Who lied and told you that Jesus himself had spoken Hebrew mainly, firstly?


The Jewish Messiah’s given name  at Birth also was Jesus Christ, a Greek name and not a Hebrew name. 


The old Testament used in the JERSUALEM Jewish temple  at the time of Jesus Christ was  in Greek – Ever hear of the Greek translation of the Old testament, the Septuagint –  Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its …”The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the SEPTUAGINT “The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, meaning “seventy,” and frequently referred to by the roman numerals LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The name derives from the tradition that it was made by seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars at Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. The Jews upheld the Septuagint very strongly for the first 300 years as the Word of God, our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it,




AND WHO HAD FIRSTLY TOLD YOU that Jesus himself had spoken Hebrew? Where is that found in the whole New testament? Do give us all the verse.. .


Jesus, His own father spoke Greek . . You might say didn’t he speak Hebrew, the primary language of the Old testament Hebrew Scriptures? But what is the language of the New testament as the New Testament Gospels are preserved in Greek manuscripts, as Jesus himself solely spoke Greek.


THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN GREEK It is vital to understand that the New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, which was the common spoken and written language for hundreds of years in Palestine and the Roman Empire before the days of Jesus and His apostles. Greek was the universal language of commerce and trade.This is the language that Jesus, the apostles and early New Testament Church used. .


. It is vital to understand that the New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, which was the common spoken and written language for hundreds of years in Palestine and the Roman Empire before the days of Jesus and His apostles. Greek was the universal language of commerce and trade. This is the language that Jesus, the apostles and early New Testament Church used. .


Some erroneously teach that the New Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language and was later translated into Greek. Because they have not studied the history of Palestine, they fail to realize that Hebrew had ceased to be spoken by the Jews many centuries before the New Testament era.


Under the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires, 640-333 BC, Aramaic exerted the greatest influence. The writings of Daniel, who lived and worked during the time of the Chaldean and Persian Empires, show the extensive influence of Syriac and Chaldee, which were dialects of Aramaic. The Persians ruled Palestine from the time of Daniel and Ezra until its invasion by Alexander the Great in 333 BC. From that time, the influence of Aramaic was overshadowed by the influence of Greek. Samuel G. Green, a renowned Biblical scholar, described this significant change as follows: “… as a direct result of the conquests of Alexander the Great and his successors, the Greek tongue had been carried into almost all the countries of the civilized world, and had become the medium of commercial intercourse, the language of the courts, and, in fact, the universal literary tongue of the provinces afterwards absorbed in the Roman Empire. The natives of Alexandria and of Jerusalem , of Ephesus, and even of Rome, alike adopted it; everywhere with characteristic modifications, but substantially the same. Hence it had become a necessity to translate the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek….This translation, or the Septuagint, naturally became the basis of all subsequent Jewish Greek literature, and in particular of the New Testament ” (Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament , pp. 155-156, emphasis added). . The Influence of Greek in Jewish Literature As Green stated, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was followed by other Jewish Greek literature. Rabbi B. Z. Wacholder is one of the leading scholars in Jewish Greek literature of the period from Alexander to Christ. Martin Hengel, a Biblical scholar of modern Germany, wrote of Wacholder’s opinions of this era: “Around the middle of the second century BCE [nearly two hundred years before the New Testament was written] the Jewish Palestinian priest Eupolemus , son of John, whom Judas [Maccabaeus] had probably sent to Rome with a delegation in 161 BCE, composed in Greek a Jewish history with the title ‘About the Kings of Judah’… B.Z. Wacholder, who analyses this work, goes very thoroughly in the last chapter of his book into further Jewish-Palestinian literature in Greek and traces it down to Justus of Tiberias and Josephus. In his view, its origin lies in the priestly aristocracy , the leading representatives of which had always also had a certain degree of Greek education from the second or even third century BCE” (Hengel, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , p. 23, ). Greek was the language of Jerusalem in New Testament times—the language not only of the priestly aristocracy but also of business and commerce. Its influence was most noticeable in the city of Jerusalem. We again have a good deal of epigraphical evidence from historical inscriptions] to support this ( Ibid. , p. 9). . The importance of Greek in Jewish life is evidenced by the fact that the temple had a fully staffed Greek secretariat. Such offices were vital to the diplomatic, commercial and banking interest s of the nation. Hengel believed that an institution like the temple must have had a well-staffed Greek secretariat for more than two centuries (Ibid., p. 17, emphasis added). It was not difficult to find Greek-speaking Jews to serve as members of the temple secretariat. Many Levitical and priestly families had contact with Greek-speaking areas outside Palestine, and some families lived in these areas. The most aristocratic of the priestly families”the old Zadok ite family of the Oniads”lived in Egypt. The high priests that Herod appointed came from this and other Greek-speaking families. Herods selection of these high priests illustrates the active communication and freedom of movement that was taking place between Palestine and other lands: There was a constant and lively interchange with all the centres of the Diaspora [the lands where the Jews were dispersed]. Thus Herod first brought the priest Ananel (Josephus, Antiquities 15.22, 34, 39ff., 51) from Babylonia and later the priest Simon, son of Boethus, from Alexandria to Jerusalem, both presumably from the old Zadokite family of the Oniads, in order to appoint them high priests. Boethus could have been a descendant of Onias IV of Leontopolis who fl ed to Egypt in 164 BCE: that would explain the later status of his family in Jerusalem. The successful Simon, son of Boethus, who married a daughter, Mariam, to Herod, succ eeded in founding the richest high priestly family after the clan of Annas and at the same time a particular group among the Sadducees, the Boethusians, who were evidently close to the Herodian rulers (Hengel, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , p. 14). The high priests who returned to Jerusalem from Alexandria were Greek- speaking. The city of Alexandria, named fo r Alexander the Great, was renowned as a center of Greek culture and learning. It was the Jews of Alexandria who in earlier times had translated the Hebrew text into Greek for the Septuagint. When the families of the high priests returned to Jerusalem, they c ontinued to speak Greek. As Hengel wrote, these influential upper-cla ss families were not the only Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem: Be this as it may, we can assume th at Greek was spoken among the families of these aristocrats who had returned. It will also be the case that Greek was no less established among the leading families of Jerusalem than in the scriptoria and the bazaars of the city or at the tables of the money changers in the temple forecourt  (Ibid., p. 14, emphasis added). . In New Testament times, Greek was spoke n not only by the elite of Jerusalem but also by those who copied manuscripts in the scriptoria, by the middle-class businessmen who ran the bazaars, and by the bankers who served as money changers in the temple. The monetary exchange that was centered at the temple and all business transactions in Jerusalem required the speaking of Greek. This was the language of business and commerce in every province of the Roman Empire, including Palestine. , Greek Was Spoken in Galilee in New Testament Times While Jerusalem was the commercial, cultural and banking center of Palestine, the region of Galilee did not fall far behind. Galilee was perfectly positioned at the crossroads of trade entering and exiting Palestine. The entire region was bustling with 3 commerce, and the language of that trade and commerce was Greek. Hengel relates that by the time of Christ, the cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias in Galilee had Greek schools of renown. As carpenters, Joseph and Jesus might have worked in Sepphoris, which was only four or five miles from Jesus home. The Greek- speaking city of Tiberias, center of a thriving fishing industry, was near their home. These two cities of Galilee were both prominent in the Palestine of Jesus day. As centers of commerce and trade, they depended on merchants and tradesmen who could speak fluent Greek. Their schools ranked among the best. As Hengel related, the training received in these schools of Galilee was on a par with the great institutions of higher learning in Antioch and Alexandria: Wacholder believes that the rhetorical training which Justus received in the Tiberias of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II was on a par with the ˜cosmopolitan Greek of Antioch or Alexandria, whereas Jerusalem could not offer Josephus educational possibilities of the same high quality (Ibid., p. 24). The historian Josephus, who belonged to one of the leading priestly families of Jerusalem, spoke Greek; but his Greek was far from the quality of the Greek spoken and written by Justus, who had studied Greek at Tiberias. As the following quote relates, the linguistic and rhetorical education of Justus of Tiberias was far superior to that of Josephus of Jerusalem: Therefore Josephus stresses at the end of his Antiquities that his Jewish education was more perfect than his Greek, and that he still found difficulties in speaking impeccable Greek ( Antt . 20.262-4)….Presumably he also refers to this deficiency because his rival and opponent Justus of Tiberias had had a better linguistic and rhetorical education….The patriarch Photius of Constantinople (c . 820-886) still praised the stylistic precision and evocative character of Justus history of the Jewish kings, which extended from Moses to the death of Agrippa II , the last Jewish king (Ibid., p. 24). . Like Josephus, all members of the priestly families were trained in both Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew continued to be spoken by the priests in the temple and the Scribes in the synagogues for religious events and discussions only. When at home with their families or conducting business in the market, they spoke Greek. The common people, who had long before lost their knowledge of Hebrew, spoke Aramaic in general, but those who dealt in commerce and trade also spoke Greek. According to Hengel, Judaea, Samaria and Galilee were bilingual (or better, trilingual) areas. While Aramaic was the vernacular of ordinary people, and Hebrew the … language of religious worship and of scribal discussion, Greek had largely be come established as the linguistic medium for trade, commerce and administration (Ibid., p. 8). . Historical inscriptions attest to the fact that Galilee in the early Christian era was a bilingual society. Hengel states: In economic terms Galilee was to a large extent dependent on the completely Hellenized Phoenician cities, especially Acco/Ptolemais and Tyre. The great cemetery in Beth-shearim between Nazareth and Haifa, which comes from between the second and fourth centuries CE, contains predominantly Greek inscriptions. Some of those buried there come from the Phoenician metropolises. After the death of R. Jehuda han-Nasi (after 200 ) the tombs of Beth-shearim took on a more than regional significance, like the Holy City before 70 CE. The marked increase in Greek inscriptions compared to those in Hebrew and Aramaic (218 to 28) is bound up with the further development of the process of Hellenization in the second to the fourth centuries CE … (Ibid., pp. 15-16) . Hengel points out the significance of these inscriptions, which supports the earlier findings of Schlatter and contradicts the opinion of the History of Religions school: In the meantime we also have two bilingual inscriptions from Judaea and Galilee, quite apart from the large number of testimonies to use of the Greek language. Almost ninety years ago Schlatter had a completely correct view of the linguistic situation, a clearer one 4 than the representatives of the History of Religions school. The constant discovery of new inscriptions conf irms this picture of a fundamentally multilingual society. Schlatter already drew atte ntion to this situation in his famous study on ˜The Language and Homeland of the Fourth Evangelist (which is in no way taken seriously enough): ˜Here too the inscriptions are the decisive authority for assessing the linguistic question (of a bilingual situation, M.H.)  (Ibid., p. 9). . Evidence That Greek Was Spoken by Jesus and the Apostles In addition to the above evidence, the scholar Samuel G. Green wrote concerning the language spoken by Jesus and the apostles: It was in the Greek of the Septuagint thus modified that, in all probability, our Lord and His apostles generally spoke. The dialect of Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 73) was not a corrupt Hebrew, but a provincial Greek (Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament , p. 156). The Gospel accounts verify that Jesus and His disciples, who were Galileans, spoke the Greek dialect of Galilee and not a corrupted Hebrew; hence Jesus words to the scribes and Pharisees at the temple: Therefore, Jesus said to them, ˜If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I proceeded forth and came from God. For I have not come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why don’t you understand My speech ? Because you cannot bear to hear My words  (John 8:42-43, emphasis added). In recording Jesus words, John shows that the scribes and Pharisees had difficulty understanding His Galilean dialect. . The Pharisees had a problem with the Greek dialect of Jesus and His apostles throughout their ministries. As further evidence of this, Matthew comments that it was Peters Galilean Greek that gave him away during Jesus trial: Now Peter was sitting outside in the court; and a maid came to him, saying, ˜You also were with Jesus the Galilean. But he denied it before everyone, saying, ˜I dont know what you are talking about. And after he went out into the porch, another maid saw him and said to those there, ˜This man was also with Jesus the Nazarean. Then again he denied it with an oath, saying , ˜I do not know the man. After a little while , those who were standing by came to Peter and said, ˜Truly, you also are one of them, for even your speech shows that you are  (Matt. 26:69-73, emphasis added). As the Greek in Peters epistles testifies, he was speaking and writing a better Greek than those at Jerusalem. The Greek they spoke would be the Greek that would carry the gospel message to the world and would be recorded for all time in the New Testament. The very names of Jesus apostles are Greek: Among the twelve disciples of Jesus, two, Andrew and Philip, bear purely Gr eek names, and in the case of two others the original Greek name has been Aramaized. Thaddaeus ( tadda’j ) is probably a short form of Theodotus (or somethi ng similar), and Bartholomew ( Bartholomaios = bar- talmaj ) derives from (bar) Ptolemaios. The blind beggar Bartimaeus (Bar-Timaios) in Jericho, who becomes a follower of Jesus, can also be mentioned in this connection (Hengel, The ˜Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , p. 16). Even the areas that Jesus disciples came from bear witness to their speaking Greek: The information that Simon Peter, Andrew and Philip came from Bethsaida (John 1.44) could perhaps have hi storical value, since Her ods son Philip refounded this place soon after his accession as the polis Julias (before 2 BCE) in honour of Augustus daughter Julia, and it was ther efore more markedly ˜Hellenized than the surrounding villages…. . At all events, Simon Peter must have been bilingual, since otherwise he could not have engaged so successfully in missionary work outside JudaeaAs we find in historical records and in Scripture, those who responded to the preaching of the gospel were primarily Greek-speaking people. It is logical, therefore, to conclude that Jesus also spoke to them in Greek. Scripture attests to the fact that many early converts were Greek speaking: There are many references to what were in all probability bilingual members of the [early Christian] community from the upper and middle classes: mention should be made of Johanna, the wife of Chuza, of Herod Antipas, i.e., his steward; the tax farmers, like Zacchaeus in Jericho; then men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea. The mysterious Manaen (Menachem) in Antioch, whose mother is perhaps mentioned by Papias, the boyhood friend of Herod Antipas, Mary and her son John Mark, the relations of Barnabas, Silas-Silvanus, Barsabbas Justus, who similarly emerges again in Papias, the prophet Agabus and others may similarly belong to this milieu. Their circle is enlarged by Disapora Jews resident in Jerusalem like Barnabas from Cyprus and Simon of Cyrene with his sons Alexander and Rufus. Simons sons and his mother were perhaps known later in the Christian community in Rome, and Jason of Cyprus, Paul’s host (Act s 21:16), whose mother tongue was already Greek, even if they still understood Aramaic or had relearned it (Ibid., pp. 17-18). 5 with Cornelius (Ibid., p. 16). . The Followers of Jesus as  we find in historical records and in Scripture, those who responded to the preaching of the gospel were primarily Greek-speaking people. It is logical, therefore, to conclude that Jesus also spoke to them in Greek. Scripture attests to the fact that many early converts were Greek speaking: . Early Christians in Jerusalem Spoke Greek.  Luke records that some of the earliest members of the church at Jerusalem were Greek-speaking Jews. Hengels statement concerning the rapid growth of Christianity in this community follows: What was decisive for the subsequent course of primitive Christianity, however, was the amazingly rapid and intensive effect of the new message on the Greek-speaking Hellenists in Jerusalem….Here we have that social stratum in Jerusalem the significance of which … has so far been neglected. The circle of Christians who came from it cannot have been all that small, otherwise their missionary activity in Jerusalem would not have provoked so much of a stir and caused such offense  (Hengel, The ˜Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , pp. 43-44). In the book of Acts, Luke gives us insight into this early community of Greek- speaking Jews from which the first evangelists were chosen and from which the gospel spread to all Judea. Luke wrote: Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a complaint by the Greeks [ KJV ˜Grecians refers to Greek- speaking Jews] against the Hebrews [Jews whose native tongue was Aramaic], because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. And after calling the multitude of disciples to them , the twelve said, ˜It is not proper for us to leave the Word of God in order to wait on tables. Therefore, brethren, search out from among yourselves seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word. And this declaration was pleasing to all the multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit; and Philip; and Prochorus; and Nicanor; and Timon; and Parmenas; and Nicolas, who was a proselyte of Antioch. And they set them before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. And the Word of God spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was multiplied exceedingly, and a great multitude of the priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:1-7). All seven of those chosen in Lukes account bear Greek names. These Hellenized Jews spoke Greek as their native language as attested to by Hengel, who gives us 6 linguistic evidence: In contrast to the use of ˜Hellenizing and ˜Hellenism stamped by culture and intellectual history which is customary among theologians, and which ultimately goes back to Droysen, in antiquity the verb and the rare noun­– referred almost exclusively to language . Only rarely did these words have a comprehensive meaning relating to culture and civilization”with one significant exception to which we shall have to return”and there is evidence of this only in the post- Christian period. In Christian literature fro m the third-fourth century CE the term and the other terms associated with it then generally came to mean ˜pagan. Before that, both terms primarily and in the first instance denoted an impeccable command of the Greek language. This also gives us a fairly clear criterion for distinction in this investigation : ˜Hellenistic Jews and Jewish Christians are (in the real, original meaning of the word) those w hose mother tongue was Greek, in contrast to the Jews in Palestine and in the Babylonian Diaspora who originally spoke Aramaic. It is in this way, in terms of mother tongue, that Luke understands the distinction between´ and … in Acts 6.1 (cf. 9.29). The mother- (or main) language of the´ is Greek and that of the …Aramaic. However, we meet these two groups in Jerusalem itself, in the Jewish metropolis of the Holy Land”and that goes against the usual dividing line. It is too easily forgotten that in the time of Jesus, Greek had already been established as a language for more than three hundred years and already had a long and varied history behind it. . As early as the third century [BC] in different parts of Palestine, we have a whole series of testimonies to Greek as a language, and they are slowly but steadily continuing to in crease in number. The Greek language had already long been accepted not only in the former Philistine or Phoenician areas on the coast and (in the third century BCE) in the ˜G raeco-Macedonian cities in the interior, but also (though not so intensively) in areas settled by Jews and Sa maritans (Hengel, The ˜Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , pp. 7-8). Hengel believes that because Greek wa s spoken almost exclusively among this group of Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem, Jesus and Hi s apostles must have evangelized them in Greek: During the lifetime of Jesus, the message of Jesus also reached Diaspora Jews in Jerusalem who almost only spoke Greek or spoke it exclusively ; it was from among them that that group of Hellenists was recruited which separated because of its worship in Greek and as a special group in the community became significant in Jerusalem with such amazing rapidity. John 12.20f. could be a later reflection of this transition. Perhaps John 4.38 is a reference to their mission in Samaria (Acts 8.4ff.). outside Palestine in Antioch or elsewhere. In other words, the roots of the ˜Jewish- Christian/Hellenistic or more precisely Greek-speaking Jewish Christian community in which the message of Jesus was formulated in Greek for the first time clearly extend back to the very earliest community in Jerusalem , and accordingly the first linguistic development of its kerygma [p reaching of the gospel] and its Christology [the study of Christ] must have already take n place there (Ibid., p. 18, emphasis added). 7 certainly and Ashdod probably they outnumbered the Hellenized Gentile population. Philip, who came from the group around Stephen, may have preached primarily in Greek in the coastal plain and particularly in Caesarea. That Greek was the principal language in these cities is again confirmed by Jewish epitaphs and synagogue inscriptions (Ibid., p. 14). It is evident that Paul, whom God select ed to preach to the Gentiles, also spoke Greek. Luke recorded that shortly after Saul’s conversion, he became involved in a dispute with the Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-31). In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul described himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil. 3:5). Paul had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel, the leading rabbi of that period in Jewish history, and Paul was fully capable of speaking Hebrew to the Pharisaic Jews of Jerusalem (Acts 21:40). However, Paul did not customarily speak Hebrew. He was equally knowledgeable in the Greek language, as the same passage in the book of Acts shows (Acts 21:37-39). Paul could not have preached throughout Asia without this ability to speak Greek. Thus the records of the New Testament demonstrate that the preaching of the gospel was carried out almost exclusively in Greek. . The Gospel Was Recorded in Greek .The books of the New Testament were written between 26 and 96 AD, a period of almost seventy years. As internal evidence reveals, Jesus disciples recorded His message and began to circulate these writings throughout Palestine and the Empire at a very early date. These documents were later collected into the Gospel accounts” Matthews account may have appeared as early as 35 AD; Mark wrote his account shortly after, in 42 AD, and Luke wrote his account around 59 AD. The Gospel of John also was written about 42 AD. In 50 AD Paul wrote the first of his epistle s that would appear in Scripture. The rest of Paul’s epistles were written between 51 and 67 AD. The epistle of James was written around 40-41 AD. The epistles of Pe ter were written between 63 and 66 AD. Jude was written sometime around 67 AD. The letters of I, II and III John were written about 63-64 AD. The book of Hebrews was written from Rome about 61 AD. Thus the basic canon of the New Testament was completed by the time the Jewish Wars began” that is, about 66 AD. The book of Revelation, the final book of the New Testament, was written by the aged apostle John about 95-96 AD. The early New Testament text was copied and preserved by the brethren in Asia Minor. It was this text that was generally adopted by Christians in the 4th century as the text of the New Testament. From that time forward, it has been known as the Byzantine text. The Byzantine text, of which the King James Version is a translation, is the most authoritative Greek text of the New Testament. Its role as the leading Greek text dates back to the beginning of the Byzantine period, for which the text is named: The Byzantine text is found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is called Byzantine because it was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period (312-1453). . For many centuries before the Protestant Reformation this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church, and for more than three centuries after the Reformation it was the text of the entire Protestant Church. Even today it is the text which most Protestants know best, since the King James Version and other early Protestant translations were made from it (Hills, The King James Version Defended , p. 40). As Hills explains, the authenticity of the Byzantine text is supported by a history dating back to the apostolic era: This general trend in the Greek Church toward the Byzantine (true) text first evidenced itself in Antioch and Asia Minor.. . Some claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. However, the record s of early church history do not support this assertion. Tatian, Papias , Tertullian and Irenaeus, to name but a few writers of the early church, describe the original writings a nd quote from them. Yet not a single quote is taken from a Hebrew text”all ar e taken from Greek texts. Although Papias asserts that Matthew compiled his early reports in Hebrew, no evidence is given. Early translations of the New Testament are all based on Greek texts. The Harmony of Tatian , translated in 170 AD, is based on a Greek original, as is The Muratorian Canon . The Old Latin version translated in 180 AD is based on a Greek original. Early Gothic, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Armenian and Palestinian versions are all based on Greek originals. Even the Aramaic versions of the New Testament are translations from the Greek (see The Books and the Parchments , by F. F. Bruce, p. 189). . No evidence of a Hebrew original has been found in all the centuries that have followed the writing of the New Testament. . Matthews and Lukes use of terms known to the Greek-speaking community of Jesus day contradicts the claim that their Gospels were not written until later generations and verifies that they wrote in Greek to an audience that understood Greek. From the beginning of Mathews Gospel, it is evident that he was not writing to a Hebrew- speaking people. The following passage from Matthew illustrates this: And the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: Now His moth er Mary had been betrothed to Joseph; but before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man , and not willing to expose her publicly, was planning to divorce her secretly. But as he pondered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ˜Joseph, so n of David, do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife, because that which ha s been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall give birth to a son, and you shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now all this came to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ˜Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall give birth to a son, and they sh all call His name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, ˜God with us  (Matt. 1:18-23). The name Emmanuel is a transliteration of the Greek which is a transliteration of the Hebrew . The fact that Matthew had to interpret the meaning of this Hebrew name illustrates that he was writing in Greek to a Greek- speaking audience. Further evidence that Matthew wrote in Greek to a people who spoke Greek, and not in Hebrew, is furnished by two grammatical structures unique to the Greek: the articular infinitive and the genitive absolute. Neither of these grammatical structures has a comparable structure in Hebrew. Matthews use of the articular infinitive offers absolute evidence that his Gospel was written in Greek. In English, the word to is always used with the infinitive form of the verb, as in to be, to come, and to speak. The Greek infinitive is similar to the English infinitive unless it is preceded by the de finite article the. When the definite article the is used, the infinitive is known as an articular infinitive . In New Testament Greek, when the articular infinitive is combined with a preposition, it limits the infinitive to a specific time period. Dana and Mantey stated the following: Nothing distinguishes the noun force of the infinitive more than its use with the [definite] article…. This item is one of the proofs of the general good quality of New Testament Greek  ( A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament , p. 211). . Within the text of Acts 6:1-7, it is quite evident that Greek was the mother tongue of the original evangelists who spread the gospel far and wide. As Hengel pointed out, their names support this conclusion. The cities in which these men evangelized were Greek-speaking communities. Hengel wrote, Mention should of course be made here of the ˜Seven as the spokesmen of the Hellenist community (Acts 6.5), who all have Greek names, and naturally”above all others as far as his effect on the Christian church and world history is concerned”of Sha’ul/Paul, who studied the Torah in Jerusalem and persecuted the community of Christian ˜Hellenists  (Hengel, The ˜Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ , p. 18). Furthermore, shortly after Saul’s conversion, he became involved in a dispute with the Grecians of Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-31). The word Grecians in this passage does not refer to Gentile Greeks but to Greek-speaking Jews. Here is Scriptural evidence that Paul used the Greek language, not Hebrew. There is no question that Paul spoke Greek, and all of his epistles were written in Greek. Hebrew was not the language of Palestine during the days of Jesus ministry; neither was it the language of the apostles. Therefore, it can be concluded that Jesus and all of the apostles spoke Greek, and the entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. God inspired men to preserve the New Testament in Koine Greek. This text, as noted earlier in this chapter, is commonly known today as the Byzantine Text. http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_NT_Originally_Written_in_Greek.pdf . Several sects, Messianc Jews and  and even fundamentalist churches falsely claim that Jesus Christ and the apostles only spoke Hebrew, and that the original monographs of the New Testament were all written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek. They firstly consider Greek to be a pagan language. and secondly if that was so it is clearly an insult to the Jews.  They maintain  and teach , that ancient Judea was a “backwater” area of the Roman Empire, and the people were ignorant as a whole of the Greek language, although it is admitted that Greek was the “lingua franca” and “language of commerce” throughout the Roman Empire. But  however, new archaeological discoveries have undermined the  false speculations of  the falsehood scholars and brought into clear light the fact that Greek was well known among the Jews, especially the priesthood, leadership class, and the merchant class. In particular, Greek was well understood in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” the region where Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised, and grew up as a young lad. There is no doubt, therefore, that Jesus and the original apostles all spoke Greek – Jerusalem Jews or Jewish Christians who habitually spoke only Greek commonly. “All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate”  Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek. In John 12, where we are told: “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus” (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matt.4:15) — a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business. , Jesus, the ‘carpenter’ (tekon, Mark 6:3), like Joseph, his foster- father (Matthew 13:55), would have had to deal with them in GREEK. . Most of the Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in  the “Galilee of the Gentiles,”  were GREEK ,  no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs — funerary inscriptions — are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. “One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK — approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.”  “The Jewish people, because of their widespread dispersion in the Empire, for business and commercial purposes, mainly, spoke Greek rather fluently — and this knowledge and usage of Greek was also common throughout Judea, as this new “funerary inscription” evidence attests! This really should not be surprising at all. The Greek influence in Judea had grown very significantly since the days of Alexander the Great, circa 330 B.C. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-165 B.C., Hellenism had become very strong, and many of the high priests had become “Hellenists,” leading to the Maccabean revolt. In successive generations, the Greek influence never abated, particularly among the business, commercial and priestly crowd. Many of the priests, being Sadducees, were greatly influenced by Greek culture and contact.” “The great rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish oral law) in about 200 C.E., was buried in Beth She-arim; the majority of pious Jews who wanted to be buried with him at Beth She-arim had their funerary inscriptions written in Greek.” . “Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander’s conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings” .

Now to me it only makes sense that the New Testament was written in Greek. Think of who Paul was: the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Obviously he was writing to Greek speaking people, so he would write to them in Greek. There are more reasons, but this is an obvious one. I have run into a new reason why some people dispute the notion that Jesus spoke Aramaic. It has to do with the passion among some Muslims for an Aramaic-speaking Jesus.  Aramaic is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew, Arabic, and similar languages. Only during the time of the Assyrian Empire (8th century BC), Aramaic became used throughout the Ancient Near East as the language of diplomacy not at the time of Jesus here on earth During and before the time of Jesus, there wasn’t just one version of Aramaic being used in Judea and beyond. Even many grave inscriptions around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus are not in Aramaic, not  in Hebrew but in Greek.. Muslims falsely use the idea that Jesus spoke Aramaic as a support for the truth of Islam.
Jews falsely  use the idea that Jesus spoke Hebrew  as a support for the truth of Judaism . A few scholars believe that people in Nazareth spoke Hebrew as their primary language. This is possible, but unlikely.  Unfortunately, many of those who make the case for a Hebrew-speaking Jesus seem to be motivated by something other than a desire to know which language(s) he actually spoke.) So what evidence do we have that Jesus spoke Hebrew? We do not have in the New Testament Gospels a quotation of Jesus in Hebrew    As one who believes about Jesus all the things orthodox Christians do, it would not impact my faith one jot or tittle if Jesus spoke Hebrew rather than Aramaic, or Greek rather than Hebrew.but the truth is Jesus spoke Greek still..Now, you don’t have to spend the next several years learning ancient languages because English KJV translation of the biblical text is very much  reliable it was based on the Tyndale translation of the Greek too..The question of Jesus’ primary language is settled if we knew what people in Nazareth in the first decades of the first century A.D. were speaking and the Romans made it clear.. Greek or Latin only..  and we have no  evidence for the common use of Hebrew in Nazareth and the surrounding region of Galilee.it is worth nothing that Greek was commonly used in certain strata of Galilean society. This began when Alexander the Great conquered the region in 332 B.C. Under his rule, and under the rule of those who followed him (the Ptolemies and the Seleucids), Greek was the language of government and commerce. The Romans used Latin for official communication, but Greek was the common language of the Empire.  In fact, Nazareth was a short walk from Sepphoris, one of the major cities of Galilee, where Greek would have been the everyday language of the marketplace.The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are written in Greek. 
Yes there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the New Testament was never originally written in Hebrew, as some  Jews claim but they  are known liars.. Show us  this original Hebrew transcript of Matthew.. none exists..None.. all is in Greek..  and scholars have not found a single manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew that predates the Greek  Not one..  The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC.
Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God’s Word in their own tongue. So again the New Testament authors wrote in Greek. They did not, however, use really high-class or classical Greek, but a very common and everyday type of Greek. For many years some scholars ridiculed the Greek of the New Testament because many of its words were strange to those who read the writings of the great Greek classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle. But later many records were uncovered of ordinary people, and amazingly there were the same common terms used in everyday speech! The ridicule dried up accordingly. The prominent first century Roman  historian Josephus was a Jew himself who wrote in Greek.. it should be understood that there is a long history of “Hellenism” (Greek culture/influence) among the Jewish people, both in ancient Alexandria as well as in the Promised Land itself. Ossuaries dating from the Second Temple period indicate Greek artwork and Greek versions of Hebrew names  In  Biblical Archaeological Review , Pieter W. Van Der Horst writes, “One of the most surprising facts about funerary inscriptions [extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D] is that most of them are in Greek – approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.” Furthermore, since the time of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C), many of the Jewish High Priests had become  Hellenists ; which led to the rejection of the Temple by the Essene Community and eventually to the later Maccabean revolts. 
Even the Dead Sea Scrolls include Greek texts among the Hebrew and Aramaic. ; So it’s clear that Hellenistic culture and Greek language were pervasive influences in Israel both before, during, and after the time when Jesus lived in ancient Israel   and scholars have not found a single manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew that predates the Greek all of the ancient textual evidence for the New Testament is in Koine Greek, and scholars have not found a single manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew that predates the Greek. 
 The New Testament is by far the best-attested (and best preserved) literature of antiquity, with manuscript evidence dating back to the first century.  For example, the Magdalen Fragments  are written in a style of  Koine Greek that was current in the 1st Century A.D. during the very lives of the apostles. Indeed, ancient papyrus expert Carsten Thiede and other scholars regard certain fragments from the Gospel of Matthew to be an eyewitness account.   We have some anecdotal evidence of a   gospel that underlies the others gospel accounts,   but it is clear — both from history and from the textual evidence we have – that the Holy Spirit chose to use Koine (i.e., “common”) Greek as the language to reach out to the world.  This is true, incidentally, of the Torah and Nakh, which were   also  translated into Koine Greek (i.e., the Septuagint, or LXX).  Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls correspond more closely with the LXX than with the (later) Masoretic text, and indeed we have evidence of Koine Greek manuscripts that were discovered in the Qumran caves themselves… 
Now when Jesus went into the synagogue and was handed the scroll of Isaiah that that scroll was written in Greek? and the the New Testament Gospels do include non-Greek words in the text (spelled with Greek letters). And some of these words are Aramaic ?So, while Jesus’ use of them may reflect  his Aramaic speech, we can’t even be 100% sure of this. And we do not have in the New Testament Gospels a quotation of Jesus in Hebrew .. 
 Unfortunately, many of those who make the case for a Hebrew-speaking Jesus seem to be motivated by something other than a desire to know which language(s) he actually spoke. The so-called “biblical case” for the Hebrew speaking Jesus rests mainly on one verse in, not in the Gospels, but in Acts of the Apostles. You  absurdily cannot make a major statement with one fact, one verse.. when you have a whole Greek New testament.. one cannot use this as proof that he always spoke Hebrew, or mainly spoke Hebrew, or even spoke Hebrew in any other circumstance. In no other place does the New Testament tell us that Jesus spoke Hebrew.  The fact that the Gospels are written in Greek shows that   most of the earliest Christians, including some who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry, knew Greek and used it often, perhaps as their first language. Many Jewish writings from the era of Jesus were written in Greek, including works such as 2 Maccabees and 1 Esdras. Other Hebrew writings were being translated into Greek in Jerusalem (the book of Esther, for example, in 114 B.C.). Speaking of Jerusalem, scholars have found some ninety Greek inscriptions on ossuaries (boxes for bones) that date to around the time of Jesus and were found in or around Jerusalem.
Ever since Alexander the Great conquered Judea  in 332 B.C., Greek had been the language of government and, increasingly, commerce and scholarship. Though Aramaic continued to be spoken by many, Greek grew in its popularity and influence. In the time of Jesus, well-educated Jews, mainly those of the upper classes, would have known and used Greek. So would those who were involved in trade or government Get wise and learn the truth.   Jesus was not handed the dead sea scrolls.. he read from the Greek Scroll Bible.   The presence and pervasiveness of Greek in Judea is demonstrated by a discovery in the Nahal Hever region of the Judean Desert near the Dead Sea. In a cave, a scroll was found that contains substantial portions of the minor prophets in Greek. The so-called Nahal Hever Minor Prophets Scroll, dated around the time of Jesus, shows the influence and popularity of Greek, even among highly religious Jew..    
 In Matthew 8:5-13, for example, Jesus entered into dialogue with a Roman centurion. The centurion almost certainly spoke in Greek. And, as Matthew tells the story, he and Jesus spoke directly, without a translator.       The same could be said about Jesus’ conversation with Pontius Pilate prior to his crucifixion (Matthew 27:11-14; John 18:33-38). If Jesus knew enough Greek to converse with a Roman centurion and a Roman governor, where did he learn it? at Home and in school.. Jesus’ hometown was a short walk from Sepphoris, which was a major city and one in which Greek was spoken.     
The impact of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the fourth century B.C. resulted in the Mediterranean’s being a ‘Greek sea’ in Jesus’ day. In the third century Jews in Egypt could no longer read the Scriptures in Hebrew, so they began to translated them into Greek. This famous translation became known as the Septuagint (LXX). Jesus, who was reared in ‘Galilee, of the Gentiles,’ lived only three or four miles from the thriving Greek city of Sepphoris. There may even have been times when he and his father worked in this rapidly grow- ing metropolitan city, which served as the capital city of Herod Antipas until A.D. 26, when he moved the capital to Tiberias”  “Two of Jesus’ disciples were even known by their Greek names: Andrew and Philip. In addition, there are several incidents in Jesus’ ministry when he spoke to people who knew neither Aramaic nor Hebrew. Thus unless a translator was present (though none is ever mentioned), their conversations probably took place in the Greek language. Probably Jesus spoke Greek during the following occasions: the visit to Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31ff), the conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30; compare especially 7?26) and the trial before Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:2-15; compare also Jesus’ conversation with the ‘Greeks’ in John 12:20-36)”  (Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, Robert H. Stein, InterVarsity Press,, 1996, p.87). . Greek was undoubtedly the language of the New Testament.  New Bible Dictionary: “The language in which the New Testament documents have been preserved is the ‘common Greek’ (koine),which was the lingua franca of the Near Eastern and Mediterranean lands in Roman times” (p.713).There is no evidence at all to suppose that the New Testament was originally written in anything but ancient Greek! Concludes the New Bible Dictionary.  It is a spurious, specious argument and a big lie  to claim that the New Testament had to have been written in Hebrew, and had to contain only the Hebrew names for God. All the evidence of the manuscripts points otherwise.  Those who claim the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, utilizing the Hebrew names for God, have no evidence or proof whatsoever to back up their claims. Should we believe them at all when they have no evidence, but only a belief.. Should we take thus their speculations as “fact”? Of course not! Absurd, ridiculous, unscholarly and dishonest. . “God is not prejudiced against the Greek language, or Russian, Italian, German, Chinese, Spanish, French, or English. But, as Peter declared: “Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). Amen to that! “ Why was the New Testament originally written in GREEK? The basic reason why this language was chosen instead of Aramaic or Hebrew was that the writers wished to reach a broad, Gentile (non-Israelite) audience, not just a Jewish audience. .  What difference does it make, anyway, what language Jesus and His disciples spoke? The answer becomes clear when we realize that there are churches, sects and cults today which make a great issue over the subject of “holy names.” These churches will not use ANY name for God or Christ in ANY language except what they call the original “Hebrew” names for God and the Messiah.  “Christ” is merely the English form of the Greek word Christos, which merely means “Anointed” one.  The fact that God preserved the entirely of the New Testament in the Greek language and Jesus preached, spoke gives these these brain dead  people  of the cults a really big”fitt.” or “panic”. God Almighty have the power to preserve His name in whatever language He chooses? Of course He does! And it is patently obvious that He choose to preserve the New Testament Scriptures in Greek — not Hebrew! The fact that Jesus and the apostles undeniably all spoke Greek is another nail in the coffin of these “language-worshippers” and  Hebrew  addicts. And clearly as they are wrong here they are also wrong in so many areas, doctrines then. Wouldn’t it seem awfully perverse that if God He Himself divided all mankind into many language groups at the tower of Babel nut next  intended all mankind to use only the Hebrew names of God and the Messiah.  The fact is, there is no honest Biblical evidence that God must be called only by His Hebrew names and titles. There is no Biblical or linguistic evidence that prohibits the use of English names and titles for God. Furthermore, as some suggest  some parts of the New Testament were written in Hebrew  such as the gospel of Matthew ,  now isn’t it amazing that God did not preserve those manuscripts — instead He chose to preserve His New Testament Scriptures in the GREEK LANGUAGE, with the Greek forms of His name and titles! Not one single book of the New Testament has been preserved in Hebrew — only in Greek and thousands of  supporting documents too. Since Almighty God has preserved the New Testament Scriptures almost solely in the Greek language,  all of them were originally written in Greek, it is obvious that God Himself teaches that Greek forms of God’s names and titles are perfectly all right for us to use, and translations of those forms and names into other languages, including English. Jesus the Name above all names for example.
Christianity is a new Religion that is not an updated Judaism, or a revised Judaism.. Most Messianic Jews too now are also still going to hell.. and they are firstly not willing to give up all to follow Jesus . For some Jesus must have spoken Hebrew to some people, otherwise somehow his mission as the Messiah would have been deficient. Some were worried that if Jesus spoke Greek he did not care for the Jews basically.. No one even knows what the Jewish Culture was like at the time of Jesus since the Romans burned all the Jewish books and Library and none exist today thus..  People who are hung up on a Jewish scripture still need the Holy Spirit to explain it anyway and most people do not have him, Jews especially..    .Read my posts and learn.. and stop trying to justify your perversions of the reality.. There is no existing  evidence of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.. never has been  . Why are they  falsely so argumentative and hung up on a Hebrew Jesus? when most of the Jews have rejected him anyway and are mostly going to hell..   
Read my posts and learn.. and stop trying to justify the perversions of the reality.. There is no existing  evidence of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.. never has been and anyone has yet  had  failed to prove it too..  The fact that Jesus may have spoken Greek may help us to think differently about him and his ministry. For many years it was common to envision Jesus as growing up in the countryside of Galilee, far removed from multi-cultural hodge-podge of the Roman Empire. But this idealized view of the rustic Jesus is far from the truth. Though he grew up in a small town, he was not at all cut off from the broader Roman world. In fact Jesus grew up with ample exposure to Greco-Roman language, culture, commerce, politics, religion, and philosophy. When he eventually entered Jerusalem to confront the Roman and Jewish authorities there – and to give his life in the process – Jesus was no naive country bumpkin making his first trip to the big city. Rather he was well aware of powers and perils he faced, and he faced these knowing, as he ultimately said to Pontius Pilate (in Greek, I believe), “My kingdom is not from this world” (John 18:36).    Given the Holy Spirit, not just excellence of English translations of the Bible by translators who have mastered all of the relevant languages, it’s not necessary for the ordinary Christian to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to understand the teaching of Jesus .and his teachings.. In fact too many Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek speaking persons are still very ungodly  persons
Undoubtedly, one of the most remarkable acts of Israel was to have taken a language that has been dead for 2,000 years, even during and after the time of Christ, Greek and next Aramaic and not Hebrew was the language spoken in the land of Israel, and to have transformed it into a living national language, in 1948. Many East European Jews spoke Yiddish. Many Sephardi Jews spoke Ladino. Many other Jews spoke only the language of their country of origin. Hebrew was also the first language of the Old Testament Bible  but not of the New Testament. . Jesus, in Hebrew-his own language, means “YAHWEH IS SALVATION” or “YAHWEH SAVES” ?   God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ  they did not come to earth primarily for the Jews but rather to save all of mankind . https://witnessed.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-purpose-of-jesus-christs-mission-on-earth/ .

See also








Now about the Falsely “Torah-observant” -Jewish and Gentile Messianic Judaism



The Dangers of the Hebrew Roots  Messianic  Movement





Watch out for the liars
Most people do take isolated verse and twist them;
Leave a comment


  1. Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew?

    I have been concerned about certain forces within the Hebrew Roots movement and where this is leading. While understanding the Hebrew foundation of Christianity is something all Christians should pursue, there is something sinister going on below the surface. There seems to be an attempt to draw Christians away from the simplicity of the Gospel back under the Old Covenant (Law) into Judaism. Eventually, I believe the result for those who are absorbed into this movement will be forsaking the only begotton Son of God for another “Yeshua” who was just a Jewish sage. The destination seems to be the same as the Jesus Seminar, it is just arrived at via another route. I realize that this is a tough statement. But, after interaction with several who have been involved in this movement for some time, I am convinced it is accurate.

    One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in “Hebrew.” This may seem benign at first, but it is not. It is an attack on the reliability of the text of your Bible. If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted by Greeks, as is charged by some, there is no longer a standard of truth. The Protestant cry of “Sola Scriptura” is meaningless unless we have a historically stable and reliable text. Once the New Testament itself is discredited, the rope tying your boat to the dock has been severed, and you are bound to be “carried about with every wind of doctrine.” ”We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.” [Heb. 2:1].

    No ancient Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament has ever been found from the early centuries of Christianity. The oldest are Greek. The oldest papyrus fragment [a portion of the Gospel of John] dates back to the late second century. So the manuscript evidence alone weighs heavily against the concept of Hebrew “originals.” The proponents of the Hebrew New Testament claim that internal evidence suggests the original language of the text was “Hebrew.” Actually, the “Hebrew” of the Torah was not widely spoken at the time of Christ. It was the language of the Jewish scholars, but not widely spoken by common Jewish folk. It was like the “Latin” of the day. It had long since gone out of common use since the Babylonian captivity. In Israel of the first century, Aramaic [or “Chaldee”] was fairly common, which is similar to Hebrew. But, this was the language picked up during the Babylonian captivity, which found its way into Jewish life. [There are a few parts of the Old Testament written in Aramaic, parts of Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra]. So, lets not begin with a false impression that true “Hebrew” of the Torah is even a possible candidate for the original documents of the New Testament. It is not. No one except a few Jewish scholars would have been able to read it. When the New Testament refers to the “Hebrew tongue” it is not referring to pure “Hebrew” of the Torah, but to “the common language of the Jews” ie., the common tongue spoken by Jews, Aramaic or “Chaldee,” adopted from the language of the “Chaldeans” [Babylonians].

    Proponents of the “Hebrew” New Testament concept claim that the Greek New Testament is unreliable, due to “Hellenization” of the text. “Hellenized” simply means influenced by Greek culture and thought. This theory leads to the conclusion that the Greek New Testament, from which we get our English New Testament, is unreliable, and we are subject to errors of “Hellenism” when we read it. The real message of Jesus was allegedly lost in the “Hellenized” and “embellished” documents we call the four Gospels. My friends, this is NOT of God! It is EXACTLY the tactic of every major cult. They all claim that true Christianity was lost, and they have been chosen to “recover” the true message of Jesus and the Apostles. It is the same message Islam teaches, that Christians have corrupted the Scriptures over the centuries.

    The Hebrew New Testament proponents would have us trust them to fix the faulty Scriptures, by relying on their supposed knowledge of Jewish customs and figures of speech. In short, we need to sit at the feet of rabbis in order to understand what was written. But, by editing the text of the New Testament to conform to so-called Jewish thought only leads AWAY from the message preserved by the providence of God. God promised to preserve His Word for every generation [Psalm 12:6,7 Matt. 24:35]. God kept His word! The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is reliable. Any changing [regardless of motive] of what has been preserved by God is a blatant violation of the commandment found in the last chapter of Revelation. Those who remove words that God has preserved in His Word, will be removed from the “Book of Life,” and those who add to His words, to them God will add the plagues.

    Limiting the words of Jesus and the Apostles to a Jewish culture and to Jewish thought is to limit the Son of God to human ideologies! It is to make Jesus out to be just another “radical rabbi.” The message of the New Testament transcends the Jewish and Greek cultures! Sure the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. But they used language and explanations understood by common folk, in the common language of the Roman Empire, Greek. Sure, there are uniquely “Jewish” expressions and ideas found in the words of Jesus. After all, He was Jewish, speaking to those of the Jewish culture. But, Aramaic was not the only language spoken in Israel. The common language of commerce was Greek, as it was all over the eastern Roman Empire. Jews spoke Greek in their daily trade. Being bilingual was very common all over the Roman Empire. And this is particularly true of the Jews.

    The New Testament writers adapted the Gospel message to the thinking of the ones they were addressing! This is seen clearly by comparing two passages from Acts where Paul addressed two different groups from two different cultures.

    First, when Paul was arrested at the Temple, because of false charges from a mob of Jews hurling accusations, he was immediately brought before the Roman guard.

    Acts 21:36-22:3
    36 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him.
    37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
    38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
    39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
    40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
    22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
    2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
    3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

    Here we have recorded that Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount in Aramaic. Why? Because He was being accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple. He wanted to make an impression that He was indeed a Jew, as he clearly stated in his opening statement. He proceeded to give a long discourse in the language of the Jews.

    Now, compare this to Acts 17.

    Acts 17:22-24,28-29
    22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
    23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
    24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
    28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
    29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

    Here, Paul addressed the men of Athens in their native tongue, Greek. He also quoted two excerpts from a Greek philosopher in support of His preaching! Now, talk about “Hellenism!” It is easy to see that Paul adapted the message of the Gospel to the language and culture of his hearers.

    Based on these two quotes, what can we conclude about the language in which Acts was written? Acts contains no statement that Paul addressed the men of Athens in Greek, yet we know they spoke Greek. In Acts 21, when Paul addressed the Jews on the Temple Mount, a point is made by Luke of the fact that he spoke Aramaic. The logical conclusion is that Luke recorded Acts in Greek, and noted where he had to translate from Aramaic to Greek himself.

    That Acts was originally written in Greek is further supported by the fact that it was addressed to a Greek man. Luke commented that his “former treatise,” ie. the Gospel of Luke, was also written to this same Greek man, Theophilus.

    Acts 1:1-2
    1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
    2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

    We can conclude from this that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Greek.

    Mark and John were both written to Greek speaking Gentiles. Mark makes it a point to explain some of the Jewish customs to His Greek speaking audience. This would have been gratuitous had they been Jewish. Note:

    Mark 7:2-4
    2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
    3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
    4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

    Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey to the Gentiles. His Gospel was most likely recorded for the benefit and use of Paul and the Gentile churches founded by Paul. So, his explanation of the Jewish customs was considered necessary so that the Gentiles would understand why the Pharisees were so upset with Jesus. Mark was definitely not written to those who were well acquainted with Jewish customs.

    The Gospel of John shows thoroughly Roman thinking by the Apostle himself. The Gospel of John was written much later than the others, after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 During this time John had taken over the leadership of the churches of Asia Minor that Paul had founded, after Paul’s martyrdom at Rome. This is a fact of Church history, and it is also apparent in Revelation, where John was instructed by Jesus to send the seven letters to the local Gentile Greek-speaking churches of Asia Minor.

    One piece of evidence from John indicates that by the time he wrote his Gospel, he had adopted Roman methods of time-keeping. That is, midnight to midnight, rather than sunset to sunset, as was the practice of the Jews. And he wrote his gospel in such a way that Gentiles would understand the hours correctly. Compare the following, where the synoptic Gospels use Jewish reckoning, but John used Roman reckoning.

    Matt 27:45
    45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

    Here, the crucifixion of Jesus is referred to using Jewish reckoning. The Jews reckoned the days from sunset to sunset [around 6:00PM]. And the daytime hours were counted beginning at sunrise. So, the sixth hour would be around noon, and the ninth hour was 3:00PM. Now, compare John’s Gospel.

    John 19:14
    14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

    Here, we find Jesus before Pilate at the “sixth hour” prior to the crucifixion. Yet, Matthew has Jesus on the cross at the “sixth hour.” The apparent discrepancy is because John used Roman time. Hours were counted from midnight. So, the “sixth hour” was 6:00AM. Three hours later he was crucified at 9:00AM. And at noon the sun turned dark, until 3:00PM.

    The question then arises; Why would John, a Jewish Apostle, use Gentile methods of reckoning time? Because he wrote to Gentiles after the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the Jews had been dispersed from Jerusalem, Jewish time-keeping was no longer being practiced on a large scale, even in Israel. And John’s Gentile audience might not understand the hours properly had he used Jewish reckoning. This illustrates a couple of important points. The intended audience of most of the New Testament books were Greek-speaking Gentiles, who not only could not possibly understand Aramaic, but did NOT fully understand the Jewish customs. The fact that the New Testament writers took this into consideration, making allowances through explanatory notes or by using time-keeping familiar to the Greeks, shows that the New Testament was not only written in the language of the Roman Empire, Greek, but was already adapted to Gentile thinking by the original writers. It needs no further tampering by the Hebrew Roots movement!

    The Jews spoke Greek, not exclusively Aramaic. Greek was necessary for trade, and because the Roman Empire was governing Israel at the time. In order to interact with the authorities, primarily Greek and even Latin were necessary. The multilingual nature of the Jewish culture at the time of Christ is clearly seen in the inscription hung on the top of the cross.

    Luke 23:38
    38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

    Jews of the Diaspora [Jews who were descendants of those who did not return to the land of Israel after the Babylonian captivity] had settled in little Hebrew communities all over the Roman Empire. Paul encountered them in his travels to many Gentile cities. These Jews spoke Greek in order to participate in commerce, and also spoke the languages unique to the local area. This is illustrated in Acts 2, where Jews of the Diaspora had traveled to Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost.

    Acts 2:5-11
    5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
    6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
    7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
    8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
    9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
    10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
    11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

    Notice the Jews of the Diaspora were speaking among themselves, obviously in a common language. But what language? Notice they were from many different places, and their native languages were those of the areas in which they lived. Also, notice they EXPECTED the Apostles, who were “Galileans” [from Galilee – north of Judea], to be speaking in the language common to Galilee. Yet, to their surprise, the 120 brethren were speaking “the wonderful works of God” in the native languages of all these men. Now, pay particular attention to the fact that the language of Judea is listed among these languages in contrast to the language of the Galileans! The language of the Judeans was “Aramaic” [or what the New Testament calls “Hebrew.”] So, since this crowd was amazed that the Galilean believers were speaking the Hebrew [Aramaic] of Judea [as well as the other languages of Jews of the Diaspora], we must conclude that Aramaic was NOT the normally spoken language of Galilee! Jesus and the Disciples were from Galilee, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, who was from Judea. This is strong evidence that Jesus and the disciples normally spoke Greek, common to Galilee, rather than Aramaic or Hebrew, which was primarily spoken in Judea.

    That Jesus was bilingual, and spoke both Greek and Aramaic, is indicated by Mark. He made special note of the fact that Jesus uttered some words in Aramaic. These special notations by Mark would indicate that Aramaic was not Jesus’ normally spoken language. In other words, Mark records these Aramaic comments of Jesus as unusual.

    Mark 5:41
    41 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 15:34-35
    34 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 hast thou forsaken me?
    35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

    Some might argue that Jesus always spoke in Aramaic, and the Gospel writers simply translated His words themselves into Greek. But, notice in the above passage, those standing around the cross did not understand these Aramaic words! They thought Jesus was calling Elijah! This is because the majority of Jews spoke Greek.

    The late Alfred Edersheim is considered one of the greatest Messianic Jewish scholars of the 19th century. In his book, “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,” he wrote the following about the languages spoken in Israel during Jesus’ ministry.

    Pg. 17. “When we turn from the Jewish ‘dispersion’ in the East to that in the West, we seem to breathe quite a different atmosphere. … These Jews of the West are known by the term “Hellenists” from ellhniqein, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks.” Pg. 22 “Why, this sway extended even into Palistine itself, and was felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism. We are not here referring to the fact that the very language spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with Greek, and even Latin, words Hebraised, since this is easily accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities of intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners.”

    There are also cases in the New Testament where Aramaic names are used, but are identified as “Hebrew” [Aramaic]. There would be no reason to make such distinctions had the original documents been written in Aramaic to begin with. If the Greek manuscripts had been translated from Aramaic originals, the translators would NOT have left these words in Aramaic, but would have used Greek equivalents as they do with all other words or names. Here are some examples;

    John 5:2
    2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

    John 19:13
    13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

    Acts 26:14
    14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

    Rev 16:16
    16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

    In each of these cases, had the written Word been originally recorded in “Hebrew” [Aramaic], there would have been no reason to add the comment about the Aramaic pronunciation..

    Actually, the idea that the entire New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is nearly absurd, because all, except Matthew, Hebrews, and James, were written primarily to Gentiles. And Gentiles did NOT speak Aramaic.

    The fact that several uniquely Jewish expressions and figures of speech are used does NOT show that the original documents were written in Aramaic. This phenomenon can easily be explained by the fact that the writers of the New Testament were bilingual, even though they were mostly Jewish men. They conveyed some Jewish thinking in Greek words. Sure, their thinking was mostly influenced by Jewish culture and tradition. That simply means the authors were Jewish themselves. It does NOT say anything about the language in which they wrote, or even the language they usually spoke. In the same way the Apostles could speak the “wonderful works of God” to men from “every nation under heaven,” using all of the languages listed, so too did they write New Testament books to Gentiles conveying the necessary concepts in Greek.

    Another fact that argues against a Hebrew New Testament is the Septuagint [commonly represented by the numerals LXX]. This is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek made by Jews some 200 years before Jesus. It was commonly used and quoted by the New Testament writers. And it was adopted by the early Church as their Old Testament. In fact, this is why many of the quotes of Old Testament passages found in the New Testament do not read exactly word for word from the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet, many are word for word from the Greek Septuagint [LXX]. The different spellings of names in the New Testament like “Esaias” instead of “Isaiah,” “Jesus” instead of “Joshua,” etc., are from the LXX. It was the Jews, who translated the LXX before Christ, that transliterated these names. By the time of Christ this was how these names were pronounced by Greek speaking Jews. Paul and the other New Testament writers had no problem using these Greek transliterated names. Not once is Jesus referred to as “Yeshua” in the New Testament. We saw earlier that in some cases writers would give Aramaic names of places, and make a comment about the Hebrew [Aramaic] pronunciation. Yet not once is this done with the name of Jesus, God, the names of the OT saints, etc. The common Greek pronunciation is always used. When Paul preached the Gospel, he preached “Iesous Christos” not “Yeshua Messiah.”

    The idea that the OT Hebrew language was fixed and names remained the same is a myth. The Hebrew language underwent an evolution. The language of Moses and the Torah gave way to changes over time. This can best be illustrated by a comparison of the name of Joshua [which incidentally is exactly the same name as “Jesus”] in the Old Testament from the time of Moses, and the mention of the same name after the Babylonian captivity.

    Exod 33:11
    11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

    Here the name of Joshua in the Hebrew Text is “Yehowshua” [Strong’s #3091]. This is the “Torah” [Old Hebrew] pronunciation. But, at the time of the closing of the OT cannon, after the Babylonian captivity, the name “Joshua” [which is also the name of our Savior] had changed rather dramatically.

    Neh 8:17
    17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.

    Here the Hebrew text has “Yeshua” [Strong’s #3442]. Strangely enough, most Hebrew Roots folks use this post-Babylonian pronunciation of the name of our Lord rather than the Torah pronunciation.

    Finally, I would like to propose the main reason for the New Testament being originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic. The Hebrew language is not a very precise language. It does not have all the intricacies of Greek. The Greek language is very precise, making all kinds of distinctions with subtle differences in verb tenses, etc. To translate the Bible accurately from Hebrew to any other languages is extremely difficult. The exact meaning of the text is very often unclear. This is compounded by the fact that the old Hebrew did not even use vowels. In later Hebrew, little marks above and below the consonants gave the vowel sounds. But, the early Old Testament manuscripts did not contain these, and many times the scribes had to guess which word was meant, since without vowels, sometimes completely different words were spelled the same in the text. This problem of the Hebrew text is overcome to some degree by modern translators using the Greek Septuagint translation to find out which Hebrew word was intended.

    The Greek language was in place precisely at the right time for the Gospel to be proclaimed to all nations, because translation from Greek is far easier and much more precise. Perhaps that is one reason Paul wrote, “when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son…” The circumstances were such that the Gospel could travel along the Roman trade routes, and could be carried in a common tongue all over the known world, using the common language of trade, Greek.

    In conclusion, all of the manuscript evidence supports a Greek New Testament. The internal evidence shows a Greek original as well. The uniquely Jewish expressions and figures of speech can easily be explained by bilingual authors who were Jewish, but conveyed their words in the Greek language. The fact that the New Testament makes a point of identifying unique Aramaic names as “Hebrew,” and tells us when someone spoke Aramaic, illustrates that the original documents were NOT Aramaic. The fact that the intended audience for the vast majority of the New Testament was Greek-speaking Gentiles, also argues against this theory. The only possible candidates for a Hebrew (Aramaic) original would be Matthew, Hebrews, and James, all of which had a Jewish intended audience. Of these, a few claims of Hebrew originals circulated in the early Church for Matthew and Hebrews. But, none of these claims provide any credible evidence to support them. Nor is there any examples of manuscripts or fragments of such hypothetical Hebrew originals. The practice of New Testament writers quoting from the Greek LXX is further evidence that the New Testament was given by God in the Greek tongue, the one language that was spoken nearly all over the known world at the time the Gospel was launched from Judea.


  1. Did you also know these truths… | 1st Wittness
  2. The Bible and the Greek Language | 1st Wittness
  3. The Purpose of Jesus Christ’s mission on earth | 1st Wittness
  4. The Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Messianic Movement | Missing the point?
  5. Jews at it again | Come Holy Spirit
  6. Messianic Judaism Beliefs Differ from the Christian Church | JESUS SAYS COME
  7. So how do you treat other Christians with love and respect or with a false hatred? | Come Holy Spirit
  8. The reality | Hot discussions
  9. Messianic Restoration, Sacred Name, Jews, Messianic Jews, Hebraic Root, Sacred Name, Yeshua people, | Hot discussions
  10. Do Christians keep the old Jewish feasts? | Come Holy Spirit
  11. Christianity is not Judaism | JESUS SAYS COME
  13. Dispensaitionalism
  14. My Most Popular Christian posts read | The View

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: