Sacred Name And Greek
THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN
GREEK - Written By Gary Mink
INTRODUCTION
We are embarking upon an in depth study of the original language of the New Testament. Was it Hebrew? Was it Aramaic? Was it Greek?
Each chapter is made from a different point of view and is written to be a stand alone study. Every section presents valid and substantial proof of the truth about this matter. Taken together, the ten chapters are overwhelmingly convincing.
In a large measure, the study is made directly from the scriptures. We shall cover the New Testament for any information pertaining to our subject. We study quotations from the Greek Old Testament. We do research concerning the manuscripts of the New Testament. We even discover the Dead Sea Scrolls are pertinent to this subject. Additionally, we shall check what scholars from various disciplines have to say about our subject.
Importance
Why is this study necessary? As a matter of fact, it is not a study everyone needs to make. Nearly every person who has studied the bible and its background already knows the thesis of this book is true.
The New Testament has been translated into hundreds of languages. Is it important whether it was written originally in Greek or some other language? It is important only in so far as the truth is important. Perhaps knowing what the original language was would be more important to us if we knew how many people are being misled because they do not think it is important.
In this study, we have refused to take the word of secular writers, historians, and bible scholars for the original language. If knowing the New Testament's original language is important, we can find out about it from the book itself. If it is something God wants us to know, he will have revealed it in the scriptures.
Are we able to find out what the original language was by simply studying the Bible? Indeed we are; and we shall. However, we shall also check into a bit of history and reference works at the end of our study. It will be interesting to see if scholars agree with the bible.
The Sacred Name Movement
Teachers within the Sacred Name Movement think of this subject as very important. They insist upon an original Hebrew New Testament. A Hebrew New Testament is not only important to their cardinal doctrine, it is essential. The fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek shows the doctrine of the sacred name to be false.
This study lives up to its subtitle by refuting the original Hebrew New Testament claim, made by these Sacred Name Movement teachers. We reach out in love to the people involved in that error.
Perhaps you know next to nothing about the Sacred Name Movement. It is neither large nor well known. The primary doctrine of this movement advocates the use of the Lord's name only in Hebrew. Such a teaching may seem quite benign to most people.
However, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. When this false teaching infects the minister of a congregation, it becomes like a malignant disease. It eats away the good until an almost complete congregation can be brought into its cancerous grip at one time.
This movement began in the 1930's. Most of the men who started it were one time members of the Church of God (Seventh Day). It became their belief that God's people must call him only by his Old Testament name in Hebrew. This is most often pronounced, "Yahweh." They also came to believe Jesus cannot be called Jesus. He must be called by a Hebrew name, Yahshua. (Pronunciations of both names differ within the movement.)
It is generally taught that salvation is dependent upon pronouncing these names properly and exactly. However, it is no easy matter to find two groups in the movement which pronounce the names the same way. (I have documented several.2 There are more.)
By this, we can see that the movement is very fractured. Most groups declare anathema upon any who do not agree with them about the pronunciation of the names.
Hebrew New Testament
However, their doctrine compels them to agree on at least one point, the New Testament and therefore the sacred names within it were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. They are forced to this conclusion to protect their teaching that the name of Jesus should not be in the scriptures. Jesus is the English letters for the Greek name IhsouV.
They do not sing, pray, preach, or speak using the name of Jesus, unless it is to denounce that name.
One of their number has concisely said that it is a sin to say the name Jesus and that the name of Jesus has been and is being used by the devil. Some of them refusing to say the name, refer to Jesus as the j- word. One goes so far as to proclaim the name of Jesus is the mark of the beast.
Because of this intense dislike for the name of Jesus, many groups within the movement have translated their own bibles. In these bibles the spellings of the sacred names preferred by the translators are included. Many groups and individuals use these sacred name bibles.
The idea that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic is patently false. There seems to be some confusion within the movement about these two languages. Apparently because they use the same alphabet, they are thought by some to be one language. Regardless of that, the New Testament was written in neither Hebrew nor Aramaic.
Of course, it can be easily seen that if the complete New Testament or any part of it were originally written in Greek, then the name of Jesus was written in Greek by inspired men. By this, both the New Testament writers and the Holy Spirit gave their approval to the name of IhsouV. This being true, the sacred Hebrew name doctrine falls of its own weight.
Prove all things
We once invited a Vanderbilt University professor of New Testament studies to speak at our church. We wanted the professor, who happens to be a Jewish lady, to prove to us the New Testament was indeed written in Greek.
She declined to speak on such a subject because it involved no controversy. It was obvious, she said, that the New Testament was written in Greek. It needs no proof.
Proving the New Testament is a Greek book is like proving the sky is blue. It is something obvious to everybody. If someone does not know it, all he or she needs to do is look at it. If anyone looks at it and still will not acknowledge it is blue, you might have trouble proving it to him.
I have little doubt the above sentiment is true. Still, I am compelled to present proof. I can only pray someone will be helped either to get out or to stay out of the pit of confusion.
The presentation of the subject matter in this study proceeds along three lines.
One: We will see that the New Testament was written by people who spoke Greek.
Two: We will see that the New Testament was written to people who spoke Greek.
Three: We will see that the New Testament was written to people who knew neither the Jewish customs nor the Hebrew language.
Whether you are concerned about the Sacred Name Movement or not, I believe you will find our subject interesting. My prayer is that each person who makes this study will gain not only knowledge, but spiritual understanding. My hope is that you will be able to use the information presented here to help someone out of the sacred name error. I also hope you will enjoy the study as much as I have.
While the Greek of the New Testament may not be a conflict for everyone, it is for me. The controversy of it has been thrust upon me in a very personal way. So, shall you and I look at the sky to see if it is blue? Shall we look at the New Testament to see if it is Greek?
FIRST STUDY
THE ALPHA AND OMEGA
IN THIS STUDY WE LEARN:
1. Jesus spoke Greek.
2. Jesus sent The Revelation to Greek speaking people.
3. John wrote the words of Jesus in Greek.
STUDY ONE
Some years ago a jeweler whose given name was Harold, had a store in Nashville. He was one of the early advertisers on television. He was also his own spokesperson. His advertisements usually ended with this personal appeal to the public. "If you don't know diamonds, know your jeweler. And if Harold says it's so, it's so."
I don't know whether Harold was an honest man or not, but his message was: I am honest. You can believe what I tell you.
Can't the same be said of Jesus? He is honest. He is the faithful and true witness. We can believe what he says. If Jesus says it is so, it is so. Jesus said he was the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending...
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...
Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13
When Jesus said of himself, "I am Alpha and Omega," he was speaking Greek. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet. Omega is the last. He uses these Greek letters to make his point. "I am the first and the last." "I am the beginning and the end." He graphically illustrates his point with this figure of speech.
If Jesus said these words, then the New Testament was written in Greek. Conversely, if the New Testament was not written in Greek, then Jesus did not say these words, he is not the Alpha and the Omega, and we cannot trust him to be exactly who he says he is. It is best if we trust Jesus. He is Alpha and Omega.
JESUS SPEAKS GREEK
Don't be surprised when Jesus speaks Greek. He is the God of creation. He created all things. That would include the Greek language. Since he created it, does it not seem eminently reasonable that he should speak it?
But the question for us to address is this, could Jesus speak Greek while on earth? He lived and ministered in a multilingual culture. This fact is easily seen from the sign Pilate posted on the cross. It was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. It is just possible some of the Greek spoken in that area could have rubbed off on Jesus.
GALILEE OF THE GENTILES
In Galilee, where Jesus grew up, the population was by no means wholly Jewish. Since the fall of Israel, about 600 B.C., it had been under Jewish domination only during the rule of the Maccabees. You see, when Jesus was a boy, Galilee had been under Jewish rule for only about a century out of the past six hundred years.
When Jesus lived there, it was ruled by Rome not by Jews. Herod the tetrarch, who ruled Galilee when Jesus was born, was not Jewish. He was an Idumaean, a descendant of Esau. Of course, he ruled at the bidding of the Roman Emperor.
In the Scripture, you will recall, Galilee is called "Galilee of the Gentiles." It had a number of non-Jewish cities and a large non-Jewish population. The sea of Galilee was surrounded by Greek cities.3
Not every city on the sea was Greek, but many were. Decapolis (This word is Greek for Ten Cities.) bordering the sea to the east and south were Hellenistic cities. Tiberias, built to honor the Roman emperor by that name, was on the southwestern shore. Sephoris, a thoroughly Greek city, was not an hour's walk north of Nazareth. Galilee had a large Greek and other Gentile presence. The culture of these people was Greek and they spoke the Greek language.
Jesus traveled to some of the Greek cities in the area. Once near Tyre and Sidon he had a conversation with a Greek lady and healed her daughter. It is not unreasonable to believe that Jesus spoke Greek to her. The Jews with whom Jesus had contact knew he could speak Greek. They said he would be able to teach the Greeks. Remember their comments.
Where does this man intend to go that we
cannot find him? Will he go where our people
live scattered among the Greeks, and teach
the Greeks?
You are able to see that Jesus lived and worked in an area with more than one language.4 He spent much of his life in Galilee of the Gentiles. He traveled to Greek cities and talked with Greek people. His native language may have been Aramaic, but without any doubt he also spoke Greek.
HIS NAME IN GREEK
Jesus even said his name in Greek. Near the end of the book of the Revelation, here is what he said.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
these things in the churches.Rev 22:16
He has just said, in Greek, " I am Alpha and Omega." Only a few words later in the same speech he says, "I Jesus." This is also in Greek. Our Lord spoke his name in a language other than Hebrew. He said, "egw IhsouV. "Egw IhsouV," being translated (from Greek into English), is "I JESUS." His name in Greek is IhsouV. This name transliterated into English is Iesous - thus Jesus.
By saying this, he made his name sacred in the Greek language. He used his name in Greek. We can use his name in Greek or English or any other language. He is not and his name cannot be confined only to the Hebrews or only to their language. His New Testament is most certainly not in the Hebrew language.
Here is something else to consider. The book of the Revelation is written "to the seven churches which are in Asia." All seven churches are in Greek cities.5 The Roman province of Asia is today's Turkey. Before the Romans controlled that area, Greek people had lived there for centuries. John received and likely wrote the Revelation while in exile on an island just off the coast of Asia.
Patmos is a rocky little island in the Aegean sea. John was exiled on a Greek island. The people to whom John wrote were Greek. There is no reason why John would have written in any language other than Greek.
Furthermore, John wrote Jesus' words, "I am Alpha and Omega." That is Greek. You and I can know by this that the New Testament was written in Greek. At least, we can ascertain this fact - The Revelation was.
We can trust Jesus. He is honest. He is the faithful witness. I believe his testimony that he is the Alpha and Omega. I also believe those words are Greek. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude the New Testament was written in Greek.
SECOND STUDY
"THE JEWS"
IN THIS STUDY WE LEARN:
1. John's gospel was written to non Jewish people.
2. Acts was written to a Greek man.
3. The language of the New Testament makes it clear the the book was not written to people who spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic.
My brother spent almost thirty years in the United States Navy. He was in a number of countries. Most of them were completely foreign to me. During this time, we communicated by letter, by phone, and sometimes by tape recordings. I would tell him what was happening among the people at home. He would tell me what was happening where he was.
In no communication I ever had with him did I refer to the people at home as "the Tennesseans" or "the Americans." First, I am a Tennessean. Second, my brother, to whom I was writing, was a Tennessean. Third, the people about whom I was writing were Tennesseans. There was no need for me to explain to him whom I was writing about. We were all Tennesseans.
However, his letters to me were different. When he was in China, he wrote about "the Chinese" eating habits and "the Chinese " dress. He wrote of "the Chinese" customs and "the Chinese" manners.
You see, in his letters there was a need to explain who the people were about whom he was writing. He was able to accomplish this by these constant references to their nationality. This was made necessary only because the people about whom he wrote were of a different nation than the people to whom he wrote.
"THE JEWS" IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
The form of communication characterized by one writing to a person of another nation used by my brother, is found often in the New Testament. There are about eighty references to "the Jews" in Acts. Almost as many are in the Gospel of John. This proves beyond any doubt that we are dealing with a non-Jewish book. It is fair of you to demand to know just how this proves anything.
Let's check a few concrete examples so that you may see for yourself. There is one on the very first page of John's Gospel.
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent
priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him,
Who art thou?John 1:19
This is John's first reference to the Jewish people in his narrative. As soon as he introduces them into his narrative, he calls them "the Jews." For him to refer to them in this way positively identifies them as being of a different nation than his readers.John understands this. His readers understand this. You and I understand this. We know, by the way John referred to the people about whom he wrote, that the people to whom he wrote were of a different nation. Otherwise, why would he have made any reference to their nationality?
John wrote his Gospel for non-Jewish people. He wrote it for Gentiles. He wrote it for Greeks.
Consider another example of the same sort from John's writings.
Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he
was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only,
but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had
raised from the dead.John 12:9
How could John make it any plainer that he is not writing to Jews? To his readers he says, "much people of the Jews." He would not have said this if he had been writing to Jewish people. Such a reference would have been altogether unnecessary.Again, John shows us his book was not written to Jews. Neither would it have been in the language of Jews. There can be no possible reason why John would have written in Hebrew to these non Jews. They could not have read it. His book was written in Greek.
In twenty-one chapters, John refers to "the Jews" about seventy times - 70 times! On average, that is more than three times per chapter. John did not invent this way of distinguishing between the people he is writing to and the people he is writing about.
Both he, and the Holy Spirit who held his hand as he wrote, wanted us to see this distinction. A writer may choose to use this characteristic of communication. He may choose another way to make the distinction. He may choose not to make any distinction at all. However, when this communication device is used, we can be certain the writer is telling his readers that the people he is writing about are different from them.
AT JACOB'S WELL
John tells what happened to Jesus near the little Samaritan town of Sychar. In his narrative, he gives us three examples of how language is used to make a distinction between peoples.
The first is by the woman whom Jesus met at Jacob's Well while he rested there. She draws a very clear line between individuals of different nations. Here is what she said.
How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me,
which am a woman of Samaria ?John 4:9
This is such a common way of talking we pass over it without notice, unless someone focuses our attention on it. However, now that I have asked you to focus on it, you can easily see what she did.For a second example, check John's notice of what she said. He uses the same way of communicating. He comments, parenthetically to his obviously non Jewish readers. He finds it necessary to explain the Jewish reaction to the Samaritans for the readers.
For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
John 4:9
You see, he explains for his readers why she would say such a discourteous thing to Jesus. In doing so, he also makes the difference of nationality distinctive and yet does it so easily it is hardly noticeable.In a third example, we have the words of Jesus. Without calling them by name, he tells the woman that salvation is not of the Samaritans. This is what he said.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we
worship; for salvation is of the Jews.John 4:22By saying "the Jews," Jesus makes an ethnic difference between the people he is speaking about and the person he is speaking to. The people about whom he is talking are Jewish; the person to whom he is talking is Samaritan.
He has no need to say "the Samaritans" to make the distinction between nations clear. The "ye," the "we," and "the Jews" does this well for him. Jesus, a Jew, calls his people the Jews when speaking to a non-Jewish woman.
This is exactly what John, a Jew, did in his Gospel. He repeatedly called his own people, "the Jews" when writing to non-Jewish people.
This rhetorical device is used by many people in many languages. We can be certain John's seventy or so uses of it are by design. He uses it twelve times in one chapter. He intends the distinction of nations to be clear. He is writing about "the Jews" to people who are not Jewish.
Therefore, his book would have been written in a language not Jewish, not Hebrew. The Gospel of John could not have been written in Hebrew. It could only have been in Greek. There can be no doubt about this.
"THE JEWS" IN ACTS
It is interesting to read the account in Acts of a meeting between Jews and Gentiles. See what the messengers from Caesarea told Peter about their master.
And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man,
and one that feareth God, and of good report
among all the nation of the Jews...
These are the words of the men whom Cornelius, a Gentile, sent to Peter, a Jew. There are three individuals represented in these words.6 One is speaking. A second is being spoken to. The third is being spoken about. When we see the use made of the term "the Jews," and know Peter is Jewish, we then know the third party is not Jewish. It is as simple as that.Notice Peter's words to Cornelius when he arrived at his house?
Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man
that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of
another nation...Acts 10:28
By referring to himself as "a Jew", Peter makes a clear distinction between himself and any person of another nation. Particularly here, he makes the difference between himself and Cornelius, a non Jew, clear. This distinction was clear to Peter. It was clear to Cornelius. It is equally clear to us. Again, here are more of Peter's words to these Gentiles.
And we are witnesses of all things which he
did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem;
whom they slew and hanged on a tree:Acts 10:39
THE DISTINCTION MADEIt cannot help being clear to any candid reader of the New Testament that by use of the term "the Jews" a distinction is made between Jews and non Jews. When people of different nations are involved in the speaking or writing, as first, second, or third person, the distinction of people can be made in this way. In our examples, we know that someone, either the first, second, or third person is not Jewish
We observed it in John's gospel. Now we are able to see it throughout the narrative book of Acts. It is the reader who is not Jewish, always the reader. We know this for other reasons as well. We clearly see it from the often used term "the Jews."
It is used in Acts about eighty times. With that many uses, how could any reasonable person even imagine that this book was written to a Jewish person. It was, in fact, written to a Greek man named Theophilus. It was also written in a language he could read, Greek.
THIRD STUDY
LUKE AND THEOPHILUS
IN THIS STUDY WE LEARN:
1. Luke was a Gentile doctor.
2. Theophilus understood no Aramaic.
3. Neither Acts nor Luke could have been written in Hebrew or
Aramaic.
H. M. Stanley set out in 1871 to find David Livingston, the English missionary and explorer of Africa. His journey took him to many places. He was among many people of many languages. From March till November he searched, finally finding Livingston in the town of Ujiji on Lake Tanganyika. Stanley was the consummate Englishman. It is said his first words to Livingston were, "Dr. Livingston, I presume?"
In 1872 he wrote a small book about the adventures of his search. The book is called "How I Found Livingston". He wrote about events in foreign lands, among people of strange customs, practices, and languages.
Since his book is written for Englishmen, it is not at all surprising that he wrote it in English. With this in mind, let's look at Luke's books, Acts and the Gospel.
LUKE
Luke was unique among New Testament writers. Paul makes it clear in his letter to the Colossians (chapter 4 verses 10-14) that Luke was not Jewish. Neither was he a witness to the ministry of Jesus. He was a physician who accompanied Paul on some of his journeys into Gentile lands. Eventually he came with Paul to Rome.
Since Luke was a Gentile doctor in an empire of Greek speakers, there can be no doubt at all of his fluency in the Greek language. He was very likely a Greek by birth. He most certainly was Greek by language and education. He wrote his books, which he dedicated to Theophilus, in the Greek style and in the Greek language.
THE INTRODUCTION
The introduction in both Luke and Acts is a form long used among Greek writers. If this book were originally pinned in Hebrew it would be strange indeed for it to have such an obvious Greek introduction. A Hebrew book would not have such an introduction.
The Gospel and Acts are both addressed to Theophilus. The way Luke addressed him, "most excellent Theophilus," is formal and perhaps indicate he was a man of some official position. At least this is how Luke used the same form of address in other places in Acts.7 His name is Greek. It means beloved of God.
Look clearly at the situation of the writing of Luke and Acts. A doctor who is fluent in Greek is writing to a Greek man. How can it even be imagined that these books were written in any language but Greek? It cannot be imagined. Simply because both of them were written in Greek. But then, the whole New Testament was written in Greek.
TWO EXPLANATIONS
Here are some points of Scripture, which continue to illustrate how we know Theophilus was a Greek rather than a Jew.
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,
which is called the Passover.
Before this point in Luke's Gospel, he has not mentioned the feast of unleavened bread, per se to Theophilus. He mentions it a few verses later; but this is the first time. Therefore, he explains to his friend what the Jews call the feast. It is called "the Passover."
Every Jewish person already knew that the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover. However, Theophilus did not know it. He needed to have it explained to him. Luke knew he was not Jewish. By this, we are also able to know he was not Jewish. This shows any unbiased person that the book of Acts was not, could not have been, written to a Jewish person. In this way Luke demonstrates to us that his friend was not Jewish.
When Luke tells Theophilus about the burial of Jesus, he includes the city of Joseph. Joseph was the wealthy member of the Jewish council who had not wanted to condemn Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus and buried it in his own tomb. He was from Arimathea. Luke, ever a stickler for details, gave Theophilus a bit more information about the city.
This is what he told him.
He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews.
Luke would not have said, "the Jews" to a Jewish person. Nor would he have needed to tell a Jew that Arimathea was a city of the Jews. He told it to Theophilus, proving forever that Theophilus was not a Jew.
TWO TRANSLATIONS
Luke has shown us Theophilus was not Jewish. He proceeds to show us Theophilus did not know the language of the Jews. Luke tells us this each time he translates a simple Aramaic name into Greek for him.
If Theophilus could have spoken Aramaic, Luke would not have insulted him by doing this. Let's consider two names.
And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed
Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of
consolation,)...
The first example is the word "Barnabas," which of course, is an Aramaic name. This was almost certain that this was the native language spoken by Jesus, the Apostles, and most other Jews who lived in the area around Jerusalem.
In Aramaic,8 Bar indicates son and son of. Any one who understood even the rudiments of Aramaic, would have known this. Luke sees a necessity to translate Bar-nabas into Greek. In this way, he makes it obvious to us that Theophilus understood no Aramaic.
The man to whom the book was written understood not even a small amount of this language. Such is the down falling of any and every theory based on The Acts of the Apostles being written in Aramaic.
To translate is to bring the meaning of a word or words from one language into another. Luke is doing just that. He uses the word interpreted (translated) to describe what he is doing. He translated the Aramaic word "Barnabas" into Greek. Then his friend Theophilus could understand what it means.
Here is another Aramaic word Luke translated.
Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named
Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcus...
Luke gives Theophilus the same courtesy again. He translates the simple Aramaic name "Tabitha" into the Greek language as "Dorcus." I will also do you a courtesy by further translating Dorcus into English. Being translated, it is Gazelle. Dorcus is a Greek word. I translated it into English. Tabitha is an Aramaic word. Luke translated it into Greek. Because of this, we can know without any doubt, Greek is the language of Theophilus. Just as we know English is your language. Greek is the language in which Luke wrote his two books.
We are compelled to conclude that Luke wrote in Greek. Otherwise we are left with no solution to the problem of why Luke translated these names for his friend. Translation is possible only when two languages are involved. A word cannot be translated into the language of which it is a part. Within a language a word is merely explained, not translated. When Luke used the word "translated" to describe what he was doing, he forever doomed the theory that the New Testament was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
ANOTHER SOLUTION
Of course, if we had rather not let God's Word speak to us, there is another solution to this problem. We could follow the example of those who claim the New Testament was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. After realizing that these examples from the Scriptures destroy the Hebrew New Testament theory, they just deny that Luke wrote these parts.
It is a simple solution and it gets get rid of the problem. But only those who can countenance denying the Bible are equipped to take this course. I, for one, am not so equipped.
Are you ready with scissors to cut out the parts of the Bible you don't like? Are we allowed to cut and paste our own Bible?
Some of us are compelled to simply take what is written in the New Testament. We find this a more prudent course than explaining it away or denying it should be there
The book plainly declares itself to have been written in Greek.
FOURTH STUDY
ARAMAIC AND HEBREW
WORDS AND PHRASES
IN THIS STUDY WE LEARN:
1. New Testament writers translated Hebrew and Aramaic words for their readers.
2. The intended readers of the new Testament could not read even the most simple Hebrew and Aramaic words.
On October 12, in the year 1492, a Spanish Jew called Christopher Columbus sighted and landed on a small island somewhere near present day Cuba. Today no one knows for sure which island it was. It certainly was a momentous event in our history.
When Columbus got home, he wrote a letter to Gabriel Sanchez,9 treasurer for the King of Spain. He recounted for Sanchez, "everything done and discovered in this our voyage." The letter makes interesting reading. Since it was sent to a Spanish official, we should not wonder that it was written in Spanish. Later, it was translated into Latin and later still, English.
However, for our study, there is one very memorable sentence in Columbus' letter. He first tells Sanchez that he has named the island on which he landed in honor of the Savior. (He named it San Salvador, which translates as, Holy Savior.) Then he says, "But the Indians called it Guanahany."
By this sentence, Columbus makes a clear distinction between Spanish and the language of the Indians. Without being told anything else about them, Sanchez knew the Indians spoke a language other than Spanish. He knew this because he understood the distinction Columbus made. He knew Guanahany was not a Spanish word. We can read the letter and know the same thing. Those Indians did not speak Spanish.
Just as Columbus put an Indian word in his Spanish letter, we find Aramaic and Hebrew words in the Greek New Testament. This all the more confirms to us that the book was written in Greek. For if it had been written in Aramaic or Hebrew then translated into Greek, the Aramaic and Hebrew words simply would have been translated along with the rest of the book. The New Testament writers put these words and expressions in the New Testament. Then they translated these words for their readers.
Why were these translations made? They would not have been made by someone writing in Aramaic to someone who understood Aramaic. There can be only one reason. The writer is writing in Greek. He simply transliterates a number of the names of people, places, and expressions from Aramaic into Greek. Then he translates these words for his readers, knowing they spoke no Aramaic. This tells us the writers knew that their readers did not know Aramaic. Now, we begin to see the magnitude of proof from the book itself that the New Testament was indeed written in Greek.
ABBA
Let's focus on "Abba" for a moment. Paul put this Aramaic word in his letter to the Romans.
But ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.Romans 8:15
The Romans knew "Abba" was not a Greek word. They knew Paul was using a language other than the one in which he was writing to them. Paul also knew Abba was an unfamiliar word for the Romans. That is why he followed it with the Greek translation, "Father." Since Abba is an Aramaic word for Father, we know the letter to the Romans was not written in Aramaic.EMMANUEL IN MATTHEW
In the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament the Holy Spirit puts us on notice this book is not originally in Aramaic or Hebrew. Matthew quotes Isaiah.
Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name EmmanuelMatthew. 1:23
This is what Isaiah had written hundreds of years earlier. Matthew simply tells his readers what Isaiah said. In doing so, he brings into his text the Hebrew word "Emmanuel."One point Matthew makes here is that the birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of prophesy. A second point he establishes is found within the meaning of the word Emmanuel. It is a point Matthew cannot make unless his readers know what the word means.
Matthew is compelled to translate Emmanuel for his readers. When he does this, we can see that he knew they would not understand Hebrew. It further shows us that he was not writing in Hebrew.
Which being interpreted is, God with us.
Matthew 1:23
Here at the very outset of the book, for every unbiased person, any notion of an original Hebrew New Testament vanishes. The Bible is telling us the New Testament was not written in Hebrew. At this point, all that needs to be done is believe the Bible.Matthew would not have been thinking very clearly to translate this word if his readers were conversant with Hebrew. Because he translates, we know he is dealing with two languages. We also know the word Emmanuel is being translated from Hebrew into the language in which the book is being written. Therefore, it is impossible for the book to have been written in Hebrew. Greek was the language in which Matthew was writing.
IMMANUEL IN ISAIAH
What did Isaiah do when he wrote the same word in his book? Nothing. Remember, Isaiah wrote in Hebrew and he wrote for Hebrew readers. Because of this, it was not necessary for him to translate the word Immanuel.
Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel.Isaiah 7:14
Now, Isaiah was writing in Hebrew. He knew his readers understood what "Immanuel" means. The language of Isaiah's readers and the language of which Immanuel is a part were the same. He found no need to translate the word for them.On the other hand, Matthew knew his readers would not understand what this word means. The language of his readers and the language of which Immanuel is a part are different. Therefore he translated for them.
I know this is basic. It is simple. It is also absolute proof that the New Testament was not written in Hebrew. The only other way one can deal with this use of Emmanuel is deny that Matthew wrote it. Such a thing we will not do. Matthew wrote his book in Greek.
TALITHA CUMI
Mark gives his readers one of the sayings of Jesus just as it sounded in Aramaic. Then he translates it for them.
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her,
Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise.Mark 5:41
Here Mark uses two Aramaic words. He transliterate these words into the text of his narrative, then translated them for his readers. He proved to us by this translation, that his readers did not understand even simple Aramaic words.No one can fail to take these facts into account. "Little girl, get up" are words a child would know. Simply because of Mark's translation, we realize his readers knew no Aramaic. They did know Greek.
ELOI, ELOI
Another example of an Aramaic phrase which Mark saw a need to translate for his readers is the cry of Jesus from the cross.
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?Mark 15:33,34
Jesus is speaking Aramaic. Mark wanted his readers to hear the very words Jesus spoke. He also wanted them to know the meaning of these words. But, knowing they would not understand the Aramaic language, he translated the words into Greek. It is obvious these people knew no Aramaic. They could read Greek. It is also quite obvious Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek.RABBI
At the beginning of his Gospel, John translated three everyday words for his readers. We need to check them. First there is the word Rabbi.
They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being
interpreted, Master,) where dwelleth thou?John 1:38
Rabbi is another Hebrew word. (John also translated the Aramaic, Rabboni in chapter 20.) It means master, as in schoolmaster, a teacher. It is such a common Hebrew title, such an often used word, anyone even vaguely familiar with Hebrew would have known it.However, John's readers did not know it. Therefore, we know they did not speak Hebrew. They were Greek speakers. John knew that. He took it into account as he translated this simple Hebrew word into Greek for them.
MESSIAS
John used the word Messias twice in his Gospel. It is found nowhere else in the New Testament. He translated it for his readers each time.
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith
unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.John 1:41 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias
commeth which is called Christ.John 4:25
The word "Messias" was a staple in the language of the Jews. It is inconceivable that even one of them would not have known it. But John had to translate it for his readers. This tells us conclusively, he was not writing to Jewish people. The word he translated Messias to, "Christos," is an altogether Greek word. This further shows he was writing in Greek. Even in English the word remains largely Greek.John translated the Hebrew not just once, but both times he used it. It should be mentioned here that Daniel also used Messiah twice in his book.10 Daniel, who is definitely writing for Jewish readers, did not find a need to translate the word for them.
The reason is simple enough. Daniels's readers spoke Hebrew. John's, did not.
CEPHAS
The surname which Jesus gave to Simon produces a third translation in John's first chapter.
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art
Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation, A stone.John 1:42
Cephas is an Aramaic word. It's the kind of word children learn soon after they begin to walk barefoot in the yard and step an small stones.
He translated it into Greek as Petros. Our English translators brought it further into our language as a stone. Why did John translate it?
John was writing in a language other than the one of which the word Cephas is a part. John's readers did not even know the Aramaic word for stone.
Therefore, we are able to tell they were