Were the Gospels translated from Aramic to Koine Greek?

[Medawlinno]

I’ve always supposed that, though they were written in Greek, they came from an Aramaic oral tradition.

 

[Arkansan]

Mark, Luke, and John were originally written in Greek, though the conversations they record would mostly have been in Aramaic.

A near-contemporaneous source says that Matthew was written in Hebrew (by which it probably meant Aramaic), though we have no extant Aramaic (or Hebrew) copies of Matthew. Many modern scholars believe they know better than people who were actually living at the time, but such opinions are arrogant and of no value.

 

[fredystairs]

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.

First thank you for your post. There are some things that I have to think about. I do not have a copy of Hengel’s book.

I wanted to ask about your quote above. It seems to me that there are two possibilities. Either Papias was talking about Matthew’s gospel, which, if correct, we no longer have in the original Aramaic, OR he was referring to another writing which is only a collection of sayings. Is there any evidence that there was this other writing? I’ve never heard of this before, that’s why I ask.

Thanks and blessings

 

[BartholomewB]

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).

That’s my source for what Papias says! “He arranged the Lord’s oracles in order.” The word “oracles” in this context means simply “sayings” (logia in Greek).

 

[pnewton]

I’ve always supposed that, though they were written in Greek, they came from an Aramaic oral tradition.

Yes, and with a Hebrew mindset. We surely should have a little humility when approaching Scripture. Three languages and two millennia make for tricky understanding. Matthew in particular seems to use Hebrew phrase, spoken in Aramaic and then written in Greek.

It kind of makes one understand why a living authority was needed.

 

[NoelFitz]

were the Gospels translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek?

We have no evidence that the Gospels were translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek.

 

[rcwitness]

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?

I will try to find a source, but im pretty sure St Jerome had stated that he personally saw a Hebrew original.

 

[BartholomewB]

I will try to find a source, but im pretty sure St Jerome had stated that he personally saw a Hebrew original.

Thank you, I look forward to that.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

I will try to find a source, but im pretty sure St Jerome had stated that he personally saw a Hebrew original.

Thank you, I look forward to that.

http://hebrewgospel.com/Jeromes Scholarly Speculation.php

It sounds like Jerome had doubts to its authenticity later in life. I think this has to do with the content being different enough from the Canonical Greek Matthew.

 

[BartholomewB]

That was quick! Thank you! There’s a lot there that needs to be read very carefully. Several years ago I read some, possibly even all, of the apocryphal gospels in M. R. James’ book. I don’t now remember them in any detail, but I clearly recall my general impression that they were plainly very different from the four canonical gospels. I must have another look at them now, in the light of your new material. As you say, Jerome seems to have changed his mind over the years about the authenticity of the book in the library at Caesarea.

 

[RedFan]

Most NT quotes of the OT, including those in Matthew, are from the Septuagint (I’ll use the German Bible Society’s online version):

Matt. 1:23 / Is. 7:14 – The Codex Sinaiticus (Iδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξι και τεξετε YN και καλεσουσι- το ονομα αυτου Eμμανουηλ) and the Codex Vaticanus (Iδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου Eμμανουηλ) agree almost perfectly with the Septuagint version of Is. 7:14 (ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ) – suggesting that Matthew quoted from the Greek and not from the Hebrew version of Is. 7:14, which would have been rendered “behold, a young woman shall conceive” instead of “behold, a virgin shall conceive.” (Unless, of course, an editor made the change.)

Matt. 3:3 / Is. 40:3 – The Codex Sinaiticus (φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω· ἑτοιμασατε την οδον KY ευθιας ποιειται τας τριβους αυτου) and the Codex Vaticanus (φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν KY εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ) agree almost perfectly with the Septuagint version of Is. 40:3 (φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ῾Ετοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν) – suggesting that Matthew quoted from the Greek and not from the Hebrew version of Is. 40:3, which would have been rendered "make level in the desert a highway” instead of "make His paths straight.” (Unless, of course, an editor made the change.)

We will find the same true of Matt. 9:13’s quote from Hosea 6:6 – the Septuagint version of Hosea 6:6 ((“I desire mercy and not sacrifice”) has made it into the earliest versions of Matthew, but if the Hebrew Bible had been used it would have been rendered differently (“I desire goodness and not sacrifice”).

Earliest versions of Matthew likewise display Septuagint quotes rather than Hebrew Bible quotes for Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4; Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10; Matt. 15:9 / Isaiah 29:13; and Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nice scholarship there.

 

[ratio1]

Most NT quotes of the OT, including those in Matthew, are from the Septuagint (I’ll use the

I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand your logic here, do you mind clarifying for me please?

Firstly when you mentioned the Hebrew Bible, which version are you talking about? Are you referring to Maoretic text that was determined many years after Matthew was written? Or some other version?
I’m by no means an expert in Hebrew but I do have an interest and know a little bit. Those passages you quoted, aren’t they just different translations of the same Hebrew word? It doesn’t really support the case for it being originally written in Greek.

Again I could be totally mistaken so I do apologise in advance.

 

[RedFan]

No apology necessary. I was comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic text, and simply noting how often our earliest versions of Matthew match the former rather than the latter.

Now, it could be that the Masoretic text is, in each and every instance quoted, not faithful to the original and that, in each and every instance, the OT version that was available to and used by Matthew had different Hebrew words that perfectly matched the Greek of the Septuagint under any reasonable translation, and just got bastardized over the next thousand years. But the more instances of discrepancy, the less likely that becomes in my view.

 

[ratio1]

Thank you. I hope you don’tind me asking further as I still don’t quite get it.
Are there Other Greek translations of Massoretic texts that Matthew doesn’t match? Or are you simply talking about the English that doesn’t match?

 

[RedFan]

I am not concerned with English at all. I used Sinaiticus and Vaticanus – but if you need me to, tonight I can try to find other early Greek manuscripts for you.

 

[ratio1]

That’s ok. Let me do some research first and I’ll come back to you. Perhaps I can resolve it on my own. Thanks for your time.

 

[Ron_Conte]

My understanding (a minority opinion) is that Matthew was written in Hebrew (not Aramaic) as Jerome states; Mark was written in Latin as Baronius says (some of the oldest manuscripts of Mark are Latin); Luke was written in Greek; John was written in Aramaic. There are various theories about which book was written in which language. The majority opinion (everything in Greek) is not a proven fact.

 

[BartholomewB]

My understanding (a minority opinion) is that Matthew was written in Hebrew (not Aramaic) as Jerome states; Mark was written in Latin as Baronius says (some of the oldest manuscripts of Mark are Latin); Luke was written in Greek; John was written in Aramaic. There are various theories about which book was written in which language. The majority opinion (everything in Greek) is not a proven fact.

There are no proven facts. I think we can all agree on that. If there were proven facts, there’d be nothing for us to talk about on this thread.

Jerome and Matthew.―Please take a look at @rcwitness’s post higher up on this thread. In later life Jerome seems to have changed his mind about the book he saw in the library at Caesarea.

The Fourth Gospel.―I had never heard until now about a theory that John was originally written in any language other than Greek. Can you give references, please?

 

[rcwitness]

I think that its possible that the “Hebrew Gospel” was a genuine book from the Apostles, and that the other gospels took from it. However, even if it was found, it likely cannot be considered Scripture, since the Canon was officially closed.

That may not mean it was never a true letter from the Apostles, but that it wasnt intended to be part of Scripture by the Lord.

Just my two cents…