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).
Now… 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.
beautiful studies thank you.
So God created Israel as His chosen people, they have their own language and culture, why when they are writing down the most important facts about The Messiah would they suddenly create a mishmash language ? And not put it down in their own language ??
The idioms are Hebrew and don’t make sense in Greek ?
Matthew was a trained tax collector probably proficient in short hand. Luke was a Dr.
Saul was educated very well and didn’t seem to have much trouble communicating across Europe to different people groups
It makes more sense that The New Covenant was written down first in their own mother tongue .
Carefully consider the implications of Acts 21:37-22:2 and tell me how those facts fit these assumptions.
Dr. Eli,
I am very interested in the Hebrew Roots Movement. Are you a supporter of this movement? If so, why? If not, why. I would really appreciate your answer to determine the credibility or “noncredibility” of this movement. I believe many of your readers would also like to know where you stand on this.
Thank you so much,
Kay
I think that the main thing that is really good in this movement is the rediscovering the Jewishness of Jesus and his apostles. Where I differ (though respectfully) is in what I perceive to be almost total lack of grasp of what Jewish Saul Paul wrote to the Christ-followers from among the Nations. But this is a long story and can’t be explain through this kind of intersection. You can read Mark Nanos who I am think is right about Paul and then compare it to what you see in mainstream Hebrew Roots movement – http://www.marknanos.com/Paul-Shema-10-27-08.pdf
So, I am a great friend of the movement, but not its follower (if this makes any sense) 🙂
But always remember that we are saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ (Yeshua) 🙂 thanks to what he has done for us all on the cross, and rose again on the 3rd day. in Jesus name, amen
CADANGAN MEROBOH DAN MEMBINA SEMULASATU UNIT RUMAH SESEBUAH 2 TINGKAT DI ATAS PT 62348 , KG BARU SG CHUA, BANDAR KAJANG, DAERAH HULU LANGAT, SELANGOR D E UNTUK MDM WAN TONG LOY info? a possibility.
The Hebrew Matthew has this to say:
Ely Ely lamah SaKachtani. ( Full stop )…no explanationn given.
This differs from the Aramaic text…by a Kaf …..instead of a Beyt….
So, it could be possible that the translators of Aramaic text, saw the ‘obscure handwriting” of “Kaf” and mistook it for “Beyt”, after all both looks like and inverted C.
so, from here we can see that the Hebraic text stand authoritatively above the others..
Hence, i am more convince that the original NT is Hebrew writing. Shalom.
Dr Eli ,
I just want to say really enjoyed your article and found it very informative .
kind regards
Ibrahim
Thanks, Ibrahim, welcome to the blog!
I would respectfully take things one step further.
I think we must keep in mind that certain key concepts in Hebrew, such as Nephesh, and Sheol are very different from that classically, of the Greek Psyche and Hades. Since those words were chosen as translations of the Hebrew words, I submit that the Jewish population used those Greek words in the sense of the Hebrew words instead of the Greek and should be understood that way in the NT.
I know that leads to a question about gentiles with no prior knowledge of Hebrew, they would’ve learned what they needed as they were taught the full Gospel.
Sadly, Dr. Eli, I can’t afford the language classes due to my own economic circumstances, I’m disabled. So I study the Bible’s languages on my own. However, I figured out that the Bible is entirely a Semitic book a long time ago and cannot be properly understood through a lens of Greek Philosophy, the bedrock of Western thought. I appreciate your efforts to freely give gentiles insight into Jewish thought, especially on the linguistic level.
I might also add that I fellowship within the Bible Student Movement, which probably explains how i got where I am and why what you have to aid my studies has brought me here.
Dear Mr. Loper,
I do not want to embarrass you or this program; however, I read your comment re: “disabled” & “economic circumstances”. I think it is very sad that you would like to take the Hebrew course & my just reading your post, imagine that you would really profit from & contribute to your learning through these eHebrew courses, but can’t. Have you contacted anyone to see if financial aid or sliding scale tuition exists? I know from my own many yrs’ financial aid counseling exp @ 2 major high ed institutions in USA how possible assistance may be. Of course, internationally may be a very different story; but do check into the possibility…even a connection between a US institution & Hebrew U, depending on logistics of administration& finding the right connection. Maybe even a “restricted scholarship” from private sources is possible.
Blessings to you, sir,
Jane Z. Mazzola
Dr. Lizokin,
This article is on target. Thank you.
Fr. Frank Gignac, SJ, of Catholic University of America, may have written on this subject. He certainly held this same opinion when I took a course from him at Fordham University in 1967 on the Greek of the ancient (Greek) papyri and the New Testament (based on research for his already completed D Phil Oxon). Among other things, he spoke at length of the concept of bi-lingual interference–the speaker’s preference for using grammatical structures in his second language that were close to. or identical with, those of his native language. Thus an Aramaic-speaking Jew, who knew a little Greek would use more Aramaisms than one who knew a great deal of Greek (e.g. Mark vs Paul). And in similar fashion. one could discern the competence of Egyptian writers in handling Greek. Coptic speakers from the countryside would evidence greater interference/borrowing from Coptic that those writing and living in Alexandria. Native Greek speakers in the Alexandrian period evidenced a purer Greek than their descendants in Alexandria at the time Egypt was lost to the Roman Empire (there was greater and greater integration of the two groups in everyday life over that nearly 1000 year period).
Put another way, in the same way most native English speakers can discern whether a person’s native language is Italian or Chinese from the speaker’s accent and grammar, one can discern whether a New Testament writer is a native Semitic speaker or not. from the way his Greek reads.
Of course there is also the work of Max Zerwick, SJ.and others on related aspects of the same question.
From the sublime to the nearly ridiculous–there was a charming popular song in the ’50s in the States about a Pennsylvanian Dutch (German) mother telling her son to throw a kiss to her from the train as he left his hometown to go off into the wider wourld. It was entitled: “Throw Mama from the Train a Kiss.” The lady, of course, was not asking to be defenestrated from the moving train, but was struggling with a language she used infrequently but which would soon be her son’s primary language. Her struggle was a touching display of her love.
Thank you so much for thoughtful feedback.
This makes perfect sense. In the modern world we may compare this to the various and varied dialects of English. Since the days of Imperial England, the language has spread to every corner of the world. However, an East Indian and a Jamaican, though speaking the same language, and even understanding each other’s spoken words, express themselves differently.
Some of the concepts expressed may be completely alien to each other, while others are universal.
In the ancient world, without modern communication systems, two villages only a few kilometers apart might have had slightly different dialects of the same language, based on diverse terrain and experiences. The greater the distance, the greater the diversity of expression.
Thanks for the feedback. Shalom.
i have been reading and making comparative studies on the greek codexes, peshita, khabouri codex, and the Hebrew Mathew as well. putting them all side by side, i do see some differences in the readings. but i see it as pointing to originality towards Hebrew…eg Hebrew Matthew reads a lingo of its own, Peshitta comes second, bc it does explain some hebraic terms as well. The third are the Greek codex which has lots of explanantion of the hebrew terms.
so, i beg to differ on this….i see the NT as more of Hebrew origin, translated into other languages..
Most of the writers are Hebrews except for Luke.
Paul himself was a very strict Pharisee before conversion, having been deeply schooled under Gamaliel. He was an ultra orthodox of his time.
John ws very much into Breshit..same goes for Revelation , and it closely explains and associates with Hebrew alphabets…explaining one by one…..eg Aliph Taw…
All good points and should not be taken for granted but still do not prove anything. Its Ok to disagree. I welcome that. I want to be convinced, but so far remain in my corner. Philo loved the Torah and wrote commentaries on it in Greek. Josephus was born a Pharisee of Hasmonian priestly decent. He knew Torah perfectly in Hebrew but wrote in very good Greek in the first century for the Romans. Why is it so unbelievable that Jews were multilingual as many are today and could rite in various languages even in Greek? I wish there was concrete physical evidence, but there isn’t
What about the Peshitta text?
The Peshitta text is not as ancient as Greek manuscripts. Helpful for interpretation though as LXX of Torah passages.