Language of the New Testament
What was the original language of the documents that became the New Testament? For centuries, the scholarly consensus has been that it was written in the Koiné Greek dialect of the Eastern Roman Empire in the first century. However, there is a growing minority within the church that claims the New Testament was composed in the Hebrew or Aramaic language.
Moreover, to
explain the many surviving Greek manuscripts from the earliest centuries of
church history, and the complete lack of any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, supporters
of this view allege that the New Testament was translated into Greek from the
supposed Hebrew (or Aramaic) original at a very early stage.
Theoretically,
this claim, if true, could alter our understanding of the original biblical
faith. But does the evidence substantiate
the theory?
The New
Testament certainly provides examples of the earliest disciples speaking Greek,
including both Jewish and Gentile believers. For example, when Paul preached to
the representatives of the Greek philosophical schools in Athens, he used Greek
and even quoted a pagan Greek poet.
And that
makes perfect sense. After all, why would the Apostle to the Gentiles speak to the
Athenians in a language they did not know?
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
The book of
Acts also describes Hellenized Jews in the early church speaking Greek
in certain synagogues, including Stephen in the city of Jerusalem, the man who
became the church’s first martyr - (Acts 6:1-6, 17:22-31, Acts 21:37).
The New
Testament also provides evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, a language closely
related to Hebrew, but there are also indicators he understood and spoke at
least some Greek. How, for example, did he communicate with the Syrophoenician
woman if he only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic?
In the
gospel accounts, this woman is identified as both Canaanite and Greek (Hellénis).
In other words, she was a Hellenized Greek-speaking Gentile of Phoenician
descent - (Matthew 15:22, Mark 7:26, 15:34, John 12:20-24, Acts 6:1-6).
Nowhere
does the New Testament insist on the strict use of the Hebrew forms of names and
other terms derived from the Old Testament. It shows no hesitation on the part
of Jesus and the disciples to use Greek and other non-Hebraic terms and
languages when preaching the gospel, including Latin and the Greek forms of Old
Testament names.
The Apostle
Paul, for example, is called Saul or Saulos in the book of Acts.
But he never uses that name in his own writings. He always refers to himself by
his Greek name, Paul or Paulos. If anything, the early church used all
the linguistic tools at its disposal to spread the gospel, and to great
effect. As Paul wrote - (Acts 9:1,
Romans 1:1):
- “To the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews…to them that are without law, as without law…that I might gain them that are without law…I am become all things to all men, that I may, by all means, save some” - (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE
What is the evidence
for the original language of the New Testament?
First, all surviving ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, whether fragmentary
or complete, are in Greek, and no such manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic has ever
been found (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 36-66;
Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the N.T.
[Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990]).
Second, because the original faith was missionary-oriented, the New Testament documents were translated later from Greek into other languages, and relatively early in church history.
This includes the
Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions, all of which were made FROM GREEK
ORIGINALS (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 67-81;
Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1977; Kurt Aland and
Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 185-221).
Third, the
church fathers of the late first three centuries wrote letters in Greek in
which verbal allusions and quotations from the writings of the apostles are
based on original Greek texts. Not once do these early church leaders cite an
Aramaic or Hebrew original source - (1 Clement, the Didache,
Barnabas, Polycarp of Smyrna, and the Shepherd of Hermas) – (Bruce
Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp.
39-67).
Fourth, the ancient
New Testament documents that exist today give no indication of being translations
from another language. A document of any
length translated from one language to another always includes signs of being a
translation. It is unavoidable.
And this is
especially so when translating languages as radically different as Greek and
Hebrew – (Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament,
p. 52; A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament;
Nashville: Broadview Press, 1934; pp.
76-139).
Fifth, the
use of the Greek Septuagint and the Old Greek translations in the New
Testament. Most citations of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament are from the
ancient Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint, although some New
Testament authors used both the Hebrew and Greek versions (e.g., Matthew
and Paul). As Kurt and Barbara Aland
wrote:
- “The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament, which are from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and not from the original Hebrew text. This is true even of the rabbinic scholar Paul” – (Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 52).
Sixth, the New Testament documents translate
Aramaic and Hebrew terms and phrases into Greek, presumably, for Greek-speaking
audiences - (e.g., Mark 15:34 - [“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried
with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?’”]. Also, Matthew 27:46, Matthew 1:23, Mark
5:41, Mark 15:22, John 1:38, Acts 4:36).
Seventh, the authors of the New Testament
utilize aspects of the Greek language to great advantage, and often forms and
characteristics difficult if not impossible to represent accurately in Hebrew
or Aramaic. Again, Greek is a significantly different language in form ad syntax
than either Hebrew or Aramaic.
The examples are too numerous to list, but they
include alliteration, wordplays, synonyms, double and even triple negatives,
compound words, and so on, and often usages that are difficult to explain if
the Greek New Testament was translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original.
A good example is the opening clause of the
letter to the Hebrews where the author employs two like-sounding Greek words
to great rhetorical effect, a feature that cannot be duplicated in Hebrew or
Aramaic, and one that is difficult enough to represent in many if not most modern
languages without resorting to paraphrase:
- “[In] many parts and many ways (polumerôs kai polutropôs) of old, God, having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in the last days of these days, spoke to us in a Son.” – (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Eighth,
the Greek New Testament reflects the skill levels and personalities of each individual
author, something that is often lost in translation. And the individual books
show the varying abilities of their respective authors with the Greek language,
rhetoric, and so on.
If
a later hand translated a book from Hebrew into Greek, it would be difficult enough
to duplicate the writing characteristics of its author. If anything, the
tendency of later translators would be to correct any perceived clumsy syntax, grammatical
errors, and the like, on the part of the author.
Ninth,
the New Testament authors made theological points in Greek that could NOT
be made easily if at all in Hebrew or Aramaic. For example, Paul uses the term “body”
metaphorically for the church. But biblical Hebrew has no word that corresponds
to the Greek term rendered “body” or sôma. The closest it can
come is the noun for “corpse.” And the “corpse of Christ” would certainly not communicate
Paul’s intended point.
The tenth reason
is practical. Again, the early church was missionary
oriented. By the first century,
Hebrew had fallen into disuse even among many Palestinian Jews. Because of the
spread of the Greek language, it was spoken in much of the Roman world,
especially in the eastern half of the Mediterranean region.
Greek was
the de facto language of commerce. So much so, that Roman magistrates often
published official edicts in both Latin and Greek, though Latin was the official
language of the government. While not
everyone in the empire spoke Greek, it was used more widely than any other
language.
For a new religion committed to spreading its message to peoples of every nation, Greek was the most practical choice as the medium of communication. Hebrew would HAVE beEN impractical.
As for the
evidence for an original Hebrew New Testament, there are no existing ancient
Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of any New Testament letter, gospel, or book
surviving today, even if they ever existed. And there are no ancient
translations of the New Testament from Hebrew originals into Syriac, Latin,
Coptic, Greek, etc. All the ancient versions were made from Greek originals.
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
While
several church fathers claim that Matthew was composed in Hebrew, all such
claims are dependent on an unsubstantiated and ambiguous quotation from Papias
of Hierapolis that was reported by the church historian, Eusebius,
approximately two hundred years after the death of Papias. This means this piece
of evidence is second or third hand at best, little more than hearsay.
His alleged
statement was that the “sayings” or “oracles” of Matthew were
transmitted in Aramaic or Hebrew (the Greek noun he used can refer to either),
and it is not clear whether Papias was referring to the written gospel we now possess
or to oral traditions preserved and passed on by the church.
Since the
writings of Papias were all lost in the distant past, the accuracy of Eusebius’
brief and enigmatic quotation cannot be verified objectively – (Floyd Filson, Commentary
on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1971), p. 16).
Even if this
claim is true, at most, it constitutes possible evidence that the gospel of Matthew
as we now have it was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. But it is illogical to
assume from this that the rest of the New Testament documents were also written
in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There is another
practical point. Considering the church’s mission to preach the gospel “to
all nations,” writing the core documents of the new apostolic faith in Hebrew
or Aramaic would make little sense. And what is noteworthy about the claim of a
Hebrew original is the lack of any substantive and objective evidence to
support the proposition.
Moreover, the
proposal of a Hebrew original cannot explain why several New Testament authors
transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew terms into Greek letters and forms to
accommodate Greek-speaking audiences.
Nor does the
extensive use of the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, in the
New Testament make sense if it was originally composed in Hebrew for Hebrew-speaking
congregations.
In summary,
the evidence for Greek as the original language of the New Testament is
substantial, extensive, and even overwhelming.
In contrast,
the evidence for a Hebrew or Aramaic original is virtually non-existent and
amounts to an ambiguous and uncorroborated quotation from Papias of Hierapolis,
one that at most hints at the possibility of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of the
gospel of Matthew alone.
DOES IT MATTER?
Yes. First, there is the issue of historic accuracy.
Second, the Greek New Testament is our only reliable and objective source for
what Jesus and the apostles taught. Having an accurate representation of what
they wrote is vital to ascertaining correct Christian doctrine and practice.
Third, if we do not possess copies of what
the apostles wrote - if their original words have been filtered to us through
one or more intervening forms - it becomes difficult to have confidence in the
New Testament documents that we do have. How do we know whether later
translators corrupted the original Hebrew or Aramaic text?
As for restoring the alleged Hebrew or
Aramaic “original,” since we have NO copies whatsoever of any portion of
it, any attempt to restore the original Hebrew or Aramaic is speculative at
best, and therefore highly problematic.
Further Reading:
- The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. By Bruce Metzger, Oxford University Press; 4th edition (April 28, 2005).
- The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. By Bruce Metzger, Oxford University Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1977).
- The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. By Kurt Aland & Karen Aland. Eerdmans; 2nd Revised ed. edition (March 25, 1995).
- Invitation to the Septuagint. By Karen H. Jobes. Baker Academic; 2nd edition (December 1, 2015).
