Was any NT book first written in a Semitic language?

[otseng]

From another thread:

Myself, I'm leaning towards some of the books of the New Testament were not originally written in Greek, but in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

If you'll forgive the digression, I had a discussion a while ago with someone that was convinced that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic.

Were any of the New Testament books first written in Aramaic/Hebrew before being translated to Greek?

[Tcg]

From another thread:

Myself, I'm leaning towards some of the books of the New Testament were not originally written in Greek, but in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

If you'll forgive the digression, I had a discussion a while ago with someone that was convinced that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic.

Were any of the New Testament books first written in Aramaic/Hebrew before being translated to Greek?

This is a fascinating question. Wouldn't we need Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts of NT books to answer this question definitively? Do such manuscripts exist?

If not, what standards or methods could be used to determine that they once did?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THE GOSPEL OF MATTEW WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN HEBREW?

"As far back as the fourth century we hear of a Hebrew Matthew preserved in the Jewish archives at Tiberias.- Hugh G. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel ( p. 11)

“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 155) Origen of the second and third centuries wrote that Matthew’s Gospel was “published for Jewish believers, and composed in Hebrew letters.Papias 2nd Century (Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia Vol. 5, p. 890)

(The evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue. - Eusebius 3rd/4th century)

Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the Martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. - Jerome 5th Century , Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers

Further reason for believing that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew is based on the fact that a careful examination of his quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures shows that he quoted directly from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint Version. If Matthew had written his Gospel first in Greek, it is likely he would have quoted from the Septuagint. - Watchtower 1963 10/1 p. 608




JW








AUTHORSHIP

What evidence do we have of the authorship of the gospels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 47#p338347

What evidence is available of the authorship of the gospels (goose)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p961190

DATING

What evidence iis available as to the dating of Matthews gospel? (onwwithim)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p823833

Is there any evidence that Marks gospel was indeed the first of the four written?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p974553

Were the gospels written within living memory of the events they describe?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 67#p832767

CONTENT

Are the alternative endings of Marks gospel authentic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p804765

Should the gospel of Jihn be considered reliable?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p885529

Is there any evidence the gospel of Matthew was first penned in Hebrew? (this post)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 24#p992324

Go to other posts related to...

THE GOSPELS , BIBLE COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Difflugia]

This is a fascinating question. Wouldn't we need Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts of NT books to answer this question definitively? Do such manuscripts exist?

If not, what standards or methods could be used to determine that they once did?

Tcg

To be positive we would, but there can be clues one way or another. If the translation is literal enough, then there are likely to be idioms from the source language that are unusual or awkward in the target language. There are so many of these in the Septuagint, for example, that it's not only obvious that the source is Hebrew, but that in most cases, Greek is probably the translator's second language.

An example of this is the relatively well known "verbing you shall verb" idiom in Hebrew, used for emphasis. This occurs in Genesis 2:17 when God tells Eve that if she eats the apple, "dying, you shall die." The Septuagint translates that as "you will die a death". It's kind of weird in Greek, but the same pattern appears several other times. Genesis 17:13 literally reads "...being circumcised, he shall be circumcised..." and the Septuagint translates this as "...he will be circumcised a circumcision..." (in fact, I found this in the NASB by searching on the word "surely" because the pattern is usually translated as "...surely you shall verb..." in English translations descended from the KJV). Finding enough patterns that are weird Greek, but match known Hebrew idioms is a clue to a translation.

The tough part with the New Testament is trying to distinguish a translation of one language into another from an original composition in a language that the author doesn't know well. In the latter case, one could make the argument that it actually is a translation, but the source document is from a thought rather than from a page.

[Smythe]

There is not much evidence other than the Papias quote for written Aramaic sources. That does not mean there were none, of course. Ultimately all the source material was Aramaic since that was what Jesus and the disciples spoke.

And there is evidence of a continuing Aramaic tradition. The Gospels (and even, surprisingly, Paul) contain a few Aramaic expressions. Hosanna, maranatha, abba, etc. Scholars such as Brown have pointed out that even after the first NT scriptures were set down, oral transmission of the Jesus stories would not have stopped overnight; in Palestine these would have been in Aramaic. It's unclear whether the NT references are remnants of this, or reflect continued use of Aramaic in worship (a tradition which continues even today whenever we say amen), or were included simply for literary verisimilitude (as the Shakespearean et tu Brute).

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

There was no Mathew. The church titled the book in the second century. They went even further by giving them the title of 'saint'.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

There was no Mathew. The church titled the book in the second century. They went even further by giving them the title of 'saint'.

About 135 ad, IIRR?

[otseng]

It is acknowledged that asserting the book of Matthew (or any other NT book) was originally in a Semitic language is speculative. However, it's not without support. There's no way to prove it's more viable than Matthew being originally written in Greek, but I think it is worth considering.

We need to first acknowledge that Jesus did not preach in Greek, but in a Semitic language.

It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[3] The villages of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities. It is also likely that Jesus knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Palestine, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew for religious purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is the general consensus of religious scholars and historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the traditional language of Judea in the first century AD. Their Aramaic was most likely a Galilean accent distinct from that of Jerusalem. Jesus spent most of his time in the communities of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, which were Aramaic-speaking villages.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus ... jesus.html

Matthew, who was a Jew and wrote for Jews, most likely would've written in the language of the Jews - either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is attested by a couple of early church fathers - Irenaeus and Papias.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Of course, Matthew we have now in the Bible is based on a Greek version of Matthew. My guess is the author of Matthew first wrote his account in Hebrew or Aramaic. Someone then translated this into Greek. This version then got widely circulated and is now used as the basis of our first book of the NT.

[marco]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

There was no Mathew. The church titled the book in the second century. They went even further by giving them the title of 'saint'.

Moderator Comment

You've come to the wrong place for that interesting if unsubstantiated comment, Avoice. You are asked: "Were any of the New Testament books first written in Aramaic/Hebrew before being translated to Greek?" Stick to the OP please.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brianbbs67]

It is acknowledged that asserting the book of Matthew (or any other NT book) was originally in a Semitic language is speculative. However, it's not without support. There's no way to prove it's more viable than Matthew being originally written in Greek, but I think it is worth considering.

We need to first acknowledge that Jesus did not preach in Greek, but in a Semitic language.

It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[3] The villages of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities. It is also likely that Jesus knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Palestine, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew for religious purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is the general consensus of religious scholars and historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the traditional language of Judea in the first century AD. Their Aramaic was most likely a Galilean accent distinct from that of Jerusalem. Jesus spent most of his time in the communities of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, which were Aramaic-speaking villages.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus ... jesus.html

Matthew, who was a Jew and wrote for Jews, most likely would've written in the language of the Jews - either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is attested by a couple of early church fathers - Irenaeus and Papias.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Of course, Matthew we have now in the Bible is based on a Greek version of Matthew. My guess is the author of Matthew first wrote his account in Hebrew or Aramaic. Someone then translated this into Greek. This version then got widely circulated and is now used as the basis of our first book of the NT.

The sayings of Yeshua christ and the Q source and Mark seem to make up this book. The original writers preferred to remain anonymous , maybe due to fear of death, but I wish at least 2 would have signed their writings.