The "Greek" New Testament The books of the New Testament were preserved in Greek for our use. There are no original editions of any of the New Testament books in Hebrew. Existing copies in Hebrew are later copies made from the earlier Greek editions. It really doesn't require much effort in most public libraries or on the Internet, to confirm this.
For example, Tyndale's Illustrated Bible Dictionary article, "Language of the New Testament", explains the following.
"The language in which the NT documents have been preserved is the 'common Greek' (koine), which was the lingua franca (common language) of the Near Eastern and Mediterranean lands in Roman times. ... It exercised influence in vocabulary upon Coptic, Jewish Aramaic,rabbinical Hebrew and Syriac, and was spoken as far West as the Rhone valley, colonized from the province of Asia. ... It is the direct ancestor of Byzantine and modern Greek...".
"During the period of our NT writings, under Roman domination, the koine (common Greek) was exposed to the influence of Latin, and this has left its mark upon the language. However, this impression is mainly upon vocabulary and is to be seen in two forms, transliterated words and literally transposed phrases." An attempt has been made to argue that Mark's Gospel was originally written in Latin, but this thesis has not met with acceptance. "As regards the language of Mark, it should also be noted that Latinisms of both kinds are to be found in Matthew and John and even in Luke, while the African Latin text, claimed as the original text, is in fact extant for all four Gospels, and not only for Mark."
"...in the NT writings we meet the particular problem of Semitisms, i.e. abnormal locutions which reveal an underlying or otherwise influencing Hebrew or Aramaic."This influence is interpreted by those promoting "Hebrew names" as a "proof" that the NT was originally in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown just the opposite to be true.
"Much that seemed curious to earlier scholars and was put down to Hebraism has, since the discoveries of the papyri, proved to be but the common Greek of the period. ... Hebraisms are mainly of Septuagintal origin. The Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible text chiefly known and used in the period of the formation of the NT. Its influence upon the NT writers varies." Tracing this influence is somewhat difficult, "because of different strata in the LXX itself, some parts of which are written in idiomatic koine, others in good literary koine, while the Pentateuch and some other portions, largely for reverential reasons, closely adhere to the Heb. text, even when this entails a certain wrestling of the grammatical usage of Greek."
In other words, the "Hebrew or Aramaic" influence on the Greek NT is traceable directly to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. This Greek version of the OT, was widely distributed for three hundred years prior to the writing of the NT books.
"The Greek of the NT, however, is not translated from Hebrew; and where (citations, etc., apart) Hebraism is observable, it is in works otherwise high in the scale of stylistic and literary elegance in the NT. These are Luke, whose Septuagintalism is probably the result of deliberate pastiche, and Hebrews, whose author is steeped in the LXX while himself being capable of a highly complex and subtle Greek style. In Revelation the author's Greek, basically koine, has been moulded by his Semitic mother-tongue. For instance, the verbal pattern of Hebrew and Aramaic has been imposed thoroughly upon his usage of the Greek verb, and Hebrew influence may be seen in the numerals. The resultant style is thoroughly Semitized but distinct from Septuagintal styles."
"There has been considerable debate over the appropriate dialect of the widespread Aramaic language, in which the sayings of Jesus may be presumed to have been uttered and preserved."Notice that Aramaic is a language with it's own dialects, it is not a dialect of Hebrew. It was the daily language of Palestine during the lifetime of Christ.
"The more ambitious hypotheses which find all the Gospels and parts of Acts to be translations from Aramaic have failed to meet with general acceptance. More sober positions need to be taken up."
"Mark is written in the Greek of the common man: ..." "Matthew and Luke each utilize the Marcan text, but each corrects his solecisms, and prunes his style,...". "Matthew's own style is less distinguished that of Luke--he writes a grammatical Greek, sober but cultivated, yet with some marked Septuagintalisms; Luke is capable of achieving momentarily great heights of style in the Attic (Greek literary form) tradition, but lack the power to sustain these; he lapses at length back to the style of his sources or to a very humble koine. In both Evangelists, of course, the Aramaic background of the material reveals itself again and again, especially in sayings. ... John's Greek... appears to be koine written by one whose native thought and speech were Aramaic;..." "Acts is clearly the work of Luke, whose style fluctuates here as in the Gospel... and remains at the mercy of his sources."
"Paul writes a forceful Greek, with noticeable developments in style between his earliest and his latest Epistles." "Hebrews is written in very polished Greek of one acquainted with the philosophers,..." "James and 1 Peter both show close acquaintance with classical style, although in the former some very 'Jewish' Greek may also be seen. The Johannine Epistles are closely similar to the Gospel in language, but are more uniform and, even, duller in style,..." "Jude and 2 Peter both display a highly tortuous and involved Greek;..."
"So NT Greek, while showing a markedly Semitic cast in places, remains in grammar, syntax and even style essentially Greek."
"In summary, we may state that the Greek of the NT is known to us today as a language 'understanded of the people', and that it was used with varying degrees of stylistic attainment, but with one impetus and vigour, to express in these documents a message which at any rate for its preachers was continuous with that of the OT scriptures--a message of a living God, concerned for man's right relation with himself, providing of himself the means of reconciliation. This gospel has moulded the language and its meaning so that even the linguistic disciplines of its analysis become ultimately parts of theology."Note that this article repeatedly refers to the Aramaic language as the language of the NT era, and not to Hebrew. In many pro-names articles, the terms are used as if they are interchangeable, or as though Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. [For a complete bibliography for this article, see Appendix 2].
"At the time the NT was written a revised Atticism was popular, an essentially artificial movement which affected to recognize only 5th-century Attic Greek as the norm. But there were notable secular writers, such as Plutarch, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus and Epictetus, who shunned Atticism, and the NT itself represents a revolt against it by its use of the vernacular tongue. 'Koine is not, as it were, pure gold accidentally contaminated, but something more like a new and serviceable alloy' (Moule). The LXX had already set a precedent for such a use of popular Greek, and the writers, all of whom might have written in Aramaic, wrote in Greek from deliberate choice. The literary standard of their work of course varies enormously. 2 Peter most nearly approaches a fully literary level, and Luke and the author of Hebrews are also conscious stylists, But Luke and Paul, though obviously capable of speaking and writing Greek in its classical form (cf. the prefaces to Luke and Acts, and Acts 17:22ff.) did not hesitate to use highly colloquial forms. The extreme case is Revelation, written in laboured and sometimes barbarous Greek, which clearly reflects the influence of Semitic terms and modes of thought. But it still remains true that 'the Greek in which the author expresses himself was more like the Greek of the Egyptian papyri.' (A. Robinson)."
(Papyri, The Illust. Bible Dict., Tyndale, Vol. 3, pp. 1142-1150).We find much additional information is given in Tyndale's article, "Texts and Versions".
"From the time of the Exile, Aramaic spread as the vernacular language in Palestine, and was the commonly spoken language of the country in NT times, probably more so than Greek, introduced at the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great.
The Gospels record Christ's words in Aramaic on three occasions: Mk. 5:41--Talitha cumi; Mk 7:34--ephphatha, representing a dialect form of itpattah; and his cry upon the cross, Mk. 15:34--Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (cf. Mk. 27:46). When Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane he addressed God the Father as 'Abba', (which is) Aramaic for 'father'.
In Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6 Paul also uses this intimate form 'Abba, Father', as an intimation that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into the hearts of believers in Christ when they pray, 'Abba, Father'. Another Aramaism current in early churches, Maranatha (marana ta), 'Our Lord, come!' is recorded by Paul in 1 Cor. 16:22 Other Aramaic words found in the NT are Akeldama ('field of blood', Acts 1:19), and several place-names and personal names.
Acts 26:14 mentions that Paul heard the risen Christ speaking to him "in the Hebrew tongue' for which we should undoubtedly understand Aramaic. (see F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts 1954, p. 491 n. 18), as also in Acts 22:2."While no Hebrew or Aramaic originals of NT books have been found, "The Greek sources are very numerous." The itemized list begun in 1908 has been updated and reprinted several times. As of 1976, "there now appear 88 papyri, 274 uncial MSS (manuscripts), 2,795 minuscule MSS, and 2,209 lectionary MSS." But absolutely none in Hebrew or Aramic!
The papyri are important because of their age, dating from 100 AD to the 4th century. The later documents are uncials, manuscripts written in all capital letters, and minuscules or cursives, written in lower case. Manuscripts are divided into two groups, those containing continuous text, and lectionaries, those arranged according to the lections (lessons or daily readings) for the daily services and church festivals. Important among the uncials are Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, each containing all, or nearly all, the OT and NT, and dating from the 4th and 5th centuries."Towards the end of the 4th century a revision was made of an Old Syriac base to a Greek standard akin to Codex B of the Greek; this was the Peshitta, (Syriac, 'simple' translation) which in course of time became the 'Authorized Version' of all the Syriac churches."
(Note, there is an OT Peshitta and a NT Peshitta.)
"By the mid-3rd century, parts...of the NT had been translated from the Greek original into ...Latin, Syrian, and Coptic. From that time on, these versions were revised and expanded; and in their turn became the basis of other translations." "The majority of other versions are dependent on these."
"In other words, Christian scholars, where their activity may be discerned, were not creating new texts so much as choosing from a variety which already existed. In the Epistles their scope for choice was apparently less since only three forms (Alexandrian, Byzantine and 'Western') are found, but in Rev. there is a distinct fourfold pattern, yet one unrelated to the textual divisions of the Gospels."While some pro-names individuals insist there is "ample evidence" of an original Hebrew NT, no such document or even fragment of such document exists. The "evidence" presented to date, seems to consist of hearsay and laboriously constructed arguments. Even "if" an original Hebrew copy were to someday be discovered, it would not necessarily support the "names" doctrine. Since God has not seen fit to preserve it or allowed anyone to discover it for 2000 years (if it ever existed), then it is more likely that it will not affect anyone's salvation or affect blessings or cursings as the "names" doctrines suggest.
Forgeries Perhaps because of forgeries and false epistles being circulated among the churches, Paul signed every letter with his own signature (see 2 Ths. 3:17). [ Paul often used Luke and others as scribes to whom he dictated his epistles. See KJV chapter endnotes for 1Cor. 16; 2 Cor. 13, Eph. 6, Phil. 4, Col. 4, and Philemon.]
There exists many works called "NT apocrypha" in the forms of gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypse. These were apparently written for various reasons, i.e., attempts to fill in details not given in the canonized books, attempts to wrongly influence the understanding of doctrines, or attempts to preserve certain "traditions" as doctrines. These "forgeries" were written in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac (a language, not a Hebrew dialect), Arabic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon and contemporary West European languages. By the third century AD, the NT was being translated into numerous other languages including Syriac.
But the forgeries are not found in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages. This is a significant point. If one wanted to compose a realistic forgery, he would surely use the language of the original. The preponderance of forgeries in Greek and Latin indicate those to be the most prevalent versions of the NT available at the time. The absence of Aramaic or Hebrew forgeries also indicate the absence of Aramaic or Hebrew originals of NT books.
Some have gone to great lengths, even writing whole books, to attempt to prove that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. Sadly, their arguments often involve carefully selected quotes from obscure sources and from modern speculative works. Modern writers often quote each other to produce an argument with bulk but without substance. Any study of this subject at a public library will confirm that the fact that there is no original Hebrew New Testament. No amount of personal opinion or wishful speculation will change that fact.
In the 400+ years since William Tyndale's translation, people have heard the Gospel, been converted, practiced pure religion, done good works, and often done "a work", using a Greek/English translation of the NT. This doesn't present a problem for anyone except those who insist on the basic "names" arguments. Those arguments, or doctrines, are:
1) That Yahweh and Yashua (or one of the many various forms thereof) are the only acceptable "names" as far as the Father and the Son are concerned. All other "names" are merely "titles", of which many or all, have been "profaned" by application to pagan gods.
2) That failure to acknowledge and use the "Hebrew names" is a sin of omission.
3) That using the "titles" of so-called "pagan names" (God, Lord, Jesus Christ) in place of the "Hebrew names" is a sin of commission. Some call it "blasphemy".
4) That using the "Hebrew names" entitles one to specific blessings, including divine favor, protection, and even salvation itself.There are as many variations on these statements, and as just as many varying degrees of required conformity as there are proponents of the "Hebrew names". Some take a moderate approach, saying it is "better to use the "names" but not absolutely necessary".
The existence of the New Testament in the Greek language, and not in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages, disputes all these arguments.
Some have gone so far as to suggest that all the names for the Father and the Son in the NT were changed by editors. Accepting this theory would put us in the position of questioning the accuracy of the rest of the NT. The widespread proliferation of copies of the NT books, not to mention, the diverse locations of their origin and destination, make this theory unrealistic. (See "The New Testament Books", elsewhere in this article.) However, some have not only accepted that theory, but gone on to reject the entire NT including Christ and His gospel. Some speculate that the Jews did this "amazing" job of selectively editing multiple copies already in worldwide circulation. According to the Jews themselves, they "burned" all copies which they obtained. They didn't want to just change the written names of God and Christ, they wanted to completely stamp out "Christianity", the belief in Christ.
If the NT was inspired and preserved by God for our use, then it shows that it is not wrong to use kurios, theos and iesous where the OT uses yhwh, elohyim, or yehosua. The apostles used these terms which are easily translated into English as Lord, God and Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude are all examples that contradict the "names" doctrine. The alternatives are: 1) the theory that the NT has been the object of extensive and exhaustive tampering and therefore consists of gospel accounts, upon which we cannot rely, and, 2) the unprovable thesis that the NT was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, yet was not preserved by God for our use.
Accepting either of these theories, casts doubts upon the integrity and usefulness of the NT accounts, as well as the ability of God to preserve His word for our use in seeking salvation. Regardless of all the opinions and theories, the NT has been preserved in Greek and not in Hebrew.
The "Greek" Old Testament "The documentary evidence for the OT text consists of Hebrew MSS (manuscripts) from 3rd century BC to 12th century AD, and ancient versions in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac and Latin." (The Illustrated Bible Dict., op. cit.)
Moses was literate (Num. 33:2) so there is no need to speculate on a period of oral tradition after Moses. [Note, the "traditions" which Christ condemned were the "oral traditions" of the Jews which could not be legally written into the "law" (Deu. 4:2, 12:32), but which they did write down, beginning some time after Ezra (See Jewish Encyclopedia articles, Talmud; Mishna; Midrash)].The earliest Hebrew texts contain only consonants, and no punctuation or capitalization. This was not a problem as long as the Hebrew of Moses and the Prophets was a spoken language. However, when the Jews returned from captivity, many no longer spoke Hebrew. Aramaic was the language of Palestine. Over time, all languages change. For example, the book of Job, the oldest in scripture, is considered a more difficult form of Hebrew, than the later books. Even Palestinian Aramaic changed from the time of Ezra to the time of Christ.
Copyists called "scribes" were responsible for re-copying and transmitting the OT texts until they were succeeded by the "Massoretes" about 500 AD.
"It was not until about the 7th century of our era that the Massoretes introduced a complete system of vowel signs." "The Massoretes introduced vowel-signs and punctuation or accentual marks into the consonantal text. Three systems of vocalization had been developed: two supralinear (Babylonian and Palestinian) and one infralinear, except for one sign. This system, called the Tiberian, supplanted the other two, and is the one now used in Hebrew texts." "These 'vowel-indicators' were in origin, residual: they arose through 'waw' (w) and 'yod' (y) amalgamating with a preceding vowel and losing their consonantal identity, but they continued to be written, and in time came to be treated as representing long vowels. Their use was then extended to other words, where etymologically they were intrusive. Their insertion or omission was largely discretionary. (Texts, The Illust. Bible Dict., Vol. 3, pp. 1536-1552. Emphasis ours.)
In short, Moses wrote in 1490-1450 BC. The written language contained no vowels, without which one cannot pronounce the words, unless the spoken language is still in use. At one point, the "law" was "lost" for 50 to 100 years and later "found" (2 K.22:8). After the captivity, it was publicly presented to the people again in the time of Ezra (Neh. 8:1-8), when the language of Palestine was Aramaic, not Hebrew. The Massoretes introduced the vowel system in the 7th century (800's AD).
So about 2,290 years after Moses wrote, about 1,200 years after the restoration by Ezra, about 1,200 years after the language of Palestine had changed from Hebrew to Aramaic, about 900 years after the last book of the OT had been written, and about 600 years after the first known examples of "Mishnaic Hebrew", we have the Massoretes using a "largely discretionary" method of determining how to add vowels to the "Classical Hebrew" to indicate pronunciation.
"There never was an original vocalized text to restore." This helps us understand why there is no general agreement over the spelling or the pronunciation of the Hebrew names for the Father and the Son.
After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Masoretic Text was considered the "official" text. This was "edited by Jacob ben Chayyim for the second rabbinic Bible published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524-5 (and) came to be accepted practically a standard text." This eventually led to the "Hebrew Bible" (Jerusalem 1953).
Prior to the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls", the Masoretic Text of the OT was the oldest Hebrew version available. "The Dead Sea biblical MSS give us for the first time examples of Heb. texts from pre-Christian times, about 1,000 years earlier than our oldest MSS; ..." "The great significance of these MSS is that they constitute an independent witness to the reliability of the transmission of our accepted text."
The Greek "In" the Old Testament While pro-names supporters argue that the NT was not originally written in Greek, it is never mentioned that Daniel used Greek words in his book of the OT.
"The presence of the three Greek names for musical instruments (translated 'lyre', 'trigon' and 'harp' in [Dan.]3:5, 10), another of the arguments for a late date (of authorship of the book by someone other than Daniel), no longer constitutes a serious problem, for it has become increasingly clear that Greek culture penetrated the Near East long before the time of Nebuchadrezzar (cf. W.F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, 1957, p. 337; E.M. Yamauchi in J.B.Payne (ed.), New Perspectives in the OT, 1970, pp. 170-200)."
(Daniel, Book of, The Illust. Bible Dict., Vol. 1, pp.360-363)(Emphasis ours).
The Aramaic "In" the Old Testament Pro-names supporters usually concentrate on the 'Hebrew NT versus Greek NT' arguments while ignoring the fact that portions of the OT were preserved in Aramaic, not Hebrew. When the Aramaic portions are acknowledged, they are usually treated as irrelevant to the discussion by implying that Aramaic and Hebrew, as cognate languages, are "basically the same language". They are, however, two distinct languages.
The fact that the OT was preserved partly in Aramaic, by the Jews themselves, contradicts the pro-names arguments about transliteration and translation. It also contradicts the promotion of Hebrew as the only 'acceptable' language to God, and as the "language of heaven". It also adds to the variations in the spelling and pronunciation of the 'names' which contradicts all those groups which insist that their spelling and pronunciation is the only 'correct' form.
Proverbs. Regarding Pro.31:1-9, "The influence of Aramaic on this section is noteworthy (e.g. bar, 'son'; melakim, 'kings')." (Proverbs, The Illust. Bible Dict. Vol. 3, pp. 1290-1291).Ezra. "There are two sections which have been preserved in Aramaic (4:8-6:18; 7:12-26)". (Ezra, Book of, The Illust. Bible Dict. Vol. 1, pp. 494-495).
Daniel. "The Aramaic of Daniel (2:4b-7:28) closely resembles that of Ezra . . . and the 5th-century BC Elephantine papyri . . .". (Daniel, Book of, The Illust. Bible Dict., Vol. 1, pp. 360-363).
Note that in Dan. 5, Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar and king of Babylon, saw a hand write a message on his palace wall. According to Daniel, the message was from "the most High God". God could have had the message appear in any language including Hebrew. But the "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" of Dan. 5, is Aramaic. This contradicts the pro-names argument that Hebrew is the "language of heaven".
Song of Solomon. "The first of the five scrolls read at Jewish feasts, the Song is used at the Passover. . . . The presence of what seem to be Persian (pardes, 'orchard', 4:13) or Greek (appiryon from phoreion, AV 'chariot'; better RSV 'palanquin', 3:9) loan-words, . . . and numerous words and phrases akin to Aramaic . . ." (Song of Songs, The Illust. Bible Dict., Vol. 3, pp.1472-1474)
Jeremiah. Aramaic is the language of Jer. 10:11.
Genesis. Two words of Gen. 31:47 are Aramaic.
Names Index / Next
