JD8

Was The New Testament Written In Hebrew?
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes a very difficult
question. The external testimony is of a conflicting character. The oldest
and most explicit tradition is that of Alexandria, where Clement testified
that the Epistle was written by Paul in the Hebrew language and was
translated by Luke into Greek. Origen regards the thoughts of the Epistle as
Paul's, but the language as that of a disciple of the great apostle, and
finally comes to the conclusion that God only knows who wrote this letter.
He does not make mention of a Hebrew original. Both Clement and Origen
agree, however, in regarding the Greek Epistle as Pauline only in a
secondary sense. In Italy and Western Europe generally the letter was not
held to be Paul's. This is the more remarkable, since we find the first
trace of its existence in the West, in the writings of Clement of Rome.
Hippolytus and Irenaeus were acquainted with it, but did not accept it as
Paul's; Cajus reckoned only thirteen Pauline Epistles and Eusebius says that
even in his time the negative opinion was still held by some Romans. In
North Africa, where the Roman tradition is usually followed, the letter was
not regarded as the work of Paul. Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas. In the
fourth century the Eastern tradition gradually prevailed over the Western,
especially through the influence of Augustine and Jerome, though they felt
by no means certain that Paul was the author. During the Middle Ages this
mooted question hardly ever came up for discussion, but when the light of
the Reformation dawned, doubts were again expressed as to the authorship of
Paul. Erasmus questioned whether Paul had written the letter; Luther
conjectured that Apollos was the writer; Calvin thought that it might be the
work of Luke or of Clement; and Beza held that it was written by a disciple
of Paul. At present there are comparatively few that maintain the authorship
of Paul

http://www.dabar.org/NewTestament/Berkhof/Epiheb.htm#I

The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible edited by a Greek, Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D.
, AMG Publishers states that the author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown.
Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author. This is based on Acts
18:24-28, where Apollos is referred to an a well-read Helenistic Jew from
Alexandria in Egypt. Tertullian (writing in A.D. 150-230) said the Hebrews
was a letter of Barnabas. Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that
it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). Williams Ramsey suggested that it
was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle
Paul wrote Hebrews. From the very beginning, the eastern church attributed
the letter to him, but the western church did not accept this until the
fourth century. Eusebius (A.D. 263-339) believed that Paul wrote it, but
Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254) was not positive of Pauline authorship. About the
end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria thought that Paul had
originally written the letter in the Hebrew language and that it was later
translated by Luke or by someone else into Greek. Notwithstanding the
recipients of the letter knew who the author was and recognized his
credibility in writing the work.

There is uncertainty as to the exact date of the writing of Hebrews. (p
1512)

We do not have in our possession one original MSS (manuscript) from either
the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament or Greek or Hebrew New Testament? The
original MSS from both have been lost or destroyed by age, or other means?
Also, we do not have the original autographs and we cannot prove that the
documents themselves have not been corrupted from their original intent and
meaning? THE MANUSCRIPTS of the Greek New Testament date only from the
fourth century. However there exists a report that the New Testament
documents were written first in Hebrew then later translated into Greek as
put forward by Jerome, a renowned Roman Catholic biblical scholar who
flourished at the turn of the 5th century and is best known for the Vulgate
Latin version of the Bible. This report cannot be dismissed just because
some so called scholars don't like it?

We also have to remember that in the time of our Lord there were no less
than four languages in use in Palestine, and their mixture formed the
"Yiddish" of those days. There was HEBREW, spoken by Hebrews; There was
GREEK, which was spoken in Palestine by the educated classes generally;
There was LATIN, the language of the Romans, who then held possession of the
land; And there was ARAMAIC, the language of the common people. ARAMAIC was
Hebrew, as it was developed during and after the Captivity in Babylon.

Just to say that the New Testament was written in Greek because it was
certainly the best language for it to be written in; it was flexible and
widely understood, is not proof of anything. Greek was not universally
understood. In the west, there were many who spoke only Latin. In the east,
some spoke only the Syriac/Aramaic dialects. In Egypt the native language
was Coptic. And beyond the borders of the Roman Empire there were peoples
who spoke even stranger languages -- Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Gothic,
Slavonic

Concerning the copies of the Greek Manuscript that have become available,
the role of the versions in textual criticism has been much debated. Since
they are not in the original language, some people discount them because
there are variants they simply cannot convey. But others note, that these
versions convey texts from a very early date. In many instances the
text-types they convey survive very poorly or not at all in Greek. It is
also true that the versions often have suffered corruption of their own in
the centuries since their translation. But such variants usually are of a
nature peculiar to the version, and so can be gotten around. When properly
used, the versions are one of the best and leading tools of textual
criticism.

But there are several external sources, i.e. outside Scripture, pointing to
Hebrew as the written language of the New Testament, as Dr. David Bivin has
most eloquently attested. [Bivin and Blizzard Jr, Understanding the
Difficult Words of Jesus, 1988, pp. 45-78.] These sources are the testimony
of the Church fathers and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

a.. The testimony from the church fathers.
b.. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D. said: "Matthew put down the
words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them,
each as best he could."
c.. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) Bishop of Lions, France, wrote: "Matthew,
indeed, produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect."
d.. Origen (c. 225 A.D.) said: "The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew
language, was written by Matthew..for those who came to faith from Judaism."
e.. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.), wrote: "Matthew had first
preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he
transmitted his Gospel in writing in his native language" (Ecclesiastical
History III 24, 6).
f.. And Jerome, translator of the Scripture into Latin (the Vulgata or
Vulgate version), says the same
It is to be noted that there are over 5366 manuscripts of the New Covenant
in Greek, each differing from the other and containing several hundred
variants. However, in each one of these manuscripts there are idioms which
are almost meaningless in any language -- including Greek -- except in
Hebrew! How can such a thing be explained unless it is because the original
was Hebrew?

Narrow minded opponents who swear by "the Greek only scriptures" state,
"unstable people" twist the truth in order to discredit the New Testament
documents and certain theological ideologies surrounding key Christian
doctrines concerning Christ and God. Their intent is to parade their own
agenda in attempting to reinterpret the New Testament in light of Hebrew
idioms and syntax, rather than the Greek language. This holds huge
complications for the Greek language because, simply stated, Greek is not
Hebrew, and Greeks did not think like Hebrews. Within this debate, then,
the very character of God is placed on the line. Not only this, but the
wisdom of God is called into question. God used Greek to transmit the
message of the Gospel, and those who oppose this are calling into question
the wisdom and providence of God as to the use of His means for the end of
the salvation of souls.[1]

The arguments surrounding this theological reformulation raise questions as
to whether the Apostles really thought Jesus was God, or that the Trinity is
an Old Testament reality as well as a New Testament one. If the New
Testament Scriptures were written in Hebrew, and then at a later time
scribes copied the New Testament into Greek, then, according to these
people, words and phrases used in Greek do not match the Hebrew ideas and
were "glossed" in order to make sense. A gloss is an addition, correction,
or replacement made by a scribe when translating or copying the New
Testament documents. This would allow for a reinterpretation of the text,
and the inerrant and infallible nature of the text would be called into
serious question. For instance, they say that no Jew would understand God
as coming in the flesh because the idea of the "Trinity" is not a Jewish
concept at all, and the Old Testament Jew would never have thought of God in
this manner. So New Testament scribes reinterpreted the New Testament
documents in a manner that is really not true to the Biblical data. This
leaves room for doubt as to whether the Messiah would really be God. It
leaves doubt as to whether the Trinity is really a Jewish idea or a "gloss."
These are serious implications indeed.[2]

But since the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and
thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth
for the New Testament believer. If the New Testament is rooted in the
Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and
are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth. There are
many linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in
a Hebrew origin of the New Testament.

Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and
the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew. Early "church fathers"
validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1;
Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir.
3:36).

Hebrew was the language of Judah and Galilee in the first century. Its
sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of
commerce. Jews in this area were not Greek-speaking. Their revulsion to
the Greeks and the Greek language derives from the fact that the Maccabees
had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from
the Temple and Palestine.

"Whether more Greek or Aramaic was spoken in Palestine is up to debate. It
used to be thought that Aramaic was on the wane in the Seleucid
pre-Maccabaean period, but more evidence for Aramaic has accumulated
recently. The finds at Qumran reveal that literature was still being
composed in Aramaic in the first century before and after Christ. Examples
are the Genesis Apocryphon, the Testament of Levi, a Targum of Job, and a
text which refers to "the Son of God" and to "the Son of the Most High."
There are also legal documents and letters in Aramaic found in the Cave of
Letters of Wadi Habra and at Murabba'at. In examining this material, Joseph
Fitzmyer concludes that there is little evidence for Greek influence on
Aramaic, but that Aramaic clearly affected the Greek used by the Jews. [3]

According to Jerome, Apostle Paul wrote his epistles in Hebrew and Luke
translated them into Greek![4]

We have said several times that the apostle Paul was a very educated man and
erudite at the feet of Gamaliel, who addressed the assembly in the Acts of
the Apostles and said, And now what do you have to do with these men? For if
it is of God, it will stand, if it is of men, it is ruined. [Acts 5:38f.]
While he had the holy scriptures and possessed the grace of speaking and of
different tongues - about which he boasts in the Lord and says: I thank God,
because I speak in tongues more than all of them [1 Cor 14:18f.], he could
not properly explain the majesty of the divine meanings in eloquent Greek
speech.

He, thus, had Titus as an interpreter, just as the blessed Peter also had
Mark, whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing.
Further, the two epistles, which circulate as Peter's, are also different in
style among themselves and in character, and in word structure; from which
we understand that he used different interpreters as necessary.

Matthew who is also Levi, ex-publican apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ
in Hebrew letters and words first in Judea, on account of those from the
circumcision who believed; who later translated it in Greek is not quite
certain. Futher, the Hebrew itself is still kept today in the Caesarean
library, which Pamphilus the martyr diligently assembled.

It's very amusing that Jerome used the passage of scripture in 1 Corinthians
14 about tongues to prove that Paul spoke in Greek. But Jerome never
commented on the truth of Paul's words:

I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he
who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he
interprets, that the church may receive edification. 1 Corinthians 14:5

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 1Corinthians 4:18

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to
speak with tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:39

In context in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul talked about tongues being a spiritual
gift and the ability to pray in the Spirit, not the Greek Language. The
bible states even in Greek:

Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if
I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also
pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also
sing with the understanding. 1 Corinthians 14:13-15

It is interesting that proponents of the idea that the original language of
the New Testament was Greek cannot prove that Jesus told His disciples that
they would write a new testament in Greek and it would lead and guide them
into all truth. Rather Jesus stated:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away;
for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I
will send Him to you. "And when He has come, He will convict the world of
sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: "of sin, because they do not
believe in Me; "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me
no more; "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. "I still
have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "However,
when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;
for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will
speak; and He will tell you things to come. John 16:7-13

Truth and Spirit of Truth is found in a person called Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit and not necessarily in the person of Apostle Paul who in theory
along with Luke wrote most of the New Testament! Nowhere did Jesus Christ
tell us that Apostle Paul was to be our role model for the Christian life or
that his suffering were to be the pattern for our lives? Rather the unknown
writer of Hebrews stated

12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of
witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily
ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy
that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat
down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Yet proponents of the idea that the New Testament was written only in Greek
have put forth the idea that "Paul's epistles represent the framework of
Christian theology. Jesus told His apostles that what they bound on earth
would be bound in heaven. Nothing is more 'bound' by the Apostles than our
New Testament. Its application is universal in time. New scripture is not
being written today, nor will it ever be again in the future. Scripture is
sealed. Because of that, scripture is constant, not 'old'." And hence
whatever Paul said in Greek cannot be questioned! But it's the Holy Spirit,
not Apostle Paul, who interprets and reveals the scriptures to each person.
The bible clearly states:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 1 John
2:20

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do
not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you
concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has
taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[1] Was the New Testament Written in Greek? By C. Matthew McMahon

[2] Was the New Testament Written in Greek? By C. Matthew McMahon

[3] Bruce, F.F., New Testament History, Doubleday Dell Publishing Group,
Inc., New York, New York: 1971. Page 88

[4] http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/jerome.htm