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?

[otseng]

BTW, a fascinating presentation for the Semitic origin of the NT...

[youtube][/youtube]

As a matter of fact, it was watching this that convinced me that not all books of the NT were originally written in Greek.

[otseng]

Paul was at a minimum bilingual. He could speak Greek and Hebrew.

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew.

[Act 26:14 KJV] 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew.

[Act 22:1-3 KJV] 1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence [which I make] now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

And, of course, Paul was fluent in Greek.

Although we know from his biography and from Acts that Paul could speak Hebrew, modern scholarship suggests that Koine Greek was his first language.

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

Given that Paul was fluent in Hebrew, he certainly was able to have written his letters in Hebrew. If Paul did write the book of Hebrews, then it would not make any sense for him to have written it in Greek, but in Hebrew.

[polonius]

[quote="JehovahsWitness"]
[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

JW cites the Watchtower:

[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

RESPONSE: The use of the term "virgin" Mary is an error. The Hebrew word used in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 is "almah" which means a young woman (virgin or not). The later Greek translation uses "Parthenos" the Greek word for virgin. It's a translational error.

Matthew evidently used Septuagint mistranslation "virgin" but remember both Matthew and Luke's date from about 80 AD.

The term "young woman" has now been restored in both the newer NAB and NRSV Bibles

Some traditional Catholics objected with the correction in the newer NAB Catholic bible, since that change more of less ruled out the Immaculate Conception. A "Catholic NAB" has been published using the mistranslation "virgin" in 7/14 Isaiah so a supposed biblical basis could be given to the Immaculate Conception, a 7th century teaching.

[Tcg]

Given that Paul was fluent in Hebrew, he certainly was able to have written his letters in Hebrew. If Paul did write the book of Hebrews, then it would not make any sense for him to have written it in Greek, but in Hebrew.

Paul being fluent in Hebrew does not guarantee that he could write the language. He may have been capable of doing so, but documentation that he could speak Hebrew is not documentation that he could read and/or write it.


Tcg

[historia]

[Replying to post 8 by otseng]

It seems pretty clear to me that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek.

Mark and Matthew both have several passages that are verbatim the same. That they would both independently arrive at this identical wording (from, say, a common oral source) is very unlikely, especially in a highly inflected language like Greek where word order is more flexible than in English. This rather clearly indicates that one must have copied from the other.

At the same time, there are several places in Matthew where the text is nearly identical to Mark, but Matthew's Greek is more polished. This makes sense if Matthew copied from Mark, improving on Mark's rougher Greek as he went. However, it doesn't make sense if Mark copied from Matthew. Why purposefully make a text you are copying more cumbersome?

Likewise, the fact that Matthew is much longer -- incorporating virtually all of Mark plus many more sayings of Jesus-- is better explained by Matthew copying from Mark, rather than vice versa. Why would Mark exclude the Lord's Prayer from his gospel, for example?

For these and other reasons, most critical scholars accept that Matthew copied directly from Mark, which means Matthew, like Mark, was written in Greek. See Marcan priority.

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

Agreed, but this doesn't tell us whether the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic or Greek.

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

Okay, but this is just an argument against the disciple Matthew being the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

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

Here's the fuller quote from Papias (by way of Eusebius):

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ . . . Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Notice that Papias does not say that Matthew recorded the sayings and deeds of Jesus, as he says of Mark. Rather, he says that Matthew only recorded the oracles (= sayings) of Jesus. This doesn't appear to describe our Gospel of Matthew, which, like Mark, includes both sayings and deeds. Instead, this seems to be describing a sayings gospel, like Thomas.

It may well be the case that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or another early Christian) translated an original group of Aramaic sayings into Greek, which he incorporated into his gospel along with the material from Mark.

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.

This and other examples from the Church Fathers are certainly interesting. It appears that there was an Aramaic version of Matthew's gospel (or at least a text like our Greek Matthew, but in Aramaic) that circulated among some Jewish-Christian sects. But this may itself have been simply an Aramaic translation of our Greek Matthew, rather than vice versa.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW cites the Watchtower:

[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

RESPONSE: The use of the term "virgin" Mary is an error.

What has that got to do with the citation which doesnt mention the virgin Mary?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by otseng]

It seems pretty clear to me that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek.

So on the one hand we have documented early church testimony by those that would have access to docments by written by living links to the individuals in question, along with the fact that the writer quoted from Hebrew sources and would have been writing for and within a Semitic speaking community .

And the other hand speculations as to similarities between Matthew and Mark. Any you choose to favor the latter, claiming it is "pretty clear" to you?

[historia]

So on the one hand we have documented early church testimony by those that would have access to docments by written by living links to the individuals in question, along with the fact that the writer quoted from Hebrew sources and would have been writing for and within a Semitic speaking community.

And the other hand speculations as to similarities between Matthew and Mark. Any you choose to favor the latter, claiming it is "pretty clear" to you?

I would reframe this:

On the one hand, we have the consensus of modern scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, based, in large part, on a careful analysis of the text itself.

On the other hand, we have a pair of conflicting traditions from the early church: the earlier one stating that the disciple Matthew wrote just the sayings of Jesus in Aramaic (and then others interpreted / translated as best they could), while a later tradition expanded that claim to include the whole Gospel of Matthew.

writing for and within a Semitic speaking community

This is an unfounded assumption. Jews living outside of the Holy Land primarily spoke Greek.

L. Michael White, professor at the University of Texas:

The normal language for Jews in the Diaspora was Greek. It was in the Diaspora that the Bible was translated from Hebrew into a Greek vernacular.

Paula Fredriksen, professor at Boston University:

There is a very wealthy, vigorous Jewish population living in the major cities around the Mediterranean. And that population, which is speaking Greek, which is the matrix of the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, which becomes eventually the seedbed of Christianity.

If the author of Matthew was a diaspora Jew, he likely would have written his gospel in Greek.

the writer quoted from Hebrew sources

The author does, indeed, quote from the Hebrew scriptures. But he also regularly quotes from the Septuagint, including passages that don't even appear in the Hebrew text:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – behold, a “virgin� shall conceive. Hebrew – behold, a “young woman� shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 – make “His paths straight.� Hebrew – make “level in the desert a highway.�

Matt. 6:7/Sirach 7:14 – About prattling on in the assembly like the Gentiles do.

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 – I desire “mercy� and not sacrifice. Hebrew – I desire “goodness� and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 – in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew – the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 – heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew – heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 – teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew – a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 – out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.� Hebrew – thou has “established strength.�

Matt. 23:37 / 2 Esdras 1:30 – “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing!� compare LXX “I gathered you together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.� Absent from the Hebrew texts entirely.

Matt. 27:43 / Wisdom 2:16 – “He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ � compare LXX “We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father...“

If the argument here is that, because he quotes from the Hebrew text, that indicates he wrote in Hebrew, then, by that same logic, the fact that he quotes from the LXX would indicate he wrote in Greek. Obviously, the evidence here is mixed and can't in itself support the claim he wrote in Hebrew.

[Difflugia]

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

Here's the fuller quote from Papias (by way of Eusebius):

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ . . . Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Notice that Papias does not say that Matthew recorded the sayings and deeds of Jesus, as he says of Mark. Rather, he says that Matthew only recorded the oracles (= sayings) of Jesus. This doesn't appear to describe our Gospel of Matthew, which, like Mark, includes both sayings and deeds. Instead, this seems to be describing a sayings gospel, like Thomas.

It may well be the case that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or another early Christian) translated an original group of Aramaic sayings into Greek, which he incorporated into his gospel along with the material from Mark.

Another related observation about Papias is that he describes a tradition about the death of Judas:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

This description is consistent with the one in Acts, but completely conflicts with Matthew's. To me, that implies that whatever Papias called Matthew was lacking at least verse 27:5.

[otseng]

Paul being fluent in Hebrew does not guarantee that he could write the language. He may have been capable of doing so, but documentation that he could speak Hebrew is not documentation that he could read and/or write it.

If Paul couldn't read or write the Hebrew language, who could? He was a Pharisee that studied under Gamaliel and would be considered a Jewish scholar. As for if he authored the book of Hebrews, I grant that is uncertain.

This doesn't appear to describe our Gospel of Matthew, which, like Mark, includes both sayings and deeds. Instead, this seems to be describing a sayings gospel, like Thomas.

It may well be the case that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or another early Christian) translated an original group of Aramaic sayings into Greek, which he incorporated into his gospel along with the material from Mark.

I don't necessarily agree that it requires to also say "and deeds" to refer to the entire gospel. But, it could be the case that you suggest that a proto-Matthew account was written in Aramaic and then was used along with the Greek Mark to compose the Greek Matthew.

Another possibility is Matthew wrote both a Hebrew version and a Greek version.

Irenaeus knew a disciple of an apostle. Origen and Eusebius had access to documents of the writings of those who knew the apostles or their disciples and knew the tradition that had been handed down by the early church about it. All three men consistently agree that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and Greek Gospel.

http://hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%2 ... idence.php