The greek vs. the hebrew?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Why did Jesus and the aposltes use the greek Seguit (Sp?) and not the Hebrew? I mean they were right there close to were it was spoken. I would have thought it would have been easier than learning greek. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie Claunch:
Why did Jesus and the aposltes use the greek Seguit (Sp?) and not the Hebrew? I mean they were right there close to were it was spoken. I would have thought it would have been easier than learning greek. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert but if I remember correctly the Jews who canonized the original spoke Greek at the time, because back then everyone spoke Greek. So the Greek supercedes the Hebrew.

Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.
 
I suppose you mean the septuagint.

Hebrew, like Latin today, was used predominately by scholars and clerics. It is a difficult language. The life and conquest of Alexander the great caused Greek to become more universally used in that area of the world, just as English has become so widespread today. The incursion of the Romans was relatively recent to the first century people.

It would be a fair bet that even the common folk of the Holy Land in the first century had a working knowledge of Greek along with their Aramaic. (Perhaps even a dose of Latin.) Generally speaking, if you were not a part of the temple, or occupied a priestly role, Hebrew lessons would be hard to come by.

Thal59
 
Jesus and the apostles undoubtedly used Aramaic among themselves. All of them would have had some rudimentary instruction in Hebrew from their synagogue school. Both Matthew and Judas would have to have been fluent in both Greek and Latin out of professional necessity. Jesus knew enough Greek to know that Peter means rock. When the centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, it is likely that he asked Jesus and Jesus answered in Greek. Except for Matthew and Judas, whether any of them were literate is an open question.

Many assert, me among them, that after Pentacost, language was no longer a problem for any of them. (Except Judas of course.) Paul was a master of all four languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Perhaps others too.

When the New Testement was being written, it only made sense to write the books in Greek. The books were intended for churches in mostly in Greece, Turkey and Rome. Greek was the first language of the Near East and the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Most educated Romans were bilingual, so even Paul’s Letter to the Romans could have been composed in Greek.

Matthew, Luke and Paul could have written for themselves. By the time the others wrote their books, they may have become literate. If not, they could have dictated the works to a literate follower. Maybe in Greek, maybe in Aramaic but they were surely put to paper in Greek.

By the time the New Testament was assembled, all of it was in Greek.
 
Also, the Greek Septuagint had all the books that we consider to be Inspired. The Sadduccees followed just the Pentatauch. The Pharisees looked to a larger canon, but I don’t think they accepted the Deuterocanonicals as inspired. Keep in mind, though, that the Jewish Canons were not closed, at least to the Non-Sadduccees. Then there were the Essenes - I have no clue what they looked to for Scripture.

Notworthy
 
Hi Montie Claunch, it has more to do with whom each book was addressed to. As I understand it Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic because it was addressed to Jewish people. It was latter either rewritten or translated into Greek for wider readership. Rest of the NT was written in Greek because Greek was more common among a wider group of people than was Aramaic or Hebrew.
Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
 
This is an interesting question that has occupied my mind multiple times before.

The LXX was a Greek translation made of Hebrew originals 200-300 years before Christ. It is most likely that Jesus and his disciples, being Aramaic-speaking Jews brought up on the Hebrew scriptures and the Aramaic commentaries did not use the LXX. The reason it shows up in Jesus’ mouth is that the evangelists were writing in Greek, and in giving OT quotes it was easiest just to go to the Greek texts.

We simply do not know how much Greek Jesus and His apostles knew at the time of His ministry on earth. It would have made no difference to Him that “Peter” (“Petros”) meant “rock” because Jesus didn’t name Simon “Peter;” He named him “Kepha.”

The question of which, between the LXX and the Hebrew Masoretic text, should have primacy is also very interesting. Normally an original (the Hebrew in this case) would have primacy over a translation (the Greek LXX). However, it is also very important that the LXX translators had access to Hebrew manuscript copies that were over a thousand years closer to their sources than any available in the 20th century, up to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then the gap narrowed to a couple hundred years. There are many places in the OT where it is obvious that Hebrew passages that were clear to the LXX translators have since become corrupted

Best advice–learn to use both.

DaveBj
 
Montie Claunch:
Why did Jesus and the aposltes use the greek Seguit (Sp?) and not the Hebrew? I mean they were right there close to were it was spoken. I would have thought it would have been easier than learning greek. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
Question for you is do you believe they all walked around with Bibles?

Ken
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi Montie Claunch, it has more to do with whom each book was addressed to. As I understand it Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic because it was addressed to Jewish people. It was latter either rewritten or translated into Greek for wider readership. Rest of the NT was written in Greek because Greek was more common among a wider group of people than was Aramaic or Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Daniel, I’m surprised at you. Didn’t you learn anything from Pensees?!? The original bible, the Lamsa Bible, was written in Aramaic!!!😉 I would have thought your head would have healed by now from hitting it on that wall!

Notworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top