Merle

I understand that one argument against the reliability of the gospels is that they appear to be written in Greek. If they had been written by unlearned followers of a Jesus in Palestine, they would have been written in Aramaic.

I am involved in a debate in the Christian Forums with a young man who proposes that the gospels (as well as all of the New Testament) were written in Aramaic. His basic strategy seems to be to bypass the peer review process, and take his argument to the general public who don't know their alphas from their omegas.

Could someone give me a quick summary of the reasons scholars think the gospels were written in Greek?

If you want to view the thread in question, or participate in it, you can see it at http://www.christianforums.com/threads/35443.html.

Thanks,
Merle (AKA doubtingmerle)

judge

Hi Merle, i'll be interested to see if there are any replies. I have tried in vain to find any reason to believe the greek is the original.

It's enough to make me think biblical scholars might be wrong abouit other stuff!

Toto

The gospels as we have them quote extensively from the Septuagint - a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. You would think that if the gospels were originally written in Aramaic, that they would have quoted the scriptures in Hebrew or in an Aramaic translation.

That is usually the first argument in favor of the gospels having been written in Greek.

I don't know that this is necessarily proof that they are unreliable, although it may be an indication that the stories about unwashed and unlettered fishermen are fictional. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and many Jews spoke and wrote Greek (e.g., Josephus)

Vorkosigan

I threw that argument at him first! He had an explanation ready. Send Yuri over there; he's been studying the Aramaic-Greek connections for some time.

Merle

Well, I am no expert on early languages, but I have heard that unlearned fisherman in Galilee would probably not be able to speek Greek. You are right, this would certainly not be proof that the gospels are unreliable, but it would be one more indication of the problem. For the writers appear to have written far from Jerusalem long after the events they record. If they spoke in a different language, it further seperates them.

The other question this relates to is, who were the intended readers of the gospels? I understand that most people in Palestine spoke aramaic, so if a writer was writing to them, he would use aramaic. Since the writers wrote in greek, I understand that the intended audience for the books was the greek-speaking Jews scattered throughout the empire. And if the books were not directed at the people in Jerusalem, possibly nobody there ever saw the books until years later, and never had a chance to research the events to see if they actually happened.

wordsmyth

The OP on that link looks very similar to something I believe Yuri posted on these forums. At the very least someone posted something very similar on these forums because I'm certain I have read that before and it appears almost word for word how I remember it.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Toto,

Yes, this argument is often trotted out, but it's not a very strong one. Because these OT citations do look quite different in our *existing* Semitic-language gospels, i.e. the Old Syriac ones, as well as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Howard's edition). They are not quoting from the Septuagint!

Quote:

I don't know that this is necessarily proof that they are unreliable, although it may be an indication that the stories about unwashed and unlettered fishermen are fictional. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, and many Jews spoke and wrote Greek (e.g., Josephus)

But, still and all, an additional level of translation would certainly tend to add weight to the charges that our canonical Greek texts are quite unreliable. This isn't "proof", of course, but a valid argument nevertheless.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Makes perfect sense to me, Merle!

Quote:

Since the writers wrote in greek, I understand that the intended audience for the books was the greek-speaking Jews scattered throughout the empire. And if the books were not directed at the people in Jerusalem, possibly nobody there ever saw the books until years later, and never had a chance to research the events to see if they actually happened.

Well, you see, this assumption that "the writers wrote originally in Greek" (if this remains merely an unreasoned assumption) would be just so indicative... Because the unstated basis for that would be that Jesus' message was really of *no interest* to the people of his own country! Only the foreigners were interested! So, already, this unstated assumption seems to be laying the foundation for Jesus the Greek myth.

Actually, I'm familiar with this "Thadman" guy (on the other board), because he's a member of the Heb-Aram List. He's quite serious about his research, and while I don't agree with him on a few things, at least I'll give him credit for trying to do his homework, and studying the languages.

Yes, he might be bypassing the peer review process, but I don't see this as such a big thing, necessarily. After all, he might be simply delaying going through this, while working out his theories some more. In my experience, when some idea is "politically incorrect", having been published in the peer-reviewed literature doesn't really help much. Just look at George Howard. His findings re the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew have been all published in peer-reviewed literature, and what difference did it make? Still nobody has read the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and nobody seems to be interested!

Cheers,

Yuri.

PS. (That Christian discussion board seems to have some fancy features that my Web browser can't handle, so I cannot join it for now.)

judge

Hi Toto.. I hope you don't mind me responding to your post although I realise you are not dogmatically making a stance but explainig common arguments ) .I kind of agree that the NT quotes the Septugint more than the Hebrew Massoretic text. this is how it appears on the surface. however I believe there is good reason when we look more closely to suggest it may not quite be that simple.
If I can I will try to explain clearly and concisely the relevant points.IMHO

We have today several different versions of what we call the old testament. When all things are considered it may be fair to say they are remarkably similar but when they are subjected to modern analysis they are seen to vary. Sometimes words are left out (or added), sometimes things are phrased differently, sometimes verses are added or changed and sometimes whole sections seem to have been added or edited.
Probably the two versions most familiar to western scholars are the septuagint and the hebrew massoretic text. When we compare the quotes in the NT with these books we find a far greater correlation with the septuagint as compared to the hebrew massoretic text. In the book of hebrew for example the authors quote verses that appear in the Septuagint but not in the massoretic Hebrew text.
At first glance this seems evidence that the authors quoted the septuagint, but there may be another explanation. The
explanation would be this. At the time of Christ there was another slightly different (only slightly) version of the Hebrew scriptures in existence.
Is there any evidence to support this? Yes there is. Amongst the dead sea scrolls are hebrew versions of the OT that are closer to the Septuagint than the hebrew massoretic text (which we got from European jews in the middle ages).
One theory is that at the council of Jemima in A.D.100 the jews 'standardised' their hebrew text.
Of the ancient hebrews texts discovered they seem to fall into two categories.
1.The texts found at the eleven qumran caves and some fragments from masada (these texts agree with the LXX) ref. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 132, pp.15-26,
2.Those texts found at desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever, and the Nahal Se'elim. this group appear to reflect the hebrew text we use today.

Of the first group Professor Siegfried H.Horn Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan states that 'Paleographical studies show that the earliest Qumran scrolls were produced in the third century BC, and that the latest was in the first half of the first century AD The biblical text material from Masada predates the capture of that mountain fortress in AD 73, so all of the Qumran and Masada manuscripts were produced before the end of the first century AD''

The second group apparently were placed in these caves after 100 A.D. (I don't have areference for this though...so i will try to get one)
Anyway the point is that at the time of Christ it seems that a hebrew version of the old testament was in use that is slightly different to the one we obtained from the jews in the middle ages.
Professor Horn says... 'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.'

Now additional to this we have another interesting thing when we look at the letter to Ephesus. In Ephesians 4:8 Paul quotes a version of Psalm 68 that disagrees with all ancient texts except one, that being an aramaic targum which has survived.

My own idea is this...the NT authors quoted Aramaic targums which have not survived.

Now while josephus did say that he wrote in greek (IIRC correctly he staes that he perhaps translated his work into greek...but I could be wrong here), he also seems to indicate that not many jews spoke greek....so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.
Antiquities of the jews book XX chapt 11, 2
http://bible.christiansunite.com/jos.cgi?b=ant20&c=11

All the best

Merle

Very interesting post. Thank you. I never thought of it that way, but it is possible that the writers of the New Testament used Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that were close to the Septuagint.

How about Isaiah 7:14 where the Hebrew manuscripts say "young woman" and the Septuagent says "virgin." Are there any Hebrew manuscripts that say "virgin"? It would seem to me that it is most likely that this change of wording came when it was translated into the Septuagint Greek, and that Matthew, who spoke Greek, assumed it meant virgin because that's what his version said?