The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Rhondazvous]

When I was a student at Biola, a 4 year Christian university, the Bible  professors and theologians spoke of reading the NT in the original Greek.  For many years, this sounded cool. I couldn't do it, but it was cool, nonetheless.

In the past few years, though, something occurred to me.  Jesus wasn't Greek. Neither did he speak Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek.  Peter, Paul, James and Jude weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek. So how could an authentic NT have been originally written in Greek?

[Minimalist]

Read Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted and all will become clear.


I dug up a little sample for you from pages 5-6.

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided

by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable
contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered
canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the
Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical
Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

[Rhondazvous]

Read Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted and all will become clear.


I dug up a little sample for you from pages 5-6.

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided

by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable
contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered
canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the
Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical
Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Thanks. That's a must read. And thanks for making the extra effort.

[Aractus]

In the past few years, though, something occurred to me.  Jesus wasn't Greek. Neither did he speak Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek.  Peter, Paul, James and Jude weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek. So how could an authentic NT have been originally written in Greek?

Paul was Greek. He was a Roman citizen and could read and write Greek:

Galations 6:11: "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."
1 Corinthians 16:21 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand."

As for the others, they probably all could speak Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew (depending on how commonplace it was in first century Jerusalem). The Bible does say that Peter and John were illiterate (Acts 4:13), but it doesn't preclude them from being able to dictate correspondence. Paul used scribes (e.g. Romans 16:22 "I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord."), despite the fact that he could write them himself.

The two main authors of the NT are "Luke" and Paul. Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and by volume it's greater than all of the epistles attributed to Paul combined. We don't know for sure who wrote Luke-Acts, but it is the work of a single author, and was written sometime in the first century. Paul wrote about 7 epistles that we know of, and the others appear to be pseudonymous works. Galations, 1-2 Corinthians, and Romans are all examples of works that Paul DID write.

[John V]

When I was a student at Biola, a 4 year Christian university, the Bible  professors and theologians spoke of reading the NT in the original Greek.  For many years, this sounded cool. I couldn't do it, but it was cool, nonetheless.

In the past few years, though, something occurred to me.  Jesus wasn't Greek. Neither did he speak Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek.  Peter, Paul, James and Jude weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek. So how could an authentic NT have been originally written in Greek?

Were all the Bible professors and theologians you speak of Greek themselves? If not, how did they read the NT in Greek?

Oh yeah, people can learn new languages.

Or, if you don't learn it yourself, an amanuensis could be used to take dictation in one language and put it into another.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Arac

Abdul Alhazred explicitly claims to be writing the Necronomicon, Odin explicitly claims to have written the Havamal.  Neither of these attributions are factual - of course.  Nothing prevents you or I from claiming to be Paul, and no amount of either of us claiming to be Paul will actually make the claim true.  Nor would our use of a secretary make either of us any more likely to actually be Paul or have anything, whatsoever, to say on that matter.  There is -no- work attributed to Paul that does not come under criticism.  The very notion of a "Paul" has problems all it;s own..before we ever get to the point of determining what - if anything- any "Paul" might have written.   

[Rhondazvous]

In the past few years, though, something occurred to me.  Jesus wasn't Greek. Neither did he speak Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek.  Peter, Paul, James and Jude weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek. So how could an authentic NT have been originally written in Greek?

Paul was Greek. He was a Roman citizen and could read and write Greek:

Galations 6:11: "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."
1 Corinthians 16:21 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand."

As for the others, they probably all could speak Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew (depending on how commonplace it was in first century Jerusalem). The Bible does say that Peter and John were illiterate (Acts 4:13), but it doesn't preclude them from being able to dictate correspondence. Paul used scribes (e.g. Romans 16:22 "I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord."), despite the fact that he could write them himself.

The two main authors of the NT are "Luke" and Paul. Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and by volume it's greater than all of the epistles attributed to Paul combined. We don't know for sure who wrote Luke-Acts, but it is the work of a single author, and was written sometime in the first century. Paul wrote about 7 epistles that we know of, and the others appear to be pseudonymous works. Galations, 1-2 Corinthians, and Romans are all examples of works that Paul DID write.

Thanks for your input.

Yes, the verse in 1 Corinthians makes it probable that at least that epistle was written in Greek. In fact, now that you mention it, the pseudonymous nature of so much of the NT makes it possible that it was written in Greek.  My understanding is that1, as you suggested, Jesus spoke Aramaic (a Semitic language). That being the caw, I question the authenticity of a NT originally written in Greek (an Indo-European language).

[rexbeccarox]

I have nothing to add, except whenever I hear about Biola U, I always think of the Cold War Kids (they went there):

[Aractus]

@Arac

Abdul Alhazred explicitly claims to be writing the Necronomicon, Odin explicitly claims to have written the Havamal.  Neither of these attributions are factual - of course.  Nothing prevents you or I from claiming to be Paul, and no amount of either of us claiming to be Paul will actually make the claim true.  Nor would our use of a secretary make either of us any more likely to actually be Paul or have anything, whatsoever, to say on that matter.  There is -no- work attributed to Paul that does not come under criticism.  The very notion of a "Paul" has problems all it;s own..before we ever get to the point of determining what - if anything- any "Paul" might have written.   

There are 7 works attributed to Paul that even critical scholars like Bart Ehrman don't dispute. He wrote at least those 7 letters, and about that there is almost no doubt.

Thanks for your input.

Yes, the verse in 1 Corinthians makes it probable that at least that epistle was written in Greek. In fact, now that you mention it, the pseudonymous nature of so much of the NT makes it possible that it was written in Greek.  My understanding is that1, as you suggested, Jesus spoke Aramaic (a Semitic language). That being the caw, I question the authenticity of a NT originally written in Greek (an Indo-European language).

All the apostles and Jesus would have been able to speak Greek. They were bilingual if not trilingual. Just like India has the largest population of English speakers in the world today, despite their national language being - Indian. Almost all Indian people are bilingual. Similar story with aboriginal people who still speak their native languages - which just goes so much further to prove the point that an Aramaic speaking people under a Greek jurisdiction would have been bilingual.

As for your point about what language were the books of the Bible written in, that's something that can be addressed with Biblical criticism. There was, for instance, the Gospel of the Hebrews - although it no longer exists we know exactly how long it was and what it contained. Despite its existence, the vast majority of new testament scholars do not believe it to be the original textual basis of Matthew which they believe to have been originally written in Greek. Same thing with most, if not all, of the other books of the new testament. There are some books of the Apocrypha which are believed to have originally been written in Hebrew, and the book of Daniel was for a long time considered to have been written in Hebrew. That is until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, which has now led scholars to conclude that it has always been a curious bilingual work (that starts in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic and then returns to Hebrew).

A "biblical scholar" is a historian that specialises in the history of either the NT times or the OT times. Israel Finkelstein, for instance, is an archaeologist who specialises in iron-age Palestinian(/Israeli) history. You wouldn't ask a new testament scholar about the old testament text, just as you wouldn't ask Finkelstein about the new testament - that just isn't his area of expertise. A "critical scholar" refers to scholars that are non-religious, it's a somewhat ambiguous term since religious scholars can also be quite critical, and one that comes to mind is Dan Wallace. I would take what Wallace has to say more seriously than what Bart Ehrman has to say, even though Ehrman is the so-called "critical scholar". Mind you, I'd pay even more attention to Finkelstein, but as he's an iron-age archaeologist he doesn't have an opinion on who wrote the NT and in what languages, for that we need to ask Dan Wallace and his colleagues.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are -no- undisputed works Arac.  None.  As you clearly realize.....when you state "almost no doubt". That there was such a "he" to write them to begin with is not even remotely certain. Your level of doubt is lower than mine, is all. In any case, that the "original text" is in greek has little to do with what languages any apostles, real or imagined..may have spoke. Greek was, like Latin become..a lingua franca. The NT was written for consumption (and in "gutter greek", no less....whomever wrote it wasn't aiming it at the upper crust).