew)?
Click to expand...
Jesus would have most likely said the words in Aramaic (or perhaps Greek if He was speaking to a mixed crowd - if He even knew Greek), not Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Hebrew was essentially a dead language by the first century.
Click to expand...
To some, that is a good thing…

Again, today’s church holds Latin as its fundamental language, and Latin is a dead language.

By “dead” I do not mean it is simply not in common use; but that it’s not going to be changed and made subject to idioms and variation in the vernacular.

The fact that a language is dead prevent manipulation of a vernacular’s meaning, so things like morals can be maintained as originally intended. The preservation of morals is one of the things I am driving at on even deeper levels.

Greek as a precise language is very good, especially for trade; but language with a softer focus (and I mean that very liberally) like Latin may permit of generalizations a hard focus, precise language may tend to overwrite due to hyperfocus and tunnel vision.

Please know I appreciate what you said, and I’m not intending to harp on you or anyone in particular here… I like discerning these distinctions, so - if by chance my tone comes across as harsh - I ask your forgiveness… It’s one of my worst qualities, and yet I really do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut…
 
Hodos said:
Hebrew was essentially a dead language by the first century.
Click to expand...
Biblical Hebrew was the language of worship in the Temple and synagogues. Every devout Jew knew and understood it either orally or written also for reading Scripture.
It is a language of the Dead Sea Scrolls also. It was and is not a dead language.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
As far as anybody knows, the New Testament was never translated into Hebrew until as recently as 1877:
Click to expand...
But take a peek at this quote from Wikipedia regarding the Lord’s Prayer…

Relation to Jewish prayer

There are similarities between the Lord’s Prayer and both biblical and post-biblical material in Jewish prayer especially Kiddushin 81a (Babylonian).[82] “Our Father which art in heaven” (אבינו שבשמים, Avinu shebashamayim) is the beginning of many Hebrew prayers.[83] “Hallowed be thy name” is reflected in the Kaddish. “Lead us not into sin” is echoed in the “morning blessings” of Jewish prayer. A blessing said by some Jewish communities after the evening Shema includes a phrase quite similar to the opening of the Lord’s Prayer: “Our God in heaven, hallow thy name, and establish thy kingdom forever, and rule over us for ever and ever. Amen.” There are parallels also in 1 Chronicles 29:10–18.[73][82]

(That’s all at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the Lord’s Prayer)

So - exegetically speaking - if the very first line of the Lord’s Prayer was in Hebrew… then translated into Greek… and then translated into Latin…

How far removed are we from it’s prefigured and original meaning?

That’s a powerful question when confronted with the arguments many Traditionalists pose. Traditionalists usually want to defend fundamentals based upon Latin, but, I ask, does the Hebrew support it or no? And, either way, I ask “how?” I dont know the answer, as I’ve never been taught Hebrew, but it would seem to me people who want to defend the old traditions should know.

I’m not worried about the Bishop, btw. They can set pastoral policy, but this is more of an exegetical, Theological - even an archeaological question to me. It does have a bearing on Spirituality, I think, but I dont know enough to defend my questions before a Bishop, if they would even hear me out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top