Were the Gospels translated from Aramic to Koine Greek?

[theCardinalbird]

were the Gospels translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek?

Where were the earliest copies of the Gospels found?

 

[billsherman]

were the Gospels translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek?

No. The Gospels were originally written in Greek. There has always been speculation that Matthew may have written an additional gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, but if he did, it does not survive. His Gospel was written in Greek (this can be determined by textual criticism).

Where were the earliest copies of the Gospels found?

Do you mean the earliest extant copies? Most of these come from Egypt and date to roughly the third century. Egypt has environmental conditions ideal for the long term preservation of paper and papyrus.

 

[theCardinalbird]

written in Greek

for some reason i always thought they were written in Koine Greek. odd

 

[porthos11]

billsherman:

written in Greek

for some reason i always thought they were written in Koine Greek. odd

What are you getting at here? Koine Greek IS Greek.

 

[fredystairs]

Concerning the Gospel to Matthew, there are several sources that witness that it was written in the Aramaic. First, there is the witness of St. Irenaeus, who, in about AD 180, wrote “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.” (Against Heresies, 3:1; In The Church Fathers on the Bible, Frank Sadowski, S.S.P, editor).

The following was taken from The International Bible Commentary: (pages 1253 - 4) “A careful reading of this gospel will reveal its Jewish background and origins. It emphasizes the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures, deals with concerns regarding Jewish understanding of the Law, Pharisaic traditions, and scribal interpretations, and focuses on the controversies with Jewish religious leaders.” “That the author is writing primarily to Jewish Christians is evident also in what he assumes of the readers. He takes it for granted that they are familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, Law and Prophets alike.” “The gospel of Matthew was universally held be the Church Fathers to be the first gospel written. Some of them claimed that it was written originally in “Hebrew” (which may mean Aramaic). The only author proposed for this gospel was the apostle Matthew. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260 – 340) reports Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 100 – 110), as recording that “Matthew arranged the Lord’s oracles in order in the Hebrew language (or dialect) and each one translated (or "interpreted”) them as he was able” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). Eusebius also reports that Pantaenus (ca. 150 – 215), teacher of Clement of Alexandria, went to India and found that the people there were already acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, a copy in Hebrew having been taken there by the Apostle Bartholomew (Hist. eccl. 5.10.3). (emphasis added).
Here the scholars at The International Bible Commentary are saying that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Would it not make sense that the Gospel be written in Aramaic? If it had been written in Greek, why would Bartholomew have taken a copy in Hebrew (Aramaic) to India?

Lastly there is the declaration of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, On the Author, Date of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to Matthew (June 19, 1911). In #2, when asked if Matthew wrote the first Gospel in the native dialect then in use by the Jews of Palestine, they agreed.

Blessings

 

[billsherman]

I should have clarified. I’m a historian, and I was putting forth the broadly accepted historical answer to the question. Various faith traditions have different answers to the questions, but historians are nearly unanimous in their view.

Matthew may have written a Hebrew gospel, but the version of his Gospel we currently have is not a translation from Hebrew.

 

[fredystairs]

Matthew may have written a Hebrew gospel, but the version of his Gospel we currently have is not a translation from Hebrew

What evidence do you have?

 

[theCardinalbird]

I should have clarified. I’m a historian

Ahh. Okie

(16 characters)

 

[billsherman]

What evidence do you have?

A forum isn’t the best place to get too deep into it, because the evidence is based off textual criticism - which requires lots of space to properly work through. The best sources are the three books John P. Meier (a Catholic priest!) has written on Matthew, especially his aptly titled “Matthew.”

In short, the evidence boils down to word selection and context. The text flows perfectly in Greek, and contains a number of Greek expressions, metaphors, and other clues that the writer was writing in Greek. In addition, while the author was clearly familiar with Jewish customs, most historians agree that the context shows it was written for a Greek audience. A book in Greek for a Greek audience makes perfect sense. It lacks the distinct context of a Jewish culture found in similar contemporary Jewish literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle of James.

I recommend looking at Meier’s work for a more in-depth analysis an many, many examples.

 

[fredystairs]

he text flows perfectly in Greek, and contains a number of Greek expressions, metaphors, and other clues that the writer was writing in Greek. In addition, while the author was clearly familiar with Jewish customs, most historians agree that the context shows it was written for a Greek audience. A book in Greek for a Greek audience makes perfect sense. It lacks the distinct context of a Jewish culture found in similar contemporary Jewish literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle of James.

This is interesting. Looks like we have divergent views, since The International Bible Commentary I quoted above says the exact opposite:

The following was taken from The International Bible Commentary: (pages 1253 - 4) “A careful reading of this gospel will reveal its Jewish background and origins. It emphasizes the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures, deals with concerns regarding Jewish understanding of the Law, Pharisaic traditions, and scribal interpretations, and focuses on the controversies with Jewish religious leaders.” “That the author is writing primarily to Jewish Christians is evident also in what he assumes of the readers. He takes it for granted that they are familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, Law and Prophets alike.”

The Greeks would not be familiar with this.

Blessings

 

[BartholomewB]

On another thread dealing with the same subject exactly a month ago, one poster quoted approvingly the introduction to Matthew in the 1941 Confraternity New Testament.

Writing for his countrymen of Palestine, St. Matthew composed his Gospel in his native Aramaic. … The Gospel was soon translated into Greek—possibly during the lifetime of St. Matthew or a little later; certainly before the close of the first century. The original has been lost in the course of time. The Greek text, however, is in substantial conformity with the original.

Look at those last two sentences. It’s a giveaway! If the original has been lost, on what evidence can the author of that Introduction be basing his assertion that the Greek text “is in substantial conformity with the original”?

[Add]
An apology to @Fredystairs.—I didn’t mean to address this comment to you. (The one below, yes, but not this one.) However, now that I’ve posted it, I can’t find a way to go back and change that. Sorry.

 

[BartholomewB]

First, there is the witness of St. Irenaeus, who, in about AD 180, wrote “Matthew also issued a Written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect,

You quote Irenaeus, Eusebius and Papias in support of the view that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Other writers from the Patristic period are also mentioned in the same connection from time to time. But did any of these writers claim to have seen, handled, or read a copy of Matthew’s Aramaic/ Hebrew Gospel? Or are they all simply repeating what would nowadays be called hearsay evidence?

 

[ratio1]

Hey guys
What do you think of this?
I wasn’t sure whether this is accurate or not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

for some reason i always thought they were written in Koine Greek. odd

Ancient Greek language has a multitude of different dialects and variants. The two most commonly taught today are Attic Greek and Koine Greek. Attic Greek is the language of the classical playwrights, historians, speakers, and philosophers: Sophocles, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Demonsthenes, Plato, Aristotle, and the like. Koine Greek means “common Greek”, and it came to be the common way that Greek was spoken and written in the centuries after Alexander. Koine Greek is much more simplified than Attic Greek – it is less subtle and more clear. Most passages in the New Testament are very clear and unambiguous, which was a surprising fact I realized upon learning Greek.

People who learn Attic Greek can generally read Koine pretty easily, but people who learn Koine often have difficulty with Attic authors.

 

[fredystairs]

You quote Irenaeus, Eusebius and Papias in support of the view that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Other writers from the Patristic period are also mentioned in the same connection from time to time. But did any of these writers claim to have seen, handled, or read a copy of Matthew’s Aramaic/ Hebrew Gospel? Or are they all simply repeating what would nowadays be called hearsay evidence?

First, I want to say that I’m not going to fall on my sword on this, but I’d like to keep the conversation going, to get your (and anyone else’s) further perspective on this.

First, I quoted several Church Fathers who stated that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. Are there any Church Fathers who state that he wrote in Greek? Papias, to my understanding, lived about the end of the First Century, so he would not have been that far removed from the actual writing of Matthew and would have known the tradition of the language of Matthew, even if he did not touch the book.

Second, there are several parts of the gospel where Matthew quotes the Old Testament and states that the prophesy had been fulfilled. See, for example, Matt. 1: 22-23 and 12: 17-21. If he was writing to Greek audience, it would not have made sense to show the fulfillment of the OT, because they would not have known the Old Testament prophesies.

Thoughts?

Blessings

 

[Reuben_J]

If Wikipedia is anything to go by, it says mathew was written in ‘Synaggoue Greek’.

Even disregarding Wikipedia, one can make a case for Greek, simply because it was the international language that was spoken by many educated (literate) people then. It is like using an official language when writing an important document.

It is interesting that Greek was also being used in the synagogues.

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaîon euangélion) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world. Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view). The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Writing in a polished Semitic “synagogue Greek”, he drew on three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community, called the M source or “Special Matthew”.

Gospel of Matthew

 

[BartholomewB]

Hi Fredystairs. I don’t wish to dispute the existence of some early Christian books, now lost, some of them in Greek and others in Aramaic or even possibly Hebrew. The quotations from Eusebius and others show that one of these books was attributed to Matthew. However, what Papias says about it would suggest, I think, that it may not have been a full “Gospel” but rather a collection of sayings, possibly even compiled—why not?—by Matthew himself.

In support of the “Aramaic Matthew” hypothesis it is commonly argued that the First Gospel is clearly directed at a Jewish readership. However, I don’t think this justifies the conclusion that it must therefore have been written in Aramaic. In Martin Hengel’s book Between Jesus and Paul he points out that in Jerusalem there were separate synagogues for Aramaic-speakers (“Hebrews”) and Greek-speakers (“Hellenists”). Many of the Hellenists had moved from Alexandria or other cities of the Diaspora to Jerusalem for religious reasons, not for economic benefit or for its amenities, which compared unfavorably with the big cities of the Diaspora. Hengel does not use the term “fanatic” but the gist of his argument is that, because they were religiously motivated returnees, the Hellenists in Jerusalem upheld stricter standards than the Hebrews and were consequently less tolerant of heresy such as that of Stephen and the other Hellenistic Jewish Christians. The seven deacons of Acts 6 were all Greek-speakers and evidently—in Hengel’s view—they were in fact being appointed as leaders of a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian community, which for linguistic reasons alone needed its own worship and other arrangements separate from those of the Hebrews. This suggests, I think, that there’s nothing anomalous or self-contradictory in the idea of a Gospel written in Greek and aimed at a Jewish readership. It doesn’t require us to postulate an Aramaic original.

Does this seem to make sense to you?

 

[Cathoholic]

Prodigal_Son:

Ancient Greek language has a multitude of different dialects and variants. The two most commonly taught today are Attic Greek and Koine Greek. Attic Greek is the language of the classical playwrights, historians, speakers, and philosophers: Sophocles, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Demonsthenes, Plato, Aristotle, and the like. Koine Greek means “common Greek”, and it came to be the common way that Greek was spoken and written in the centuries after Alexander. Koine Greek is much more simplified than Attic Greek – it is less subtle and more clear. Most passages in the New Testament are very clear and unambiguous, which was a surprising fact I realized upon learning Greek.
.
People who learn Attic Greek can generally read Koine pretty easily, but people who learn Koine often have difficulty with Attic authors.

.

Thanks for the excellent summary Prodigal_Son.

I’m going to copy this post of yours and put it in my reference files.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Joe_5859]

were the Gospels translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek?

Where were the earliest copies of the Gospels found?

The bottom line is that the earliest copies of the Gospels we have are in Greek.

Were some written in Aramaic or Hebrew first? The only Gospel about which I have seen that possibility raised is Matthew. My New Testament professor thought it likely that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew (there were certain phrases he thought supported that theory as they made a lot more sense and flowed more smoothly if you reverse-translated the Greek to Hebrew…I wish I could recall some specific examples, but alas I cannot). I don’t think that’s the majority position nowadays, but it was the traditional view for a long time. You can’t really say for certain without having an ancient copy that is in Hebrew.

 

[BartholomewB]

there were certain phrases he thought supported that theory as they made a lot more sense and flowed more smoothly if you reverse-translated the Greek to Hebrew

And do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father,” for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
John the Baptist’s warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matt 3:9 is a pun in Hebrew: abanim, stones, followed by banim, children.
However … the identical warning, word for word, turns up again in Luke 3:8.