I have read the theory that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and that several of the parables only make sense in Greek. Now I am aware that one of the Disciples knew shorthand so when we read the words of Christ we may be reading the actual words of the Lamb. I have heard scholars say that the Greek of the New Testament is not the Greek of an educated man but the local venacular; but people I know that are native Greek speakers say that the New Testament Greek is a very well written produced by very well educated men.

Alexander the Great conquered Israel in about 330BC and Greek was the lingua franca of the Polis and the new world created by Alexander. Was Greek the tongue of the common men rather than Armacic? Did the Lord speak in Greek? 330 years of control is a long time and even language changes in that amount of time.

I saw a TV special on the Dead Sea scrolls and one fragment was described as a being from the last of the New Testament books produced and from an examination of the scribes writting they dated it to within 25 years of the death of Christ. Now this changes the whole view of the New Testament as it appears that it was in circulation within the life time of people that knew Christ.

It being Christmas these are just things I have thought about. If anyone knows the answers or has more questions please post them. God bless you all.

"I have read the theory that the New Testament was originally written in Greek"

It was mostly written in Greek. The headnotes to a good study bible can explain the linguistic background to each book.

"several of the parables only make sense in Greek"

That I have not heard, but it is true that some passages -- most notoriously the passages in Romans about Adam's sin -- were rather loosely translated into Latin, changing the meaning slightly but significantly.

"Now I am aware that one of the Disciples knew shorthand so when we read the words of Christ we may be reading the actual words of the Lamb."

Even if that's not the case, we have to remember that the oral tradition was much more well developed then than it is now. Nowadays, thanks to writing and instant communication, anything that isn't written down or recorded on tape is considered unreliable 'hearsay'. In the ancient world, the lack of writing ability led to a much more highly developed ability to convey things with high accuracy orally. And, in any case, we Christians believe that the words written in the Gospels and elsewhere was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore whether or not it's a "direct quote" is less relevant, because in its essence it's what the Holy Spirit wants us to "take away" (to use a contemporary term) from the particular incident described.

"I have heard scholars say that the Greek of the New Testament is not the Greek of an educated man but the local venacular; but people I know that are native Greek speakers say that the New Testament Greek is a very well written produced by very well educated men."

It was not written in the classical Greek of the age -- it was written in the spoken form of the language. That's why, when you learn ancient Greek, you have to choose a period, because there are significant differences between classical ancient Greek (ie, the language of the philosophers) and NT Greek. In a nutshell, NT Greek is much simpler than classical Greek. It is likely that much of the NT was written by highly educated men -- but they simply chose a form of Greek to write in that would be intelligible to a greater number of people than would classical Greek.

"Was Greek the tongue of the common men rather than Armacic?"

No, Greek was the language of the educated. But the form of Greek used in the NT was more widely known -- even among the educated -- at that time than was classical Greek.

"Did the Lord speak in Greek?"

No evidence of that -- probably not.

"Now this changes the whole view of the New Testament as it appears that it was in circulation within the life time of people that knew Christ."

Certainly there were oral and probably some written traditions about the life of Christ in circulation at that time. There were also various letters in circulation among Christians. It was somewhat later, however, that these became organized into the forms we know today as the Gospels and Epistles.

Brendan

Brendan,
You said that there is no evidence that our Lord spoke in Greek. That maybe true. However, since his native tongue was syrianny (Syriac) and the language of the Roman Empire was Greek, don't you think that a rabbi/carpenter would be familiar with the Greek language since it was the part of the financial economy? Many Middle Easterns know multiple languages. What do you think was the language spoken with Christ's conversation with Pontius Pilate, or when he requested the tax money and said "Whose image and inscription is this?"(Mat 22:20). Was he able to read and see the Greek on the money? Just curious for your input.

C Roshdestvom Xristov'm,

I agree with Rum (for once). I seems only logical that our Lord probably spoke several local languages as a matter of commerce as I believe is common in the Isreal today.

Dmitri.

Robert, Dmitri --

It *could* be that Christ spoke Greek (it could also be, for example, that Pilate used an interpreter -- he likely had at least one) -- we just don't know. He likely did not speak Greek to the Apostles, however -- and so the Greek Gospels are likely a chosen linguistic vehicle for sayings of Christ that were in Aramaic/Syraic.

Brendan

Angelus...

Matthew (the educated Tax collector) wrote his own. Mark wrote Peter’s, and John also wrote his own. These three were originally written in the common 'Hebrew' of the time as the intended readers were the Jews of the Jerusalem area and Hebrew was the official language of the city, Temple services and synagogue. It is common sense to write in the language of your intended readers. These gospels were later copied to Greek and sent to the Jews in dispersion so they could also read them. Only the Greek copies sent outside Jerusalem survived. The apostles spent a long time in Jerusalem, attending Temple services and seeking to wake fellow Jews up to the fact that the Messiah had come. Some scholars claim that Koin Greek or Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus and the disciples, this is not true. Hebrew was the official language of the nation and Jerusalem was its capital. Note that during the arrest of Jesus, a slave girl was able to tell that Simon was from the district of Galilee (a Greek speaking area) by his Greek-tinged Galilean accent while speaking Hebrew. Those in the Galilean territories were considered traitors, not real Jews, as their day to day life was more Greek in culture while the Jerusalem Jews maintained traditions at all costs. Simon-Peter was so rough in Hebrew (only spoken in synagogue in Galilee) and not well educated in Hebrew script - that Mark wrote his gospel. The Hebrew originals (read in synagogues around Jerusalem and so probably kept in sympethetic synagogues) were probably lost when Jerusalem was burned by the Romans. When reading these gospels take note that the intended reader - is Jewish.

Luke's gospel was written in common Greek (as it was addressed to “most excellent Theophius” ). Its intended readers are Greek speaking gentiles. His sources were interviews with the apostles but, in reading his gospel, there are many events that only Mary could have told him. Tradition tells us he stayed a long time with Mary. The genealogy that Luke gives is a trace of Jesus through Mary’s line (even if the line goes through a daughter - the father is named) and it is the genealogy of the Queen Mother (yes, Israel had Queens as well as Kings). The Queen is the mother of the king, not the wife. Luke’s genealogy is intended to prove that Mary was credentialed to become Queen Mother if Jesus became King (which he became when the prevailing Roman authority of Pilot proclaimed him “King of the Jews” on the cross - an official act meant to spite Herod).

Matthew’s genealogy is a trace of those men who were appointed Son of David and next in line for the throne, not necessarily the first born in time as the jewish term "first born" means best or first in place. Note the difference in the Greek where Mathew's geneology has 'son of' between the names and Luke's uses 'out-of'. In many English translations the translator assumes that Luke's geneogloy is by first-born son in time, it is not. Translator's also assume Mathew's is first-born son in time, it is not nessesarily (but often is). Solomon (10th born son of David in time) was appointed Son of David and ascended the throne upon David’s death and Solomon’s mother - became Queen Mother.

And so Matthew's genealogy often identifies the Son of David through the Queen Mother. A king could have many wives and many sons could have the same name. Many later illegitimate kings (not of the line of David) made sure to marry a wife who was a legitimate daughter of the line of David - hence when her son ascended the throne the illegitimate king's family was legitimately grafted into the line of David, making a royal retirement secure and also securing his family fortune.

For a time, near the end, all kings of Israel were as illegitimate as Herod. No Son of David ascended the throne and silence was kept least they be killed. Only a Son of David could appoint the next Son of David. Joseph was a legitimate Son of David and that was legally passed to Jesus - who was his only legal son and at the same time also the son of a legitimate credentialed potential Queen.

None of the gospels were patterned after any other. Each was original as the apostle experienced the events. Think of this - take four good friends and go out and sit through the same movie. When the movie is over - all go home. The next day - have all four friends write about the movie telling the characters and the events of the movie. You will find that while there is an underlying similarity - each will be a bit different in areas because it is just human. Especially when they quote the characters in the movie regarding some spoken part - some will have ‘heard’ it or remember it just a bit differently than the next person. Some will have this or that out of the real sequence. Or imagine if all four people stood and studied the same painting and then afterward each wrote about the painting. Each “report” would have a similarity but differ according to the personality of each writer.

John’s gospel was the last written. It was written in old age at Patmos. His gives more details for two reasons - first - he may have been aware of the existing gospels and wanted to give more details - but most likely his details are more (notably in the events of the crucifixion) because of his own visions given in his letter we call “Revelation” which visions incorporate Daniel and Ezekiel and culminate in the crucifixion of Jesus and his revelation as the messiah-King-God (resurrection). The four visions of Revelation are one thing, repeated four times in different imagery (Eugenio Corsini - The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ). To John, the event of crucifixion and resurrection is the most important aspect of Christ being revealed as the messiah and Son of God. The decent of the New Jerusalum IS the resurrection of Christ and the birth of the new Church. Jesus came -once- into history. It was a total revelation. He shall not come that way again (that would be millenarism). His "second coming" (not a gospel term) is when -we- personally enter into the mystery of his fist coming. Jesus himself considered his "coming" not from the moment of his birth but the very moment of his death-resurrection. He came to 'us' now we must come to him.

There is a progression to the gospels. To Matthew - Christ was the expected King. To Mark (Peter) Christ was the prophet-messiah with authority over spirits. To Luke, Jesus was the messiah that was expected by the gentiles to come from the Jewish nation (hence the three gentile kings expecting the Jewish messiah-king and the gospel is addressed to the gentile Theophius). And to John - Jesus was the Son of God and God himself.

This is probably more than you wanted to know.

-ray

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: -ray ]

The Holy Scriptures were originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The major portion of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. In the Old Testament chapters 2-8 of Daniel, chapters 4-8 of I Esdras and the Book of Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach were composed in Aramaic, as was the Gospel according to Matthew in the New Testament. Second and Third Maccabees in the Old Testament, along with the Gospel according to Matthew and all the books of the Old Testament not recognized by the Jewish canon are preserved only in the Greek language, the originals in Hebrew and Aramaic being lost.

A great many words in the bible have not, and can not, be translated properly into other languages. Greek is a much more expressive language than English and on top of that, many of the current NT translations have intentional errors such as the New Revised Standard Version who's was intentionally de-gendered (for the feminist's) even where the original text was gender specific.

Some examples of other errors:
1) All heresy aside, there is indeed a difference between "Petras" and "Petros" in Matt 16 which means the author must wanted to make a disticntion to properly express himeself. The original Aramaic has been lost. This is actually a good example everyone can relate to of how things sometimes cannot be properly translated.
2) In Matthew 1:19 the English Bible says: "Joseph her huband", where in the Greek it does not mean "husband", it means a person who you are betrothed to. This is why Protestants are so easily confused about the relationship between Mary and Joseph.
3) Many times in English Hades is translated as "hell" when in fact there is a big difference in Greek. Christ did not decend into Hell.
4)The same ambiguity exists with the Greek word "aion" and it's adjective "ainios." Those are the two words in the New Testament from which the English translations of "eternal" and "derived".
5)Acts 1:20 - In this passage Luke quotes St. Peter remarking on Judas the traitor: "For it is written in the book of Psalms, "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take" (KJV). The Greek word is "episkope" from which we get the word "episcopal". It is referring to an "office" or "position of overseer" (from the Greek "epi"- over, and "skope"- protection).

The King James Version uses the word "Bishopric"; the New American Bible, Jerusalem, NASB, and most other modern translations use the word "office". Young's Literal Translation uses "oversight" which is what the word overseer means. The NRSV uses "position of overseer". However, the NIV breaks rank and avoids the closer translations by rendering this passage as, "May another take his place of leadership." This diminishes the implication of an official office for the Protestants.
6) In the Greek language, the way words are used in a sentence is also determined by word endings. A word used as a subject will have one word ending, the same word used as a direct object will have another ending, and so forth. In light of this, I have seen Philippians 3:3 translated to totally take the Holy Spirit out and make it to say that we worship the Spirit of God.

7)In (Mk 6:3) we read: "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters our neighbors here?" The meaning of the word "brother" comes from the original Greek word "adelphos", which means brother, but not just blood brothers. "Adelphos" can be used to mean "kinsman". Other Gospel passages clarify that Jesus had no borthers because James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas, and by extension Simon were the sons of James (not either of the apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

There are really a great many smaller errors and in the end, when you read an English translation you are always reading something just a shade off.

My suggestion is the KJV if you understand the problems with the translation (ie. "Meat" is used to mean "food", "Ghost" to mean "Spirit" including the Holy Spirit< ect.). If you don't understand the difficulties, then I recommend the NKJV or the Third Millineum Bible, although they have their problems too.

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Since many people will continue to believe the Gospel's were written in Greek or even Aramaic...

I offer these historians.

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

One might ask what is the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic?

At the time of Christ, only the Temple ceremonies and reading were done in High Hebrew (pronunciation and letters dating back to the Babylonian exile). The Pharisees were also taught High Hebrew - so Paul could speak it and recognize it. Jesus spoke it to him “Saul, why do you persecute me.” Common Hebrew (spoken by the common people of Jerusalem) was tinged with Aramaic words and pronunciations… but should be considered to be the Hebrew of the time. We can make this comparison… those who founded America and came over on the Mayflower etc.. spoke English. But we of today would have a hard time understanding it if we heard it. And its spelling and form of letters we would consider very much different than English today. Just as there are variations of American English today, and we can say “Ah - you are from Boston… you are from North Carolina .. Etc..” so it was in Israel also. One more comparison. In Spain, they speak Spanish, in Puerto Rico that speak Spanish, and in Portuguese they speak - a dialect of Spanish - and in Mexico the main language is Spanish - but there is great difference between the speak and writing of all these - yet the common root is Spanish.

Aramaic words, phrases and pronunciations had crept into the common Hebrew - but it remained Hebrew just in the same way that Americans have always spoken English as the national language.

Oh, ok ray, whatever you say.

I wondered at this apparently sarcastic remark, so I read your long post just before mine. You seem to be right on target with most of what you said.

Perhaps you though my post was a reply to your? Perhaps you though my post was a rebuttal to yours? It was not… it was addressed to Angelus.

No matter - just irritable I guess.
Chill out.


-ray

I don't know for sure, but I think I remember reading somewhere that the Indian tradition regarding the arrival of Saint Thomas in India was that when he came, he was bearing a copy of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Hebrew. I don't know if that's just pious tradition or fact, as there is no existing text from back then, but I remember reading it somewhere.

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, and there is fresh archaeological evidence that the earliest Gospels were written in Hebrew and were taken to India.

It was the work of later German theologians who seemed to want to distance the New Testament from its Hebrew roots (as if this were possible) that really buttressed the Greek language theory.

Alex

It seems to me, that about the time of Darwin - there were many advances in translation and scriptural research - and a few errors that became sacrosanct.

The best known error to my mind would be the error of word ‘Jehovah’ for the name of God. A translating error yet even when recognized the such as Jehovah’s Witnesses still believe this is the only right name scriptures gives to God. The corrected translation is Yahweh. Not seeable in the English it was an error of one Hebrew letter which a translator copied wrong.

Less know as error but an even greater error is the J&P sources theory (that Genesis is a compilation of older myths) - which is certainly opposed to both Catholic and Jewish records and traditions that Moses himself wrote all of Genesis (although he may have dictated to secretaries). This ‘compilation‘ is poppy cock yet held to be unquestionably true by most biblical scholars. Those scholars who hold this true not only ignore early historical witness as to Moses being its author, and Jesus’ own witness (on the road to Emmaus when Jesus called it the prophetic book of Moses) but they ignore the simple definition of myth (many gods). As similar to some myths as Genesis is - it is not a myth, yet it is a cosmogony - it is a theology (one God). I would take Jesus to be the real expert here.

The other great mistake, still believed by many today - is that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke Aramaic. The language they spoke was the language they wrote… and it had been surprisingly unchanged since the Babylonian exile. The best we can say is its origin is Chaldean (the Aramaic of the time) but no matter - once the Hebrews adopted it as their common spoken and written language - it became - Hebrew (the common and sacred language spoken by the Hebrews). No matter if it were a mix of original Hebrew (really Egyptian) or pure Chaldean (and I am sure it was) makes no difference. What ever the language the Hebrews spoke - was - the Hebrew language and therefore - Hebrew.

And the last error I might bring up is that the gospels are a compilation and that there was one original gospel which the other gospels took from and followed in form and structure.

Those who quote the experts - are just as wrong when the experts are wrong.