The Language of the New Testament

Was the New Testament composed in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or another language? The evidence points to Greek.

What was the original language of the documents that became the New Testament? For centuries, the scholarly consensus has been that it was the Koiné Greek dialect spoken widely in the Eastern Roman Empire. However, certain voices in the church are claiming that it was composed in the Hebrew or Aramaic language. What follows is a brief overview of the primary evidence for a Greek original.

Because of the many surviving Greek manuscripts from the earliest centuries of church history, and the complete lack of any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, supporters of this view allege that the New Testament was translated into Greek from the Hebrew (or Aramaic) original at a very early stage, and that all subsequent traces of this original text have vanished since that time.

If this claim is true, it would alter our understanding of the early biblical faith. However, radical claims such as this demand substantial and verifiable evidence, but does the evidence validate the claim?

[Greek inscription - Photo by Cansu Sarp (Turkey) on Unsplash]

The New Testament provides examples of the earliest disciples speaking Greek, including Jews and Gentiles. For example, when the Apostle Paul preached to the representatives of the philosophical schools in Athens, he used Greek and even quoted a pagan Greek poet. And why would Paul speak to the Athenians in a language they did not understand? – (Acts 17:22-34).

The Book of Acts also describes Hellenized Jewish members of the early church speaking Greek in certain synagogues, including Stephen in the city of Jerusalem, the man who became the church’s first martyr. The point is that many Jews of the period spoke Greek, and nothing in our sources demands that first-century Jews only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic - (Acts 6:1-6, 17:22-31, Acts 21:37).

The New Testament includes evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but there are also indications that he understood at least some Greek. How, for example, did he communicate with the Syrophoenician woman if he only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic? The woman is identified as Canaanite and Greek (‘Hellénis’). In other words, she was a Hellenized Greek-speaking Gentile of Phoenician origin - (Matthew 15:22, Mark 7:26, 15:34, John 12:20-24, Acts 6:1-6).

The New Testament does not insist on the strict use of the Hebrew forms of names and other key terms derived from the Hebrew Old Testament. There is no hesitation on the part of Jesus or his Apostles to use Greek and other non-Hebraic terms when preaching the gospel, including the Greek and even Latin forms of Old Testament names.

The Apostle Paul, for example, is called Saul or ‘Saulos’ in the Book of Acts. But he never uses the Hebrew form of his name in his letters, preferring to use his Greek name Paul or ‘Paulos’. As Acts demonstrates, the Church used all the linguistic tools at its disposal when spreading the gospel.

• “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” - (Romans 1:16. Compare 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 [“I became all things to all men that I might win some”]).

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE

What is the evidence for the original language of the New Testament?  First, all surviving ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, whether fragmentary or complete, were written in Greek, and no such manuscript of a Hebrew or Aramaic original has yet to be found (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (N.Y.:  Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 36-66; Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the N.T. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990]).

In the second place, because the Church’s faith was mission-oriented, the New Testament documents were translated from Greek into other languages at relatively early dates. This includes the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions, all of which were translated from Greek originals (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 67-81; Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, N.Y.:  Oxford University Press, 1977; Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 185-221).

Thirdly, the church fathers of the first three centuries wrote letters in Greek in which verbal allusions and quotations from the writings of the Apostles are based on original Greek texts. Not once do they cite a passage from the documents that became the New Testament based on Aramaic or Hebrew original sources - (Bruce Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 39-67).

Fourth, the New Testament source documents provide no indication of having been translated from another language into Greek.  A document of any length translated from one language to another always includes signs of being a translation. It is unavoidable. This is especially so when translating languages as radically different as Greek and Hebrew – (Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 52; A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament; Nashville:  Broadview Press, 1934; pp. 76-139).

In the fifth place, the use of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament by the authors of the New Testament. Most citations of Old Testament passages in the New Testament documents are from the ancient Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint. As Kurt and Barbara Aland wrote:

• “The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament, which are from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and not from the original Hebrew text.  This is true even of the rabbinic scholar Paul” – (Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 52).

The application of passages from the Greek Septuagint is often pivotal to an author’s theological point. For example, the Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 reads “young woman,” but the Septuagint quoted by Matthew reads “virgin.” In short, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is dependent on the Septuagint rendering of the passage from Isaiah, and without it, this doctrine would not exist:

• “Now, all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, BEHOLD! THE VIRGIN WILL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHE WILL BRING FORTH A SON. AND THEY WILL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL, which, being interpreted, is GOD WITH US” – (Matthew 1:22-23. Compare Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:35).

Sixth, the New Testament documents translate Aramaic and Hebrew terms and phrases into Greek for their Greek-speaking audiences - (e.g., Mark 15:34 - [“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’, which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’”]. See also, Matthew 27:46, Matthew 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, John 1:38, Acts 4:36).

Seventh, the authors of the New Testament utilize aspects of the Greek language to great advantage, and often Greek grammatical forms are difficult to represent accurately in Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is an Indo-European language, while Hebrew and Aramaic are Semitic languages.

The examples are too numerous to list, but they include alliteration, wordplays, synonyms, double and even triple negatives, compound words, and so on, usages that are difficult to explain if the Greek New Testament was translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original.

For example, the opening clause of the Letter to the Hebrews uses two like-sounding Greek words to great rhetorical effect, a feature that could not be duplicated in Hebrew or Aramaic, and one that is difficult enough to represent in many modern languages without resorting to paraphrase:

• “Many parts and many ways (‘polumerôs kai polutropôs’) of old, God, having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, upon the last days of these days, spoke to us in a Son” – (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Eighth, the Greek New Testament reflects the linguistic skills and personalities of each author, aspects that are often lost in translation. The individual books show the varying literary and linguistic abilities of each author.

If a later hand translated a book from Hebrew into Greek, it would be difficult enough to duplicate the writing characteristics and skills of the individual authors. Moreover, the tendency of later translators is to correct any perceived clumsy syntax and the like on the part of the author.

In the ninth place, the New Testament authors made theological points in Greek that could not be duplicated in Hebrew or Aramaic. For example, Paul uses the term “body” or ‘sôma’ (σωμα) metaphorically for the church. But biblical Hebrew has no word that corresponds to the Greek term for ‘body’. The closest it can come is the Hebrew noun for “corpse,” and the ‘corpse of Christ’ would certainly not communicate Paul’s intended point – (See 1 Corinthians 10:16, Ephesians 2:16, 4:12).

Another example is Hebrews 10:5, where the author uses the Greek term for “body” or ‘sôma’ to make a point about Christ’s sacrifice, and he uses a passage from the Septuagint version of Psalm 40:6-8 as his source because it uses this Greek word (the Hebrew original reads “you have dug my ears” rather than “prepared a body”):

• “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to remove sins. Wherefore, coming into the world, he says, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU DID NOT WILL, AND A BODY [‘sôma’] YOU PREPARED FOR ME. IN BURNT OFFERINGS AND CONCERNING SIN OFFERINGS YOU DELIGHTED NOT. THEN I SAID, BEHOLD, I COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN CONCERNING ME) TO DO, O GOD, YOUR WILL, saying above, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING AND BURNT OFFERINGS AND CONCERNING SIN OFFERING YOU DID NOT WILL NOR DELIGHT IN, which according to the law are offered. Then he has said, BEHOLD, I COME TO DO YOUR WILL. He removes the first, that he may establish the second, by which we will have been sanctified through the offering of the body [‘sôma’] of Jesus Christ once and for all” – (Hebrews 10:4-10. Note that all Old Testament citations in the Letter to the Hebrews are from the Septuagint).

Tenth, the early church was mission-oriented, and by the first century, Hebrew had fallen into general disuse even among Palestinian Jews. Because of the spread of the Greek language, it was spoken throughout the Roman world, particularly in the eastern half of the Mediterranean region.

Greek was the de facto language of commerce. So much so, that Roman magistrates often published official edicts in both Latin and Greek, though Latin was the official language of government.  While not everyone in the empire spoke Greek, it was used more widely than any other language. For any new religion that was committed to spreading its message far and wide in the Roman world, Greek was the practical choice for the medium of communication.  Either Hebrew or Aramaic would be an impractical choice.

Regarding any evidence of an original Hebrew or Aramaic New Testament, there are no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of any New Testament document that exist today, assuming they ever did exist.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

While several church fathers cite evidence that suggests the Gospel of Matthew may have been composed in Hebrew, all such claims are dependent on an unsubstantiated quotation from Papias of Hierapolis as reported by the church historian, Eusebius. This was approximately two hundred years after the death of Papias. This evidence is second-hand at best, and little more than hearsay.

The reported statement of Papias is that the “sayings” or “oracles” of Matthew were transmitted in Aramaic or Hebrew (the Greek noun Papias uses could refer to either), and it is not clear whether Papias is referring to the written gospel we now possess or to oral traditions preserved by the Church. Moreover, the accuracy of Eusebius’ brief quotation cannot be verified – (Floyd Filson, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew [London:  Adam & Charles Black, 1971], p. 16).

Even if the claim is true, at most it constitutes possible evidence that Matthew was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. But it is illogical to assume from this that the rest of the New Testament documents were also written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

There is another practical point. Considering the Church’s mission to preach the gospel “to all nations,” publishing the core documents of the apostolic faith in Hebrew or Aramaic makes little sense. And what is most noteworthy about the claim of a Hebrew original is the lack of evidence to support the proposition.

The proposal of a Hebrew original cannot explain why several New Testament authors transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew terms into Greek letters and forms to accommodate Greek-speaking audiences. Nor does the extensive use of the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, make sense if the New Testament was composed in Hebrew for Hebrew-speaking congregations.

The evidence for Greek as the original language of the New Testament is substantial and extensive. In contrast, the evidence for a Hebrew or Aramaic original is virtually non-existent.

DOES IT MATTER?

Yes. The Greek New Testament is our primary reliable source for what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Having an accurate representation of what they wrote, said, and did is vital for ascertaining correct Christian doctrine and practice.

If we do not possess copies of what the Apostles wrote - if their original words have been filtered to us through one or more intervening forms or simply lost - it becomes difficult to have confidence in the New Testament documents that we do possess. How do we know whether later translators corrupted the original Hebrew or Aramaic text? There is no way to verify the accuracy of such a supposed text since we have nothing against which to compare it.

As for restoring the alleged Hebrew or Aramaic “original,” since we have no copies of any portion of it, any attempt to restore the original Hebrew or Aramaic is speculative at best.

Further Reading:

• The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. By Bruce Metzger, Oxford University Press; 4th edition (April 28, 2005).

• The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. By Bruce Metzger, Oxford University Press; 1st edition (September 15, 1977).

• The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. By Kurt Aland & Karen Aland. Eerdmans; 2nd Revised ed. edition (March 25, 1995).

• Invitation to the Septuagint. By Karen H. Jobes. Baker Academic; 2nd edition (December 1, 2015).

-----

[Citations of Old Testament passages in this article are based on the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (see the links here and here). Text printed in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS represents quotations and verbal allusions from the Old Testament. The Septuagint is represented by the Roman numeral for ‘seventy’ or LXX based on the Latin name of the translation, ‘Interpretatio septuaginta virorum’]

[PDF Copy]

SEE ALSO:

• Hold Fast to the Word - (Followers of Jesus must cling tenaciously to the Word spoken in the Son or they will drift away from God’s gracious salvation)

• His Supreme Word - (God is speaking His definitive word in His Son. All previous words spoken by the prophets were preparatory, promissory, and partial)

• Stand Fast! - (Believers prepare for the Apostasy and the coming Man of Lawlessness by standing firm in the apostolic tradition)

• The Gospel Begins - (Redemption and God's Kingdom arrived in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, starting with his baptism by John – Mark 1:1-3)