The Question of the Greek New Testament

[watchamadoodle]

I have read that Galilee was more Hellenized than other areas of Israel in the time of Jesus based on the archaeological evidence. Many of the sayings of Jesus are popular saying of Cynic philosophers, so some people (like the Jesus Seminar) wondered if Jesus might have been a Jew who had studied Cynic philosophy.

On the other hand, there is the claim that a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew existed, so that might have indicated many Jews were more comfortable with Aramaic than Greek.

[Aractus]

Ehrman makes these remarks in reference to the mythicist position on jesus, but they apply equally well to any discussion of Paul (an equally mythicized/legendary figure -even if he were a real person).   Now, it's possible that Mr. Ehrman didn;t realize the irony contained herein...but..perhaps, representation of any given position within the ranks of "the experts" has something to do with needing a paycheck........

What you mean:
...
"Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).
...
"Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed."

And:

"Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean precisely what I said, Aractus...do you have anything to say with regards to what I said... or do you need to steer the conversation away from my actual remarks as quickly as possible?  

If you'd like to discuss that bit you focused on..we can do that as well, but at least offer closure - tell me that you're no longer interested in pursuing our previous discussion, and do not wish to provide evidence for the claims you deigned to make..pigeon.

[Aractus]

Rhythm, I'm quoting from the passage from the great Saint B. Ehrman that you provided that says that "we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul". Are you really disputing that fact despite the fact that this is the evidence you presented to dispute it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Given that our area of disagreement is over the nature of those writings..not the existence thereof.........

-and no...reading comprehension for the lose.  I offered you that story from Ehrman for the reasons I gave - not for the reasons you now insist.  Again..if you'd like to have that discussion I'm willing, but I'll require a little closure.  

I have disputed 3 things...I explicitly stated what they were.  Are you done with those?

[Jenny A]

For the OP:

It is remotely possible, Jesus spoke some Greek. But as the Jews in Judea and around spoke mostly Aramaic, that's probably the language he preached in.   But Jesus, and his disciples didn't write anything down.

Most of the books of the New Testament were written in Greek because although there was a small Jesus sect among the Jews, it ultimately didn't grow very large or live very long.  Paul took the Jesus story to the gentiles, where he had rather more success (understatement).  Greek was the most common language in the eastern part of the Roman empire and Paul spoke it.   His letters don't read like books, because while they were probably intended to be copied and reread, they aren't books, they are letters to specific Gentile, Greek speaking churches, sometimes in answer to questions in letters addressed to Paul.  But we don't have the letters from the congregations to Paul.  He says surprisingly little about Jesus' life and teachings.  He is all about the resurrection and the life to come. Like Jesus he appears to thought the end times would be within his generation. His letters reveal that early Christians were doctrinally divided on many theological issues including whether you had to first be a Jew in order to be a Christian.  There's evidence that some of the letters attributed to Paul were written by others and may have been out-and-out fakes written by people with a theological axe to grind.  Not that Paul didn't have his own theological axes to grind.

Almost a generation later, people, we don't know who, wrote down some of the oral traditions about the life and sayings of Jesus which had obviously grown and changed in the telling.  By then Christianity was almost entirely a Gentile religion and as the authors were Gentile Christians, and they wrote in Greek.  Only one of the Gospels appears to be addressed to primarily Jews rather than Gentiles. John is positively anti-Jewish.
Much much later the Gospels were given their common names:  Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Min is right that Ehrman, is an excellent source for the history of the NT.

[watchamadoodle]

Rhondazvous, I just looked up Biola University, and it looks like a very good school aside from being religious. It says they require all students to take a certain number of units in religion. What were those classes like?

[Rhondazvous]

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.

At the time of Jesus, Israel was under Roman occupation. You indicated in your first post that you do not distinguish between Roman and Greek. Although we use the term "Greco-Roman," they are not the same. Neither Paul nor Jesus nor Peter, James nor John was Greek.  The fact that the Bible ascribes European names to these men and the books they didn't write raises a world of suspicions.

Biblical scholars tell us  that none of the original manuscripts survive.  If the earliest documents we have were just copies of the original manuscripts that did not survive, biblical scholars would not call them pseudonymous. They would just call them copies.  There's no way to compare these later manuscripts to the originals. In fact, calling these Greek copies "original" raises the question of if there ever were any manuscripts before them. We are left with nothing more than conjecture and a fiat insistence on their authenticity.

[Minimalist]

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.

There are 7 works attributed to Paul (key word there "attributed") which were stylistically written by the same author - as opposed to all the others which are blatant forgeries.
The question is, was that author named "Paul" or was he a literary construct just like 'jesus.' 

Again, paul's epistles burst on the scene with Marcion's canon c 140 AD.  But Marcion was a heretic and even a generation letter c 160 Origen did not use the name "paul" in any of his writings.  This is more than a curiosity.

[Jenny A]

At the time of Jesus, Israel was under Roman occupation. You indicated in your first post that you do not distinguish between Roman and Greek. Although we use the term "Greco-Roman," they are not the same. Neither Paul nor Jesus nor Peter, James nor John was Greek.  The fact that the Bible ascribes European names to these men and the books they didn't write raises a world of suspicions.

The fact that the Roman Empire extended to Judea and the surrounding area didn't cause everyone there to start talking Latin.  Greek remained the common trade language in most of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire including in and around Judea.  Most educated Romans spoke Greek.

Biblical scholars tell us  that none of the original manuscripts survive.  If the earliest documents we have were just copies of the original manuscripts that did not survive, biblical scholars would not call them pseudonymous. They would just call them copies.  There's no way to compare these later manuscripts to the originals. In fact, calling these Greek copies "original" raises the question of if there ever were any manuscripts before them. We are left with nothing more than conjecture and a fiat insistence on their authenticity.

Simply the names of the towns to which Paul was writing, are enough to convince me he was writing in Greek.  If he had written in Aramaic, it is unlikely Gentiles in Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome would have understood him.   But yes what we have is copies of copies of copies of copies.