The Origin of the NT Part 1

The Origin of the NT Part 1
By James Scott Trimm
The question of the original language of the books known as the “New Testament” is one which is not clearly resolved in the Scriptures alone. What may be known from the Scriptures can be augmented by what we know of Second Temple Era Judaism as well as the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers”. Both of these lines of evidence point us to the same answer of a Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament.

It has long been recognized that the Greek of the New Testament is infused with Semitic linguistic qualities. The Semitic Grammar of the Greek New Testament sets it apart from the majority of Greek literature with the exception of the Septuagint and a few other Judeo-Christian writings rendered into Greek. The common wisdom has been that these Semitic qualities are the result of the imitation of the style of the Septuagint, or because certain books of the New Testament, while written in Greek, were edited from Aramaic source documents.

Moreover it has been proposed by some that Aramaic literature was rare in the First Century and that the earliest believers in Yeshua had little interest in written documents. A.T. Olmstead and Arthur Voobus have, however, completely dispelled these claims (A. T. Olmstead “Could an Aramaic Gospel Be Written?”; Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 1 (1942), pp. 41-75; and Arthur Voobus, “Some Notes on the Possible Aramaic Gospels,” The Chicago Lutheran Seminary Record, vol. 55 (1950) , pp. 27-32.). A few scholars have even argued that there is nothing unusual about the Greek of the New Testament (E.C. Colwell, The Greek of the Fourth Gospel ;Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931). Some have sought to find comparable literary forms in the Koine Greek literature of the time, such as the Egyptian papyri. This effort is misguided because any sufficiently large pool of literature would provide literary parallels if one searched with sufficient diligence.

As A.T. Olmstead stated:

Any man who knows his classical Greek authors and reads the New Testament and then looks into the papyri is astonished at the similarities, which he finds. Any man who knows the papyri first and turns to Paul is astonished at the differences. There has been much exaggeration of the Koine element in the New Testament… in the vulgar Greek of the Levant there was nothing corresponding to the flavour of the early Christian writers.
(A. T. Olmstead “Could an Aramaic Gospel Be Written?”; Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 1 (1942), pp. 44)

One problem comparing with the Egyptian papyri is that there is a lack of any evidence of the influence of Egyptian grammar on these Greek papyri despite the fact that many of the authors were native Egyptian speakers. Why then would one expect Jewish writers, writing in Greek, to produce such heavily Semitized Greek?

Now one might ask, why have many scholars held to the Greek origin view? After the Romans defeated the Jews around 132 C.E. Y'huda the last of recorded Nazarene Nasi was exiled with the rest of the Jews from Jerusalem. A Gentile Christian named Markus was made Bishop of Jerusalem in his stead. Rome having put down two Jewish revolts (one in 70 CE and one in 132 CE) anti-Semitism became somewhat patriotic in the Roman Empire. In 325 C.E. A Pagan Gentile named Constantine conquered Rome and made himself emperor. Constantine , although a Pagan himself, declared Christianity to be the Catholic (Latin: universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman empire.

Constantine, who was an anti-Semite called the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to standardize Christianity. Nazarenes were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices were banned. For the first time Gentile Christianity officially labeled the Nazarenes as apostates. From this time forward Nazarenes begin to be listed in the catalogs of apostate
movements (the first of these to include the Nazarenes was Epiphanius's "Panarion" (around 370 C.E.).

Just as the biblical Jewish Holy Days were replaced by gentile holidays, the books of the "New Testament" were translated into other languages. Eventually the Greek versions of these books came to be regarded as the originals. In order to purge the New Testament of its Jewishness it was, in the end, necessary to divorce it from its Hebrew and Aramaic origin. Gentile Christians thus lost touch with the Hebraic origin of the "New Testament" and instead a Greek New Testament text became the basis of their faith. The Hebraic roots of the text were severed as Greek methods of interpretation came to be applied to a Greek New Testament in its place.

Western Christian scholarship is rooted in Greek while being largely ignorant of Hebrew and Aramaic and Jewish culture. Greek was the Ecclesiastical language of early Western Christianity and the majority of New Testament manuscripts are in Greek or Latin. Therefore these scholars tend to lean towards the Greek language and culture. Moreover Protestantism split off from Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism was rooted in the Hellenistic culture of ancient Rome. The roots of Western civilization are in Hellenism, and the Protestant Churches inherited a Greek New Testament. Even secular Western Scholars today descend from earlier non-secular scholarship, and they have retained many of their suppositions.

As a result of these factors, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts fell into disuse. This was true not only of the books known as the “New Testament” but also of the books known as the “Old Testament” and those known as the “Apocrypha” as well. In fact the “Old Testament” and the “Apocrypha” give us a good example of a “control group” for comparison. We can be certain that the books known as the “Old Testament” and most (arguably all) of the books known as the “Apocrypha” were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Yet the Christian Church made no attempt to preserve the original Hebrew of these books. In the case of the “Old Testament” the only Hebrew version which was carefully handed down to us was Masoretic Text, which was preserved and handed down through the efforts of Rabbinic Judaism, not Christianity. Had it not been for the Masoretic Text, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 would have meant the rediscovery of much of the lost original Hebrew of the “Old Testament”. Western Christendom sought only to preserve and pass down the Greek and Latin texts of these books, carefully preserving the “Old Testament” primarily in the form of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. In the case of the Apocrypha, while these books are of Jewish Origin, they were not ultimately canonized by Rabbinic Judaism and no attempt was made to preserve them within Rabbinic Judaism. These books were preserved only by Christendom, and again, primarily in Greek and Latin, in many cases the Hebrew of these books has been lost. One notable point, the Syriac (Aramaic) Churches such as the Assyrian Church of the East have preserved the books of the “Old Testament” as well as most of the “Apocrypha” and most of the “New Testament” (excepting 2Pt; 2&3 Jn., Jd. and Rev.). It is worthy of note that where ancient Christian Papyri are found, they are almost always Greek, and this is true even of books of the “Old Testament” which we know were originally written in Hebrew. The status quo of the origin of the New Testament in learning institutions and churches has been Greek and their vested interests would be shaken to the core if this status was upset.

However, despite these facts, many scholars have found a very strong possibility of a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for all or part of the “New Testament”. A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New Testament were originally penned in a Semitic tongue. This argument has been asserted of the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Gospels: Our Translated Gospels by Charles Cutler Torrey; Harper and Brothers, New York; 1936; p. ix; An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels by Frank Zimmerman; New York; 1979

Acts: The Composition and Date of Acts by Charles Cutler Torrey; Cambridge Mass.; 1916; p. 7; An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jr. 1984; p. 23; See also The Semitisms of Acts by Max Wilcox; 1965

Revelation: The Original Language of the Apocalypse by R. B. Y. Scott; University of Toronto Press; 1928; Documents of the Primitive Church by Charles Cutler Torrey; 1941

The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the topic:

When we turn to the New Testament we find that
there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii

The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian,
and the language in which it was originally written
is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land...
-C. C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936 p. ix


The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was
Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short
of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case,
some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main
contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ...

The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from
a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was
Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly
through a comparison of parallel passages. ...

One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century
and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels
were written in Greek...

Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly
with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35
are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text....

My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position
valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated
from Aramaic into Greek.
- Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin
of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979

Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle
the question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel;
and quickly convincing himself that the theory of an
original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact
which was capable of the fullest verification...
- Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin
of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3

...this [Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least
to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work
of the Apostle himself.
- William Cureton; Remains of a Very
Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels
in Syriac; 1858; p. vi)

...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,
and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original."
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church
1941; p. 160

We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse
as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...
- R. B. Y. Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse
1928; p. 6

These have made arguments for a Hebrew and Aramaic origin based primarily upon reconstructing hypothetical Hebrew or Aramaic texts behind the Greek. Since they have generally worked from reconstructions rather than actual Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, they have often hypothesized mistranslations where they had not actually occurred.

By contrast in the Church of the East it is commonly held that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. In the East this tradition runs parallel and counter to that of the Greek origin presupposed in the West. This was the view of George Lamsa, who based on his Assyrian background in the Church of the East, argued for an Aramaic origin of the New Testament, and particularly for the Peshitta as that original:

The Pauline Epistles were letters written by Paul to small
Christian congregations in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. These early Christians were mostly Jews of the Dispersion, men and women of Hebrew origin. Paul on his journeys always spoke in the Jewish synagogues. His first converts were Hebrews. Then came Arameans...
Paul emphasizes Hebrew law and history. He refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as our fathers. In his letters and teaching he appeals to the Jewish people to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. Paul's mission was first to his own people... Paul was educated in Jewish law in Jerusalem. He was a member of the Jewish Council. His native language was western Aramaic but he acquired his education through Hebrew and Chaldean or Palestinian Aramaic... He defended himself when on trial in the Hebrew tongue. Acts 22:2... Very early the Epistles were translated into Greek for the use of converts who spoke Greek. Later they were translated into all tongues.
(George M. Lamsa; The New Testament according to the Eastern Text; 1940; pp. xi-xii)

Lamsa’s material, however, often had academic shortcomings.

Still other scholars, like Fredrick Henry Chase, have argued that the Semitic qualities in the Greek and Latin versions result from these manuscripts being revised in places to agree with the Old Syriac.

To sum up these things, a wide variety of scholars have recognized the Hebrew and Aramaic influence on the Greek New Testament, and have tried to “explain away” this influence in various ways.

In my book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament (http://www.lulu.com/nazarene) I have made the case that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Furthermore I demonstrated that the DuTillet and Munster (and to a lesser extent Shem Tob) Hebrew texts of Matthew, the Munster Hebrew text of Hebrews, the Old Syriac Aramaic text of the four Gospels, the Peshitta Aramaic NT and the Crawford Aramaic text of Revelation descend from that original Hebrew and Aramaic original.