The Original Language of the New Testament

We have always been taught that the “New Testament” was originally written in Greek.  However, there is a growing movement that suggests that it was originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic (the same language as the “Old Testament”).
So, which is right?
Here is an interesting article by Jeff Benner on the subject:

Archaeological Evidence of a Semitic NT

For many years it has been taught that Greek and Aramaic were the languages of Israel during the Second Temple period (530 BC to 70 AD). However, over the past fifty years more and more evidence has surfaced that the language of the Jews in Israel during this time was in fact Hebrew. Below are some of discoveries supporting this theory.

In 135 CE Shimon Ben Kosiba (Simon Bar Kockba) lead the final revolt against the Romans. The image below is a fragment of a parchment which begins, “From Shimon Ben Kosiba to Yeshua Ben Galgoula and to the men of the fort, peace…” This is a letter from Shimon himself to one of his leaders in the revolt and it is written in Hebrew.

 

All coins minted in Israel during the second Temple period include inscriptions written in Hebrew. The coin on the left is written in the late Semitic script bearing the inscription “yerushalem” (Jerusalem). The coin on the right is written in the middle (paleo) Hebrew script with the word “sh’ma” (hear).

 

The many scrolls and thousands of fragments uncovered in the Dead Sea Caves were written from between 100 CE and 70AD. Some of these scrolls and fragments are of Biblical book but others are secular works concerning day to day business. Of all of these scrolls and fragments, approximately 90% are written in Hebrew while only 5% are in Aramaic and 5% in Greek. While most of the Hebrew inscriptions use the late Hebrew script, some of them use the more ancient early (paleo) script such as the image below which is a portion of the book of Leviticus.

Jewish perception of the Greek language and culture

The book of Maccabees, one of the books of the Apocrypha, tells the story of the Jewish Revolt about 150 years before the time of the New Testament. The Greeks, lead by Antiochus Epiphines, conquered the land of Israel and forced the Jews to leave their national heritage and the Torah and begin following the Greek culture. Because of the Jews hatred for all things Hellenistic, including the culture and language, Judah Maccabee lead a revolt against Antiochus Epiphines, both expelling the Greeks and slaughtering those Jews that had adopted the Greek language and culture. This revolt demonstrates the Jewish hatred of the Hellistic culture and the incorrect assumption that the Jews freely adopted the Greek language during the time of the New Testament.

Josephus

Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who recorded Jewish life and sentiment during the time of the New Testament. In his work Antiquity of the Jews he writes “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations”. (Josephus, Ant.20.11.2)

Semitic origins of the Book of Matthew

While there are many textual evidences to show that the book of Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language, probably Hebrew, Matthew 5:3 is a good example of this.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The Greek word for “poor” is ptochos and means one who is destitute, afflicted, and lacking. What this verse is literally saying is “Blessed are the ones destitute/afflicted/lacking in the spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This does not make any sense. However, if we translate the Greek word ptochos into Hebrew we have the word aniy which also means destitute, afflicted and lacking. More literally the Hebrew word aniy means “bent down low” such as a poor person who is destitute. But, this Hebrew word can also mean one who is humble, in the same sense of bending down low.
Now, if we translate the Hebrew back into English we have, “Blessed are the humble in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” By understanding this passage from its Hebrew background, we are able to better interpret the New Testament Bible.
Another proof for an original Matthew is the overwhelming number of church fathers who had stated that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Papias (150-170 CE) – Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:39]

Ireneus (170 CE) – Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Against Heresies 3:1]

Origen (210 CE) – The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]

Eusebius (315 CE) – Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. [Eccl. Hist. 3:24]

Epiphanius (370 CE) – They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. [Panarion 29:9:4]

Jerome ( 382 CE) – Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist…. makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew. [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5]

Isho’dad (850 CE) – His [Matthew’s] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew. [Isho’dad Commentary on the Gospels]

Hebrew words in the Greek Texts

Contained with in the Greek text of the New Testament are many Hebrew words and phrases that have been transliterated from the Hebrew language into the Greek language. While many of these have been described as being “Aramaic,” there is no textual evidence to suggest that these are Aramaic rather than Hebrew, as the Aramaic and Hebrew language are very similar.

In the book of Matthew is the phrase “Eli eli lama sabachthani” (27:46). This is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “אלי אלי למה שבקתני” (eli eli lama shavaqtani), meaning “my God my God why have you left me.”
Below are additional Hebrew words found in the Greek New Testament.

Hebrew in First Century Israel

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia.

Aramaic displacing Hebrew as a spoken language

By the early half of the 20th century, modern scholars reached a nearly unanimous opinion that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel by the start of Israel’s Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BCE, and thus Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. However, during the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has qualified the previous consensus. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew also flourished as a living spoken language. Hebrew flourished until near the end of the Roman Period, when it continued on as a literary language by the Byzantine Period in the 4th century CE.

The exact roles of Aramaic and Hebrew remain hotly debated. A trilingual scenario has been proposed for the land of Israel. Hebrew functioned as the local mother tongue, Aramaic functioned as the international language with the rest of the Mideast, and eventually Greek functioned as another international language with the eastern areas of the Roman Empire. Communities of Jews (and non-Jews) are known, who immigrated to Judea from these other lands and continued to speak Aramaic or Greek.
Although the survival of Hebrew as a spoken language until the Byzantine Period is well-known among Hebrew linguists, there remains a lag in awareness among some historians who do not necessarily keep up-to-speed with linguistic research and rely on outdated scholarship. Nevertheless, the vigor of Hebrew is slowly but surely making its way through the academic literature. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls distinguishes the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the various dialects of Biblical Hebrew it evolved out of, “This book presents the specific features of DSS Hebrew, emphasizing deviations from classical BH.”[1] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that once said in 1958 in its first edition, Hebrew “ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC”, now says in 1997 in its third edition, Hebrew “continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period”.[2] An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew says, “It is generally believed that the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the Copper Scroll and also the Bar Kokhba letters, have furnished clear evidence of the popular character of MH [Mishnaic Hebrew].”[3] And so on. Israeli scholars now tend to take it for granted that Hebrew as a spoken language is a feature of Israel’s Roman Period.

1. Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986), p. 15.
2. “Hebrew” in ,The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edit. F.L. Cross, first edition (Oxford, 1958), 3rd edition (Oxford 1997).
3. Miguel Perez Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill 1997).

Textual evidence in the New Testament

Throughout the Old Testament, the writers would frequently make “word puns.” Here is a simple example of a word pun in the Book of Genesis.

And Yahweh Elohiym formed the human (adam) of dust from the ground (adamah)… (Genesis 2:7)

The Hebrew behind the word “ground” is אדמה (adamah, Strong’s #127) and is related to the Hebrew word אדם (adam, Strong’s #120). Here is another example.

And he said, what did you do? The voice of the blood (dam) of your brother is crying out to me from the ground (adamah).(Genesis 4:10)

In this verse the word דם (dam, Strong’s #1818) is related to the word אדמה (adamah, Strong’s #127).

These word puns can be found throughout the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They can also be found in the New Testament, but only if the Greek is translated back into Hebrew. One of these many word puns can be found in Matthew 3:9.

God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The Greek word for stones in this passage is λίθων (lithon, Strong’s #3037) and the word for children is τέκνα (tekna, Strong’s #5043). However, when these two words are translated into Hebrew, we have אבנים (ebemiym, Strong’s #68) for stones and בנים (beniym, Strong’s #1121) for sons.

God is able of these stones (ebeniym) to raise up children (beniym) unto Abraham.

These word puns pop up everywhere when the Greek New Testament is translated into Hebrew. In addition, Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer from the 16th Century had this to say about Hebrew and the New Testament.

“The Hebrew language is the best language of all… If I were younger I would want to learn this language, because no one can really understand the Scriptures without it. For although the New Testament is written in Greek, it is full of Hebraisms and Hebrew expressions. It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from a downstream pool.” (Martin Luther, Table Talk, quoted in Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes – Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984).

Source: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/nt_origins.html
When one considers that Hebrew and Aramaic were the original languages – rather than Greek – then that clears up a few things in the Greek that don’t entirely make sense.  James Trimm gives a few examples:

Acts 11:27-30

And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all THE WORLD,which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.Then the talmidim, each according to his ability,determined to send relief to the brothers dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul

Now this doesn’t make sense at all. Why would those in Antioch send relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA, if the famine was to strike all THE WORLD. They would be facing famine themselves. The solution lies in the fact that the word for “WORLD” in the Aramaic manuscripts is (Strong’s #772), the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word

 (Strong’s 776). This word can mean “world” (as in Proverbs. 19:4), “earth” (as in Dan. 2:35), or “land” (as in Dan. 9:15), and is often used as a euphemism for “The Land of Israel” (as in Dan. 9:6). Certainly the word here is not meant to mean “world,” but “Land of Israel.”

Mt. 26:9 = Mk. 14:3

And when Y’shua [Jesus] was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,

As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic werewritten without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR’BA (leper), and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar, it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant, or jar-maker, and not a leper.

Mt. 19:12 & Acts 8:26f 

….there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake….–Mt. 19:12 NKJV

So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority, under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship.–Acts 8:27 NKJV

The man in Acts 8:27 appears to be a proselyte to Judaism, since he seems to be making the Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem(Deut. 16:16). The Torah however, forbids a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew and from worshipping at the Temple (Deut.23:1f). This also raises the question of why one would become a eunuch (be castrated), for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. After all,eunuchs are excluded from the assembly of Israel. The word for “eunuch” in the Aramaic manuscripts of both of these passages is  which can mean “eunuch”, but can also mean “believer”, or “faithful one”, as it clearly means here.

Mt. 19:24 = Mk. 10:25 = Luke 18:25

…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

The word for “camel” in the Aramaic manuscripts is  which can mean “camel”, but can also refer to a “large rope,” which iscertainly the meaning here.

John 12:11 & 15:16

One word that the Greek translators often misunderstood, was the Aramaic word    which normally means “to go” or “to depart”, butis used idiomatically in Aramaic to mean that some action goes forward, and that something progresses “more and more”.

One case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word, and translated ittoo literally, is in John 12:11:

Because that by reason of him, many of the Jews went away (!?!), and believed on Jesus. (KJV)

 Now I have translated the Aramaic of this passage as follows:

Because many of the Judeans, on account of him,were trusting more and more () in Yeshua.

And John 15:16:

…that ye should go and bring forth fruit…KJV

I have translated from the Aramaic:

….that you also, should bear fruit more and more ()….

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/87858244/Hebraic-Roots-Version

The following is what scholars who have studied the Greek text of the NT have said:

“When we turn to the New Testament, we find that there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John, and, for the apocalypse.”  (Hugh Schonfield in An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, published in 1927, page vii)

“The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian;the language in which it was originally writtenis Aramaic, then the principle language of the land…” (C.C. Torrey in Our Translated Gospels, published in 1936, page ix)

“The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was Charles Cutler Torrey. (1863-1956) His work however, fell short of completeness. As a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case,some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct….  The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed most strikingly,through a comparison of parallel passages….  One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels were written in Greek….Another group of scholars; among them C. C. Torrey,comes out flatly with the proposition that the Four Gospels… including Acts up to 15:35 are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text….  My own researches have led me to consider Torrey’s position valid and convincing, that the Gospels as a whole were translated from Aramaic into Greek.”  (Frank Zimmerman in The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, published in 1979)

“Thus it was, that the writer turned seriously to tackle the question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel,and quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact …which was capable of the fullest verification….“  (Charles Fox Burney in The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, published in 1922, page 3)

“…this [Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew, appears at least,to be built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.”  (William Cureton in Remains of A Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, published in 1858, page vi)

“...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,and that the Greek translation, is a remarkably close rendering … of the original.”  (C.C Torrey in Documents of the Primitive Church, published in 1941, page 160)

“We come to the conclusion therefore, that the Apocalypse as a whole, is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic….”  (R.B.Y. Scott in The Original Language of the Apocalypse, published in 1928, page 6)

“In regard to Luke, it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels, it is the one which gives by far the plainest,And most constant evidence, of being a translation.” (C.C. Torrey in Our Translated Gospels, page lix)

Eusebius, in talking about Clement of Alexandria, said:

“In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly,he [Clement of Alexandria], has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures. The Epistle to the Hebrews, heasserts, was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrewtongue, but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.” (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:2)

Eusebius also wrote:

“For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his Country, some say that the evangelist Luke; others that Clement, translated the epistle.”  (Ecclesiastical History 3:38:2-3)

Jerome wrote:

“He (Paul), being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew: that is, his own tongue, and most fluently, while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew, were more eloquently turned into Greek.”   (Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)

The following is James Trimm’s observation of NT grammar:

It has long been recognized that the New Testament is written in very poor Greek grammar, but very good Semitic grammar. Many sentences are inverted with a verb > noun format, characteristic of Semitic languages. Furthermore, there are several occurrences of the redundant “and”. A number of scholars have shown in detail, the Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New Testament books.

In addition to the evidence for Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New Testament, the fact that serious grammatical errors are found in the Greek New Testament books may be added. Speaking of the Greek of Revelation, Charles Cutler Torrey states that, “it swarms … with major offenses against Greek grammar.”

He calls it “linguistic anarchy”, and says, “The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety, and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature.”

Torrey gives ten examples listed below:

1. Rev. 1:4 “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is, and who was, and who is to come.” (all nom. case)

2. Rev. 1:15 “His legs were like burnished brass (neutral gender dative case), as in a furnace purified“(Fem. gender sing. no., gen. case)

3. Rev. 11:3 “My witness (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.”

4. Rev. 14:14 “I saw on the cloud, one seated like unto a Son of Man (accus.); having

(nom.) upon his head a golden crown.”

5. Rev. 14:19 “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress

(fem), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.”

6. Rev. 17:4 “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things” (accus.)

7. Rev. 19:20 “The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neutral).”

8. Rev. 20:2 “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him.”

9. Rev. 21:9 “Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.), filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.”

10. Rev. 22:5 “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).” 

He goes on to list some mistakes in the Greek NT, which are corrected in the Hebrew and Aramaic:

In addition to grammatical errors in the Greek New Testament, there are also a number of “blunders” in the text, which prove that the present Greek text is not inerrant.One of the mistakes in the Greek New Testament may be found in Matthew 23:35, where Zechariah, the son of Jehoidai, (2Chron.24:20-21; b.San. 96; j. Ta’anit 69) mistakenly appears as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1).

This error was not to be found …in the ancient Hebrew copy which Jerome held. Jerome writes of Hebrew Matthew: “In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for ‘Son of Barachias’ I find ‘of Yoiada’ written.”

Another mistake in the Greek New Testament, is to be found in Matthew 27:9, which quotes Zech. 11:12-13, but falsely credits the quote to Jeremiah.

The Shem Tob Hebrew correctly attributes the quote to Zechariah, while the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta) simply attribute the quote to “the prophet.”

A further example: according to Matthew 1:17, there are meant to be 14 generations between the captivity and Yehoshua (Jesus).  The Greek texts only have 13 generations.  There are at least two solutions to this found in the Hebrew texts:

• The DuTillet Hebrew text includes an extra generation in verse 13 (an Abner in between Abiud and Eliakim
• The two oldest Hebrew manuscripts (both of the Shem Tob tradition) read “Joseph the father of Mary” in verse 16, instead of “Joseph the husband of Mary”.

I’m not entirely sure which one is correct (although I lean towards the second one), but either way, the Hebrew preserves an original reading lost to the Greek translators.
Conclusion
I’m sure there’s MUCH MORE to be said on the subject (there’s simply too much info to include in one place), but suffice it to say, the “New Testament” was originally written in HEBREW and ARAMAIC, not Greek.