Language of the New Testament
Was the New Testament originally composed in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew? Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to Greek.
What was the
original language of the documents that became the New Testament? For
centuries, the scholarly consensus was that it was written in Greek. But today,
a growing minority claims it was composed in the Hebrew or Aramaic language.
Moreover, to
explain the many surviving Greek manuscripts from the earliest centuries
of church history, supporters of this view allege 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 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
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 - (Acts 6:1-6,
17:22-31, Acts 21:37).
The New
Testament 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 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 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 - (Acts 9:1, Romans 1:1).
If
anything, the early church used all the linguistic tools at its disposal to
spread the gospel, and to great effect.
As Paul wrote:
- “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 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 faith was missionary-oriented, the original New Testament documents
were translated later 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 documents. Not once do these 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 into 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 in the New Testament. Most citations of the Hebrew
Bible in the New Testament are from the ancient Greek translation known as 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 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, often aspects
difficult if not impossible to represent accurately in 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 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 can not 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 in 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 is 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 in Hebrew. 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, in no way, communicate Paul’s
intended point.
The tenth reason
is practical. Again, the early church was focused on mission. By the first century, Hebrew had fallen into
disuse even among 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 logical and practical choice as the medium of communication. Hebrew would HAVE beEN aN impractical option.
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. And
there are no ancient translations of the New Testament from Hebrew originals
into Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Greek, etc.
MATTHEW
While
several church fathers claimed 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 church historian, Eusebius, approximately
two hundred years after the death of Papias.
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).
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 faith in Hebrew would make
little to no sense. And what is noteworthy about the claim for a Hebrew
original is the lack of any substantive and objective evidence.
The alleged
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 Greek 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, 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. Firstly, there is the issue of
historic accuracy. Secondly, the Greek New Testament is our only reliable
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.
Thirdly, 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 message?
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, questionable.
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).
Comments
Post a Comment