The predominant teaching for centuries has been that the Apostolic Scriptures (i.e., the New Testament, so-called) were first penned in Greek. But on close investigation this position becomes suspect, at best.
We know from history that at the time of Yeshua there were principally four languages spoken variously throughout the regions of the Mediterranean Basin: Latin (origin: Rome), Greek (origin: Greece), Hebrew (origin: Israel, primarily the religious Jewish), and Aramaic (origin: Syria; with Syriac being a synonym for Aramaic). The latter two of these are of Semite origin, and considered by linguists to be sister languages, although there are differences. In addition, there was, and is, both an Eastern and a Western Aramaic, the primary differences being in their differing vowel pointing systems, and thus resulting pronunciation. Most scholars agree that the Eastern Aramaic would be the original used by Yeshua and the Apostles during the First Century. Its primary source into Israel would have been through the return of the Southern Kingdom from its exile in Babylon, under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, c. 458 – 420 B.C. We discern from Daniel 2:4 that Aramaic was the language of the Babylonians. The Medes and Persians conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., without a battle involved, and thus ruled the huge eastern region until 332 B.C. It was in 538 B.C. that King Cyrus of Persia issued a decree permitting the Jewish exiles from the southern kingdom of Israel to begin a return to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-2). This resulted in small contingents of returnees spread over many years, with the rebuilding of the Temple being completed in 516 B.C., some 70 years after its destruction.
An earlier influx of Aramaic, although likely less influential, would have come from the Assyrian incursions into Israel from the north, beginning c. 740 B.C. and continuing to about 722 B.C. Assyria’s pattern for conquering was one of capture and deportation of large numbers, augmented by Assyrian importation of replacement numbers, thus ensuring a change of language and culture. We see Biblical evidence of this pattern’s consequences in 2 Kings 18:26 (cf. Isaiah 36:11, Ezra 4:6-7).
The lingua franca (1) of the huge block of territory east of the Mediterranean Sea, and between the Persian (Arabian) Gulf, as we know it today, and the Caspian Sea to the north, which encompassed Media, Persia and Elam to the east, and Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria and Mesopotamia (i.e., much of the Fertile Crescent) westward, was Aramaic. Considering the geographical aspects in relationship to Israel, combined with the historical incursions and deportations noted above, it is no wonder that Aramaic spread into Israel. For many centuries it served as the language of international diplomacy and commerce throughout the whole region.
There is Biblical and historical evidence that the Apostle Paul penned considerable of his letters in Aramaic, either through a scribe or in a few instances by his own hand. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, naturally wrote to congregations where in many instances Greek was the predominant language. No doubt Paul spoke Greek, but it was not his native tongue. (2) The expectation was that Paul’s letters would be targummed (i.e., translated from the Aramaic into Greek) at and for the local assembly to which they were addressed. (3) The accuracy of those translations would not have always been consistent.
For example, the Book of Galatians is regarded as problematic by many linguists familiar with both Aramaic and Greek. Indeed, even today there is much dispute among religious factions as to the intended meanings found in Galatians. This author believes, as a consequence, that Galatians is the most misunderstood book of all the Pauline epistles. The Book of 1 Corinthians however is generally regarded as being of an accurate translation.
Speaking to the overseers of the assembly at Ephesus, Paul has stated in Acts 20:29, “… after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.” These were the ones determined to misconstrue the teachings of Paul. Interestingly, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accused. O Lord come!" (emphasis added). The Greek word for accused is anathema, meaning a vehement denunciation or curse. The English translation of O Lord come in the Aramaic is Maran Atha [our Master comes]. Roth raises the question, why would Paul use this Aramaic term when writing to a Greek audience? He [Roth] proffers that it may have been an intentional “code” expression or distinguishing mark embedded in the text and used by Paul to distinguish the authenticity of his letter’s content, over those “wolves (Acts 20:29)” who would attempt to corrupt or discredit Paul’s writings and teachings. This is known to have occurred through circulation of false versions presented as originals. Supporting evidence for this would seem to be found in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 (cf. 2:1-3) and in Colossians 4:18. Again, it is known that Paul routinely dictated his letters to a scribe (see Romans 16:22, e.g.), but apparently it became a custom for him to insert a closing greeting in his own handwriting. This served as a means of personalizing the letter and also to authenticate it.
Additionally, Paul always traveled with one or more persons capable of translating for him when speaking to Greek audiences. These included such Biblical characters as Barnabbas, John-Mark, Silas and Luke. Although regarded by most historians as a “Gentile proselyte,” Luke was born and raised in Antioch, Syria. Syrian Antioch at the time had a large native speaking Aramaic population. Luke the physician would most likely have been trained in Greek schooling for his medical background. Thus his ability to translate from Aramaic into Greek would have been evident. Acts Chapter 10 would seem to confirm that Hebrew synagogue services were also routinely translated from the Hebrew into Greek for those such as Cornelius who were native Greek speaking believers.
Another compelling indication that the Gospels would have been originally penned in either Hebrew or Aramaic is the abundance of Hebraisms, such as sentence structure or syntax, (4) and word puns (5) common to the Hebrew, but not present in the Greek or English.
The Book of Matthew, for example, contains multiple uses of the word “and,” more so than typically used in a writing originating in English or Greek. In the Hebrew, the letter vav acts as a conjunction (i.e., a word that connects such as and, or, but, than, etc.). The extant texts of Matthew in particular (mind you, not the original autographs, which we don’t have available) contain numerous vavs, many of which have been edited out through the translation process to enhance flow and syntax for the English reader.
Additionally, the common use of word puns in writings and narratives is unique to the Hebrew language. They appear throughout the Hebrew Bible, but rarely occur in a book having been translated into the Hebrew from either Latin or Greek. The revelation of this was brought to the forefront in 1987 by George Howard, an American scholar from Macon University, at Macon, Georgia. In his book, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, Professor Howard identified 36 Hebrew word puns throughout the Book of Matthew. (6)
For historical background, quoting from A Prayer To Our Father, by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson [Gordon, A Prayer To Our Father: 27-31]:
“…after the time of the Church Fathers, Hebrew Matthew disappeared from the historical
Record for nearly 1,000 years before turning up again in 1380. In that year a Jewish Rabbi
in Spain named Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut copied Hebrew Matthew as an appendix to his polemical work Even Bohan. At that time, many of the Jews living in Catholic countries were routinely forced to defend their faith in public debates with Catholic authorities. These debates were disastrous for the Jews, who could be forcibly converted to Catholicism if they lost or banished from their homes if they won. Shem Tov wanted the Jewish participants in these debates to be familiar with the New Testament, so he added a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew to the end of his book.”
Gordon additionally reports that one of the First Century Church Fathers, Papias, wrote:
“Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it
as he was able.” (7)
Additionally, Gordon notes the Fourth Century Church Father, Jerome, wrote:
“The first evangelist is Matthew, the publican, who was surnamed Levi. He published
his Gospel in Judaea in the Hebrew language.” (8)
To provide the reader with an example of a word pun, we reference Matthew 1:21:
“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus [Yeshua], for
He will save [yoshia] His people from their sins.” (clarifications added).
Here, a common second Temple name of Yeshua was an abbreviation for the ancient name of Yehoshua, and means salvation. The three English words “He will save,” expressed in the Hebrew is “yoshia.” Both words sound very similar when pronounced in the Hebrew and, in fact, share a common word root. Thus their use in the above verse constitutes a word pun, but this is lost in both the Greek and English.
Another word pun found in the Torah, for example, is from Genesis 2:7:
“And the Lord God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground [adamah], and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (clarifications added).
Here, we see that the first man of creation is called Adam (from Gen. 2:19-20), because he was made from the ground, called adamah in the Hebrew. So, the name Adam, “man,” is related to
adamah, “ground;” however, this word pun is also completely missed by any English speaking reader.
When one considers that numerous word puns are found throughout the entirety of the Biblical text, and this particular literary device is uniquely Hebrew, it provides a compelling argument for questioning if the Apostolic Scriptures were in fact originally penned in Greek.
And finally, one needs to inquire about the rationale for Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Biblical writers, whose native tongue and culture were decidedly Hebraic, penning or dictating their inspired words in Greek, a language which some may have been familiar with to a degree, but certainly did not represent their native vernacular.
(1) Literally, a medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
(2) Most anyone expresses himself more accurately and comfortably in his vernacular (native) language, as opposed to a vehicular (learned secondary) tongue.
(3) See the Aramaic English New Testament, 3rd Ed., by Andrew Gabriel Roth, Pgs. 716-717, ISBN 978-1-934916-26-1.
(4) The study of rules for forming grammatical sentences; the pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a given language.
(5) In scholarly jargon, “paronomasia.” A word pun is a play on words using two similar sounding Hebrew words placed in close proximity, creating a pleasing flow to the Hebrew narrative, and simultaneously imparting an instructional memory aid through the choice of the words’ definitions and similar sounds.
(6) From what has become known as “Hebrew Matthew,” or the “Shem Tov Matthew.”
(7) From The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, translated by C.F. Cruse, Grand Rapids, 1971, Pg. 127. As an interesting foot note, Eusebius states: “The author here, doubtless, means the Syro-Chaldaic [i.e., Aramaic], which is sometimes in Scripture, and primitive writers, called Hebrew.”
(8) From Jerome: Letters and Select Works (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series), volume 6, Pg. 495.”
Comments