Why Greek?

[eddybear]

Why did the NT writers all write in Greek? I can understand why Paul would write in Greek as his letters were generally to congregations in the Greek-speaking world, but why did the other authors use it? For instance, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Matthew's gospel has a Jewish feel to it. So wouldn't it have made sense for them to write in Hebrew / Aramaic?

[Steveg]

Why did the NT writers all write in Greek? I can understand why Paul would write in Greek as his letters were generally to congregations in the Greek-speaking world, but why did the other authors use it? For instance, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Matthew's gospel has a Jewish feel to it. So wouldn't it have made sense for them to write in Hebrew / Aramaic?

There is a theory that that Matthews gospel at least was written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally. I'm going from memory here but I think it was Papias (died about 120) who made some comment like "Matthew brought out a gospel in the Hebrew tongue".

Apparently if you back translate it into Hebrew or Aramaic (can't remember which) it translates very easily and in some ways makes more sense of some phrases, which would indicates it was originally written in that language.

Sorry that's a bit vague. I have something about this somewhere which I will dig out later.

[Steveg]

OK,

I have a book which consists of a series of essays by Karl Keating. One of these essays is called "Upstart Theories" in which he discusses the theories about the origins of the synoptic gospels and which one came first. Part of that discusses the theory of Semitic origins for all three of the synoptics. The essay comes from an article in "This Rock" magazine and the full article is here PROBLEMS WITH THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (This Rock: March 1994)

The part about the Hebraic origins is near the end - scroll down until you come to the heading The "Hebrew Gospels".

In the book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, the authors (David Bivin & Roy Blizzard Jr)argue for a Hebrew rather than Aramaic origin for these gospels.

[DeaconDan]

Why would you ask why the New Testament is in Greek? What is wrong with Greek?

Not only is the New Testament written in Greek, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Timothy, etc. are not Hebrew names, they are Greek/Roman (Judas is the quintessential Jewish name, he belonged to Satan). What did Saul do the moment he became saved? He dumped his Jewish name and picked up a nice Greek/Roman name. Jesus' name is not Yeshua, beware of judaizers who use that name. They corrupt the word of God.

Most of what Paul wrote was not to Greek congregations. "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs." These are some of the places that Paul traveled to. They each had their local languages. Paul traveled more than anyone else and so used tongues more than anyone else (Tongues is to communicate, not to mock God as in a Pentecostal churches).

Corinthians had the Pelasgian language. Rome was Latin-speaking. Paul used Greek even when he wrote to people who would know Hebrew.

The NT is written in Greek because it was the widest-known (among the educated) regional language and the NT writers knew it well.

[eddybear]

Not only is the New Testament written in Greek, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Timothy, etc. are not Hebrew names, they are Greek/Roman (Judas is the quintessential Jewish name, he belonged to Satan). What did Saul do the moment he became saved? He dumped his Jewish name and picked up a nice Greek/Roman name. Jesus' name is not Yeshua, beware of judaizers who use that name. They corrupt the word of God.

There are some errors in this.

Firstly, Peter was given the name "Cephas" by Jesus, which when translated into Greek is "Peter". This is what John 1:42 says, and 1 Cor 1:12 also uses "Cephas". So Jesus gave Simon a Hebrew name, not a Greek one.

Secondly, Paul did not "dump his Jewish name" the moment he got saved. He was saved in Acts 9, and kept the name "Saul". It is not until Acts 13 that his other name is referred to.

Lastly, and most importantly, Jesus was a Jew, and would have had a Jewish nam - Yeshua, meaning "The Lord saves". This is nothing to do with "judaizers", but simply an acknowledgement of our Lord's real name!

[DeaconDan]

Firstly, Peter was given the name "Cephas" by Jesus, which when translated into Greek is "Peter". This is what John 1:42 says, and 1 Cor 1:12 also uses "Cephas". So Jesus gave Simon a Hebrew name, not a Greek one.

In the Gospels, Peter is called Peter many dozens of times. In several places Peter's name is pointedly identified as named Peter (including in the recount of Jesus naming Peter), such as "thou art Peter". The Gospels have one verse that uses "Cephas", even here the name Peter is still used. Perhaps Jesus dropped the name Cephas to ease Peter over. The verse could be translated, "You will be called a rock/Cephas, which is to say 'Peter'." ("translate" is not superior to "which is to say")

Secondly, Paul did not "dump his Jewish name" the moment he got saved. He was saved in Acts 9, and kept the name "Saul". It is not until Acts 13 that his other name is referred to.

Ignoring that chapters between 9 through 13 are not about Saul/Paul, and 13 implies that the name Paul had already been adopted, the point is not the timing, the point is the fact of the new name.

Lastly, and most importantly, Jesus was a Jew, and would have had a Jewish nam - Yeshua, meaning "The Lord saves". This is nothing to do with "judaizers", but simply an acknowledgement of our Lord's real name!

Jesus is not ever called Yeshua in the Bible. Not in what may be an awkward translation of a Gospel verse. Not later by Paul in Corinthians. No place. Some people I see pushing the name "Yeshua" are judaizers, or worse. There is no godliness behind this renaming. At best, misguided intentions.

[Steveg]

Why would you ask why the New Testament is in Greek? What is wrong with Greek?

Not only is the New Testament written in Greek, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Timothy, etc. are not Hebrew names, they are Greek/Roman (Judas is the quintessential Jewish name, he belonged to Satan).

The NT is written in Greek because it was the widest-known (among the educated) regional language and the NT writers knew it well.

The versions of the NT we have are written in Greek but that does not mean that the earliest version were not written in Hebrew. They would have been trnaslated early to make them available to Greek speakers - the common language of the time.

It was Papias who said that Matthew brought a gospel in the "Hebrew tongue". Both Eusebius and Origen also reported that Matthew produced a gospel in Hebrew. Jerome claimed the Hebrew text itself was still in the library at Caesarea.

[eddybear]

Ignoring that chapters between 9 through 13 are not about Saul/Paul, and 13 implies that the name Paul had already been adopted, the point is not the timing, the point is the fact of the new name.

I agree that most of Acts 10-12 are about Peter, but Saul does appears in both Acts 11 and Acts 12, with that name. And the timing is important, in that in your first post you said that Saul changed his name as soon as he could, when according to the Scriptures, he didn't.

Jesus is not ever called Yeshua in the Bible. Not in what may be an awkward translation of a Gospel verse. Not later by Paul in Corinthians. No place. Some people I see pushing the name "Yeshua" are judaizers, or worse. There is no godliness behind this renaming. At best, misguided intentions.

I could imagine that Judaizers would make a point of this. But it is important to remember that Jesus was Jewish, all the apostles were Jewish, Mary and Joseph were Jewish, and would have had Jewish names. If we lose the Jewish context of the scriptures, it is easy to fall into misinterpretations.


By the way, there is nothing wrong with Greek. My reason for asking the thread is partly out of curiosity, and partly as an offshoot from another thread.

[DeaconDan]

The versions of the NT we have are written in Greek but that does not mean that the earliest version were not written in Hebrew. They would have been trnaslated early to make them available to Greek speakers - the common language of the time.

The best I can tell, Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not the same or the source of the canonical Gospel of Matthew.

Experts agree that Matthew is not a translation of Hebrew, but is written originally in Greek. Existing quotes of the Hebrew Gospel are not Hebrew versions of the Gospel of Matthew.

[Steveg]

The best I can tell, Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not the same or the source of the canonical Gospel of Matthew.

Experts agree that Matthew is not a translation of Hebrew, but is written originally in Greek. Existing quotes of the Hebrew Gospel are not Hebrew versions of the Gospel of Matthew.

Other experts disagree with you.

But that seems to be the nature of experts!