The Hebrew New Testament?

The Hebrew New Testament? (By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg)

It is my opinion that the entire original text of the document we have come to know as the New Testament was written by Christ-following Jews (in the ancient sense of the word) in a language that can be best described not simply as Koine or Common Greek, but as “Koine Judeo-Greek”. Some authors who could afford a very good, professional scribe (like was the case with Paul and, possibly with Luke as well) had an excellent command of the language, while others like the authors of Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation naturally wrote on a much simpler level. Just like in English someone can write in an elegant style or express their thoughts in the same language, but in a much simpler fashion (much like myself).

But first of all what is Koine Greek?

Koine Greek (which is different from Classical Greek) was the common multi-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. New Testament collection was authored during this historic period.

Now… I do not think that the kind of Greek we see in the New Testament can be best described ONLY as Koine Greek. There is another component to this Koine Greek – a significant Jewish and Hebrew connection. For this reason I prefer to call it – Koine Judeo-Greek.

What in the world is Judeo-Greek?

Well… Judeo Greek, like the well-known Judeo-German (Yiddish), Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) and the less familiar Judeo-Farsi, Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Italian, and Judean-Georgian languages, is simply a form of Greek used by Jews to communicate. This language retained many words, phrases, grammatical structures, and patterns of thought characteristic of the Hebrew language.

So is Judeo-Greek really Greek? Yes, it is, but it is Greek that inherited the patterns of Semitic thought and expression. In this way, it is different from the types of Greek used by other people groups.

So, I disagree that the New Testament was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. Instead, I think it was written in Greek by people that thought Jewishly and what is, perhaps, more important multi-lingually. You see… the speakers of variety of languages manage to also think in variety of languages. When they do speak, however, they always import into one language something that comes from another. It is never a question of “if”, but only of “how much”.

The main point made by Christians who believe that parts of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is that the New Testament is full of Hebraisms. (Hebraism is a characteristic feature of Hebrew occurring in another language.)

Actually, this is a very important point. It shows that serious students of the New Testament must not limit themselves to the study of Greek. They must also study Hebrew. With knowledge of Biblical Hebrew they would be able to read the Koine Judeo-Greek text of the New Testament much more accurately.

So, I suggest, that one does not need to imagine a Hebrew textual base of the New Testament to explain the presence of the Hebraisms in the text. Though possible, this theory simply lacks additional and desperately-needed support.

Think with me on this a little further. Other than a multilingual competency of the New Testament authors their most trusted (and rightly so) source for the Hebrew Bible quotations was the Septuagint (LXX).

LXXNow… we must remember that the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by leading Jewish scholars of the day. Legend has it that the 70 individual Jewish sages made separate translations of the Hebrew Bible and when they were done, all of it matched perfectly. As I said “it is a legend”. The number 70 is likely symbolic of the 70 nations of the world in ancient Judaism. This translation was not only meant for Greek-speaking Jews, but also for non-Jews so that they too could have access to the Hebrew Bible. You can imagine how many Hebraic words, phrases, and patterns of thoughts are present on every page of the Septuagint. (Click here to see the oldest version of the LXX).

So, other than the authors of the New Testament thinking Jewishly and Hebraicly, we also have the main source of their Old Testament quotations coming from another Jewish-authored document – the Septuagint. So is it surprising that New Testament is full of Hebraic forms expressed in Greek?!

As a side note, the use of the Septuagint by New Testament writers is actually a very exciting concept.

The Jewish text of the Hebrew Bible used today is the Masoretic Text (MT for short). When the Dead Sea Scrolls were finally examined, it turned out that there was not one, but three different families of Biblical traditions in the time of Jesus. One of them closely matched the Masoretic Text, one closely matched the Septuagint and one seems to have connections with the Samaritan Torah.

Among other things, this of course shows that the Septuagint quoted by the New Testament has great value since it was based upon a Hebrew text that was at least as old as the base Hebrew text of what will one day become – the Masoretic Text.

As I already stated, I believe that the entire New Testament was written in Koine Judeo-Greek. Please allow me to address one very important point.  In several places in the writings of the early church fathers, there is mention of a gospel in Hebrew.

The most important and earliest reference is that of the early Christian writer, Papias of Hierapolis (125 CE-150 CE). He wrote: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew dialect and interpreted each one of them as best he could.” So… we do have a very early Christian testimony about Matthew’s document in Hebrew.

Was this a reference to the Gospel of Matthew in its Hebrew original? Perhaps. Was it a reference to a document that Matthew composed, but that is different from the Gospel of Mathew? Possibly.

This whole discussion is complicated by the fact that all the Gospels are anonymous and do not contain unequivocal references to a particular author (though some are attested very early). The Gospel of Mathew is no exception. We do not know if Mathew (the disciple of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels) was in fact the author of the gospel that we call the “The Gospel according to Matthew.”

Moreover, the phraseology, “he interpreted each one of them as best he could,” used by Papias of Hierapolis is far less than inspiring. One does not leave with a feeling that the majestic Gospel of Matthew that features such key texts as the Sermon on the Mount and the Great Commission is in fact in view. It is possible that Papias was referring to something less grandiose. Namely, that he had heard that Mathew had collected Jesus’ sayings in Hebrew, piecing them together as best he could. There is no reason to deny that such a document once existed, but neither is there particularly strong reason to identify it with the Gospel of Matthew.

Later Church Fathers also mention that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew dialect, but their information is 1) most-likely based on Papias’ statement and 2) guided by Christian theology to show that Jews were witnessed to sufficiently.

Archeological discoveries have shown that Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin were all used by the people of the Holy Land during the first century of the Common Era. But the New Testament itself, as best we can tell, was in fact written by Christ-following Jews in Koine Judeo-Greek. This is the simplest and most factually accurate possibility. This view readily explains the amount of underlying Hebraic patterns of thought, reasoning, grammar, and vocabulary that make the New Testament a thoroughly Jewish collection.

Reconstructing history is a little bit like putting a puzzle with many missing pieces together. The more pieces of the puzzle you have, the better you can see the contours of the image! The more you know about the historical background of the New Testament and the more familiar you are with the languages intricately connected with it (especially Hebrew and Greek); the better you are able to interpret it accurately for yourself and others.

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

The Amazing Encounter

By Julia Blum

What Does God Expect From Us?...

By Julia Blum

Join the conversation (188 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. yetilived

    Language that is “eaten” seems very different than a language used to communicate.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, that is the point. Jews are multilingual today and always have been. The conceptual world in not Greek.

      1. yetilived

        Would this make a Hebraism a “path” to language development.

  2. Dr. Mary Yeh

    Since I have been studying biblical Hebrew and the modern language (I am taking 2 classes) through a private teacher till I become more proficient at reading it and gaining thorough comprehension (I have never been exposed to Hebrew till these later days in my life other than Strong’s and Young’s Concordances) and am taking Koine Greek where I am seeing how important it is from seeing the Septuagint and New Testament in Greek as Koine Judeo Greek as indicated in this article. Greek is close to English, so it is not as difficult for me. But the more I study the Hebrew, it is amazing the Hebraisms I am starting to pick up and how English translations I have been reading have missed the Jewishness of the Old and New Testaments for me. It is more interpretation than direct translation where it seems the truth is being hidden from us.

    I am so excited these days as if a veil is being taken away and I am beholding Jesus, the Eternal Abba Father in the enlightening of the Spirit of Christ Jesus! I just cannot study enough to pull it all together, but from my constant and diligent work with the languages of Hebrew and Greek, I find a whole new heavenly realm that is absolutely terrific and it is paying off with love for handling the languages! And thanks to the courses at eteacherbiblical, I am so glad to be able to participate and learn more of Yehovah and Jesus, the Captain of my faith! This article is my experience. I praise the LORD for His GREAT wisdom and foresight having His Chosen People, the Jews, as the vessel to show His move among man as the foundation for the salvation and redemption of the Gentiles, the nations through the ἐκκλησία and hopefully soon, through the ultimate salvation of Israel for all the nations. If it were any other way, the confusion would be intensified. The shows what a God of beautiful meticulous order He is. This is something we can never thank and praise Him enough!

  3. Hal Miner

    In general, I would agree with most in “Tom’s” note re Papias et al. I would love to know what Tom refers to re: “28 mss. of Hebrew Matt…”?! Tom, if you read this, can you give specifics on that? I very much disagree with the comment that “…Hebraisms” are not relevant – for any of us who have worked on translations, we know how nearly impossible it is to trans an “ism” from any language to another!! SO, I say that the presence of numerous Hebraisms is a significant factor. I should have thought that your teachings of the “Jewish-N.T.” would have convinced you of that as well.
    HalM

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Of course Hebraisms are important. My point is simply that the presence of hebraisms in and of themselves does not prove that the original text was in Hebrew. I use “spanishisms” today like “that’s loco” or “I need a siesta”. This does not mean that my primary communication is in Spanish. Simply another culture and language has influenced my language, so my language is not pure. No doubt Hebrew was an important language for the writers of the NT, but hebraisms do not prove the language of the original no more then my “spanishism” prove I can speak Spanish.

  4. Yvette Benjamin

    Very interesting and eye opening article. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing your wisdom on this subject.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      You are welcome, thanks for reading.

  5. askjill977

    What do you think about the George Lamsa translation of the New Testament? He claims that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Have you read it? He says some passages are seriously mistranslated, like “For this G’d you have set me apart” instead of “My G’d my G’d, why have you forsaken me.”

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, I am familiar with the translation and see its value. Hebrew and Aramaic we very much intermixed in the 1st century and it can be helpful in interpreting the context. The opinion that the NT was originally written in Aramaic or that Jesus spoke his teachings in Aramaic does not make much sense to me, since Jesus knew Hebrew and the source of his teachings (the Torah) was read and studied in Hebrew in his time. Would you teach out of the translation if people know the original text by heart? Just a thought…

  6. marc mercury

    Ramon Antonio top of the day young Man,

    Yes my email is ma mercury @yahoo.com. Thats with no spaces in between ma mercury and yahoo.com. Email me your email because there is very little room here to elaborate on much. Sincerely marc mercury

  7. Kat

    Jerry S, Yes they did split me in half (Torah/NT), but what put me back together wasn’t scriptures it was my mindset. I had two mindsets (reached twice once Torah later NT ), the first one was the reason I accepted and followed Christ.

  8. RamonAntonio

    Marc. The name Pontius Pilate. It was a typo by the Android keyboard of my G5.
    Interesting your comment. If you make available that study you mention it would be my honor to study it. I am devoting some of my attention to study that trial. I hope to get the book I mentioned by the Spaniards but it us proving elusive for me.
    I may concurr with your observation about the trial a joke but in a very serious manner. More like a Greek Tragedy as I said for they included sarcasm and satire to a tragic end. In my view, Jesus used a lot of “staging” in His approach to situations in a manner of control of the situation. I think only the Temple outburst and the Vigil at Passion week we’re not.

  9. marc mercury

    Hello Ramon
    could you please explain what the TE on the end of P Pila. te being separated ment as I’m not that great a student of Hebrew just know a few things or if that really applies?

    Yes, the trial of Jesus was a joke and broke about 20 different laws that were written as dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum my mentor pointed it out in a study I did several years back. All in all it was God’s well or by grace we have not been saved through faith thank you Jesus amen

  10. RamonAntonio

    Marc. Your remark on the name of Barrabas is right on target. But there’s more. His name was Jesus Bar Abba so, in fact, Pontius Pila te was in fact trying to confuse the crowd and get Jesus free albeit quite a punishment so a te ing that the crowd would be pleased and the leaders would loose their hold on them. That’s why they cried louder to prevent the trick. There is a book by a Spanish Magistrate that studies in detail that trial. There’s more to that event than we even think about.
    For me, Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate played a Greek tragedy in that trial based on Roman Law and they both knew that the trial was in fact an execution by the Jewish authorities of a renegade.