The Original Language of the New Testament Was Greek

(by Gary Mink)

A point-by-point refutation of the baseless claims made by Sacred Name movement teachers in

support of an original Hebrew New Testament text.

CHAPTER 1- Jesus Spoke Greek

Some years ago a jeweler whose given name was Harold, had a store in Nashville. He was one of

the early advertisers on television. He was also his own spokesperson. His advertisements usually

ended with this personal appeal to the public. "If you don't know diamonds, know your jeweler.

And if Harold says it's so, it's so."

I don't know whether Harold was an honest man or not, but his message was: I am honest. You

can believe what I tell you.

Can't the same be said of Jesus? He is honest. He is the faithful and true witness. We can believe

what he says. If Jesus says it is so, it is so. Jesus said he was the first and last letters of the Greek

alphabet.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending...

I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...

Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13

When Jesus said of himself, "I am Alpha and Omega," he was speaking Greek. Alpha is the first

letter of the Greek alphabet. Omega is the last. He uses these Greek letters to make his point. "I

am the first and the last." "I am the beginning and the end." He graphically illustrates his point

with this figure of speech.

If Jesus said these words, then the New Testament was written in Greek. Conversely, if the New

Testament was not written in Greek, then Jesus did not say these words, he is not the Alpha and

the Omega, and we cannot trust him to be exactly who he says he is. It is best if we trust Jesus.

He is Alpha and Omega.

JESUS SPEAKS GREEK

Don't be surprised when Jesus speaks Greek. He is the God of creation. He created all things.

That would include the Greek language. Since he created it, does it not seem eminently

reasonable that he should speak it?

But the question for us to address is this, could Jesus speak Greek while on earth? He lived and

ministered in a multilingual culture. This fact is easily seen from the sign Pilate posted on the

2

cross. It was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. It is just possible some of the Greek spoken in that

area could have rubbed off on Jesus.

GALILEE OF THE GENTILES

In Galilee, where Jesus grew up, the population was by no means wholly Jewish. Since the fall of

Israel, about 600 B.C., it had been under Jewish domination only during the rule of the

Maccabees. You see, when Jesus was a boy, Galilee had been under Jewish rule for only about a

century out of the past six hundred years.

When Jesus lived there, it was ruled by Rome not by Jews. Herod the tetrarch, who ruled Galilee

when Jesus was born, was not Jewish. He was an Idumaean, a descendant of Esau. Of course, he

ruled at the bidding of the Roman Emperor.

In the Scripture, you will recall, Galilee is called "Galilee of the Gentiles." It had a number of

non-Jewish cities and a large non-Jewish population. The sea of Galilee was surrounded by Greek

cities.1

Not every city on the sea was Greek, but many were. Decapolis (This word is Greek for Ten

Cities.) bordering the sea to the east and south were Hellenistic cities. Tiberias, built to honor the

Roman emperor by that name, was on the southwestern shore. Sephoris, a thoroughly Greek city,

was not an hour's walk north of Nazareth. Galilee had a large Greek and other Gentile presence.

The culture of these people was Greek and they spoke the Greek language.

Jesus traveled to some of the Greek cities in the area. Once near Tyre and Sidon he had a

conversation with a Greek lady and healed her daughter. It is not unreasonable to believe that

Jesus spoke Greek to her. The Jews with whom Jesus had contact knew he could speak Greek.

They said he would be able to teach the Greeks. Remember their comments.

Where does this man intend to go that we

cannot find him? Will he go where our people

live scattered among the Greeks, and teach

the Greeks?

John 7:35 (N.I.V.)

You are able to see that Jesus lived and worked in an area with more than one language.2 He

spent much of his life in Galilee of the Gentiles. He traveled to Greek cities and talked with

Greek people. His native language may have been Aramaic, but without any doubt he also spoke

Greek.

HIS NAME IN GREEK

Jesus even said his name in Greek. Near the end of the book of the Revelation, here is what he

said.

3

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you

these things in the churches.

Rev 22:16

He has just said, in Greek, "I am Alpha and Omega." Only a few words later in the same speech

he says, "I Jesus." This is also in Greek. Our Lord spoke his name in a language other than

Hebrew. He said, "egw Ihsouc. "Egw Ihsouc," being translated (from Greek into English), is "I

JESUS." His name in Greek is Ihsouc. This name transliterated into English is Iesous - thus Jesus.

By saying this, he made his name sacred in the Greek language. He used his name in Greek. We

can use his name in Greek or English or any other language. He is not and his name cannot be

confined only to the Hebrews or only to their language. His New Testament is most certainly not

in the Hebrew language.

CONCLUSION

Here is something else to consider. The book of the Revelation is written "to the seven churches

which are in Asia." All seven churches are in Greek cities.3 The Roman province of Asia is

today's Turkey. Before the Romans controlled that area, Greek people had lived there for

centuries. John received and likely wrote the Revelation while in exile on an island just off the

coast of Asia.

Patmos is a rocky little island in the Aegean sea. John was exiled on a Greek island. The people

to whom John wrote were Greek. There is no reason why John would have written in any

language other than Greek.

Furthermore, John wrote Jesus' words, "I am Alpha and Omega." That is Greek. You and I can

know by this that the New Testament was written in Greek. At least, we can ascertain this fact -

The Revelation was.

We can trust Jesus. He is honest. He is the faithful witness. I believe his testimony that he is the

Alpha and Omega. I also believe those words are Greek. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude

the New Testament was written in Greek.

Footnotes

1. Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel (San Francisco, Harper, 1993). In his forth chapter entitled

"Galilee Before The War", Mack says: "Three hundred years of hellenistic influence just before

the time of Jesus is an especially important factor. Hellenistic influence has been downplayed by

scholars in the interest of buttressing the picture of Jesus appearing in the midst of a thoroughly

Jewish culture. Unfortunately for this view, archeological evidence of hellenization in Galilee

continues to increase. Since language is such a basic index of cultural influence, it is significant

that southern Galilee was largely Greek speaking in the first century, though of course bilingual."

2. Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament its background, growth, and content (Nashville,

Abingdon, 1965). On page 32, Metzger says: "The Greek language, on the contrary, was widely

understood in Palestine, particularly in the north, which was commonly called "Galilee of the

Gentiles".

3. J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,1973), art. Asia.

4

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Part II, The Life of Greece, (New York, Simon and

Schuster, 1966), See chapter VI, The Great Migration.

CHAPTER 2- John Wrote His Gospel to Non Hebrews

My brother spent almost thirty years in the United States Navy. He was in a number of countries.

Most of them were completely foreign to me. During this time, we communicated by letter, by

phone, and sometimes by tape recordings. I would tell him what was happening among the people

at home. He would tell me what was happening where he was.

In no communication I ever had with him did I refer to the people at home as "the Tennesseans"

or "the Americans." First, I am a Tennessean. Second, my brother, to whom I was writing, was a

Tennessean. Third, the people about whom I was writing were Tennesseans. There was no need

for me to explain to him whom I was writing about. We were all Tennesseans.

However, his letters to me were different. When he was in China, he wrote about "the Chinese"

eating habits and "the Chinese" dress. He wrote of "the Chinese" customs and "the Chinese"

manners.

You see, in his letters there was a need to explain who the people were about whom he was

writing. He was able to accomplish this by these constant references to their nationality. This was

made necessary only because the people about whom he wrote were of a different nation than the

people to whom he wrote.

"THE JEWS" IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The form of communication characterized by one writing to a person of another nation used by

my brother, is found often in the New Testament. There are about eighty references to "the Jews"

in Acts. Almost as many are in the Gospel of John. This proves beyond any doubt that we are

dealing with a non-Jewish book. It is fair of you to demand to know just how this proves

anything.

Let's check a few concrete examples so that you may see for yourself. There is one on the very

first page of John's Gospel.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent

priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him,

Who art thou?

John 1:19

This is John's first reference to the Jewish people in his narrative. As soon as he introduces them

into his narrative, he calls them "the Jews." For him to refer to them in this way positively

identifies them as being of a different nation than his readers.

5

John understands this. His readers understand this. You and I understand this. We know, by the

way John referred to the people about whom he wrote, that the people to whom he wrote were of

a different nation. Otherwise, why would he have made any reference to their nationality?

John wrote his Gospel for non-Jewish people. He wrote it for Gentiles. He wrote it for Greeks.

Consider another example of the same sort from John's writings.

Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he

was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only,

but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had

raised from the dead.

John 12:9

How could John make it any plainer that he is not writing to Jews? To his readers he says, "much

people of the Jews." He would not have said this if he had been writing to Jewish people. Such a

reference would have been altogether unnecessary.

Again, John shows us his book was not written to Jews. Neither would it have been in the

language of Jews. There can be no possible reason why John would have written in Hebrew to

these non-Jews. They could not have read it. His book was written in Greek.

In twenty-one chapters, John refers to "the Jews" about seventy times - 70 times! On average, that

is more than three times per chapter. John did not invent this way of distinguishing between the

people he is writing to and the people he is writing about.

Both he, and the Holy Spirit who held his hand as he wrote, wanted us to see this distinction. A

writer may choose to use this characteristic of communication. He may choose another way to

make the distinction. He may choose not to make any distinction at all. However, when this

communication device is used, we can be certain the writer is telling his readers that the people

he is writing about are different from them.

AT JACOB'S WELL

John tells what happened to Jesus near the little Samaritan town of Sychar. In his narrative, he

gives us three examples of how language is used to make a distinction between peoples.

The first is by the woman whom Jesus met at Jacob's Well while he rested there. She draws a

very clear line between individuals of different nations. Here is what she said.

How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me,

which am a woman of Samaria ?

John 4:9

This is such a common way of talking we pass over it without notice, unless someone focuses our

6

attention on it. However, now that I have asked you to focus on it, you can easily see what she

did.

For a second example, check John's notice of what she said. He uses the same way of

communicating. He comments, parenthetically to his obviously non Jewish readers. He finds it

necessary to explain the Jewish reaction to the Samaritans for the readers.

For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

John 4:9

You see, he explains for his readers why she would say such a discourteous thing to Jesus. In

doing so, he also makes the difference of nationality distinctive and yet does it so easily it is

hardly noticeable.

In a third example, we have the words of Jesus. Without calling them by name, he tells the

woman that salvation is not of the Samaritans. This is what he said.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we

worship; for salvation is of the Jews.

John 4:22

By saying "the Jews", Jesus makes an ethnic difference between the people he is speaking about

and the person he is speaking to. The people about whom he is talking are Jewish; the person to

whom he is talking is Samaritan.

He has no need to say "the Samaritans" to make the distinction between nations clear. The "ye,"

the "we," and "the Jews" does this well for him. Jesus, a Jew, calls his people the Jews when

speaking to a non-Jewish woman.

This is exactly what John, a Jew, did in his Gospel. He repeatedly called his own people, "the

Jews" when writing to non-Jewish people.

This rhetorical device is used by many people in many languages. We can be certain John's

seventy or so uses of it are by design. He uses it twelve times in one chapter. He intends the

distinction of nations to be clear. He is writing about "the Jews" to people who are not Jewish.

Therefore, his book would have been written in a language not Jewish, not Hebrew. The Gospel

of John could not have been written in Hebrew. It could only have been in Greek. There can be

no doubt about this.

"THE JEWS" IN ACTS

It is interesting to read the account in Acts of a meeting between Jews and Gentiles. See what the

messengers from Caesarea told Peter about their master.

7

And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man,

and one that feareth God, and of good report

among all the nation of the Jews...

Acts 10:22

These are the words of the men whom Cornelius, a Gentile, sent to Peter, a Jew. There are three

individuals represented in these words.1 One is speaking. A second is being spoken to. The third

is being spoken about. When we see the use made of the term "the Jews," and know Peter is

Jewish, we then know the third party is not Jewish. It is as simple as that.

Notice Peter's words to Cornelius when he arrived at his house?

Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man

that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of

another nation...

Acts 10:28

By referring to himself as "a Jew", Peter makes a clear distinction between himself and any

person of another nation. Particularly here, he makes the difference between himself and

Cornelius, a non-Jew, clear. This distinction was clear to Peter. It was clear to Cornelius. It is

equally clear to us. Again, here are more of Peter's words to these Gentiles.

And we are witnesses of all things which he

did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem;

whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Acts 10:39

THE DISTINCTION MADE

It cannot help being clear to any candid reader of the New Testament that by use of the term "the

Jews" a distinction is made between Jews and non-Jews. When people of different nations are

involved in the speaking or writing, as first, second, or third person, the distinction of people can

be made in this way. In our examples, we know that someone, either the first, second, or third

person is not Jewish

We observed it in John's gospel. Now we are able to see it throughout the narrative book of Acts.

It is the reader who is not Jewish, always the reader. We know this for other reasons as well. We

clearly see it from the often used term "the Jews."

It is used in Acts about eighty times. With that many uses, how could any reasonable person even

imagine that this book was written to a Jewish person. It was, in fact, written to a Greek man

named Theophilus. It was also written in a language he could read, Greek.

Footnotes

8

1. Homer C. House and Susan Emolyn Harmman, Descriptive English Grammar rev. Susan E

Harman, 2nd. Ed. (New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1950). This book has an especially informative

section on first, second, and third person, beginning on page 46.

CHAPTER 3- Luke Was a Greek Physician

H. M. Stanley set out in 1871 to find David Livingston, the English missionary and explorer of

Africa. His journey took him to many places. He was among many people of many languages.

From March till November he searched, finally finding Livingston in the town of Ujiji on Lake

Tanganyika. Stanley was the consummate Englishman. It is said his first words to Livingston

were, "Dr. Livingston, I presume?"

In 1872 he wrote a small book about the adventures of his search. The book is called "How I

Found Livingston". He wrote about events in foreign lands, among people of strange customs,

practices, and languages.

Since his book is written for Englishmen, it is not at all surprising that he wrote it in English.

With this in mind, let's look at Luke's books, Acts and the Gospel.

LUKE

Luke was unique among New Testament writers. Paul makes it clear in his letter to the

Colossians (chapter 4 verses 10-14) that Luke was not Jewish. Neither was he a witness to the

ministry of Jesus. He was a physician who accompanied Paul on some of his journeys into

Gentile lands. Eventually he came with Paul to Rome.

Since Luke was a Gentile doctor in an empire of Greek speakers, there can be no doubt at all of

his fluency in the Greek language. He was very likely a Greek by birth. He most certainly was

Greek by language and education. He wrote his books, which he dedicated to Theophilus, in the

Greek style and in the Greek language.

THE INTRODUCTION

The introduction in both Luke and Acts is a form long used among Greek writers. If this book

were originally pinned in Hebrew it would be strange indeed for it to have such an obvious Greek

introduction. A Hebrew book would not have such an introduction.

THEOPHILUS

The Gospel and Acts are both addressed to Theophilus. The way Luke addressed him, "most

excellent Theophilus," is formal and perhaps indicate he was a man of some official position. At

least this is how Luke used the same form of address in other places in Acts.1 His name is Greek.

It means beloved of God.

Look clearly at the situation of the writing of Luke and Acts. A doctor who is fluent in Greek is

writing to a Greek man. How can it even be imagined that these books were written in any

language but Greek? It cannot be imagined. Simply because both of them were written in Greek.

But then, the whole New Testament was written in Greek.

9

TWO EXPLANATIONS

Here are some points of Scripture, which continue to illustrate how we know Theophilus was a

Greek rather than a Jew.

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,

which is called the Passover.

Luke 22:1

Before this point in Luke's Gospel, he has not mentioned the feast of unleavened bread, per se to

Theophilus. He mentions it a few verses later; but this is the first time. Therefore, he explains to

his friend what the Jews call the feast. It is called "the Passover."

Every Jewish person already knew that the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover.

However, Theophilus did not know it. He needed to have it explained to him. Luke knew he was

not Jewish. By this, we are also able to know he was not Jewish. This shows any unbiased person

that the book of Acts was not, could not have been, written to a Jewish person. In this way Luke

demonstrates to us that his friend was not Jewish.

When Luke tells Theophilus about the burial of Jesus, he includes the city of Joseph. Joseph was

the wealthy member of the Jewish council who had not wanted to condemn Jesus. He went to

Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus and buried it in his own tomb. He was from Arimathea.

Luke, ever a stickler for details, gave Theophilus a bit more information about the city.

This is what he told him.

He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews.

Luke 23:51

Luke would not have said, "the Jews" to a Jewish person. Nor would he have needed to tell a Jew

that Arimathea was a city of the Jews. He told it to Theophilus, proving forever that Theophilus

was not a Jew.

TWO TRANSLATIONS

Luke has shown us Theophilus was not Jewish. He proceeds to show us Theophilus did not know

the language of the Jews. Luke tells us this each time he translates a simple Aramaic name into

Greek for him.

If Theophilus could have spoken Aramaic, Luke would not have insulted him by doing this. Let's

consider two names.

And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed

Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of

10

consolation,)...

Acts 4:36

The first example is the word "Barnabas," which of course, is an Aramaic name. This was almost

certain that this was the native language spoken by Jesus, the Apostles, and most other Jews who

lived in the area around Jerusalem.

In Aramaic,2 Bar indicates son and son of. Any one who understood even the rudiments of

Aramaic, would have known this. Luke sees a necessity to translate Bar-nabas into Greek. In this

way, he makes it obvious to us that Theophilus understood no Aramaic.

The man to whom the book was written understood not even a small amount of this language.

Such is the down falling of any and every theory based on The Acts of the Apostles being written

in Aramaic.

To translate is to bring the meaning of a word or words from one language into another. Luke is

doing just that. He uses the word interpreted (translated) to describe what he is doing. He

translated the Aramaic word "Barnabas" into Greek. Then his friend Theophilus could understand

what it means.

Here is another Aramaic word Luke translated.

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named

Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcus...

Acts 9:36

Luke gives Theophilus the same courtesy again. He translates the simple Aramaic name

"Tabitha" into the Greek language as "Dorcus." I will also do you a courtesy by further

translating Dorcus into English. Being translated, it is Gazelle. Dorcus is a Greek word. I

translated it into English. Tabitha is an Aramaic word. Luke translated it into Greek. Because of

this, we can know without any doubt, Greek is the language of Theophilus. Just as we know

English is your language. Greek is the language in which Luke wrote his two books.

We are compelled to conclude that Luke wrote in Greek. Otherwise we are left with no solution

to the problem of why Luke translated these names for his friend. Translation is possible only

when two languages are involved. A word cannot be translated into the language of which it is a

part. Within a language a word is merely explained, not translated. When Luke used the word

"translated" to describe what he was doing, he forever doomed the theory that the New Testament

was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

ANOTHER SOLUTION

Of course, if we had rather not let God's Word speak to us, there is another solution to this

problem. We could follow the example of those who claim the New Testament was written in

Aramaic or Hebrew. After realizing that these examples from the Scriptures destroy the Hebrew

New Testament theory, they just deny that Luke wrote these parts.

It is a simple solution and it gets get rid of the problem. But only those who can countenance

denying the Bible are equipped to take this course. I, for one, am not so equipped.

11

Are you ready with scissors to cut out the parts of the Bible you don't like? Are we allowed to cut

and paste our own Bible?

Some of us are compelled to simply take what is written in the New Testament. We find this a

more prudent course than explaining it away or denying it should be there.

The book plainly declares itself to have been written in Greek.

Footnotes

1. Acts 23:26 "...most excellent governor Felix..." Acts 24:3 "...most noble Felix..." Acts 26:25

"...most noble Festus..." Luke 1:3 "...most excellent Theophilus..." Each is KRATISTOS in

Greek.

2. In Hebrew the usual word for son is "Ben", as used in Ben-hadad, Ben-ammi, and others. See

Young's "Analytical Concordance to the Bible", entry: Son

CHAPTER 4- Those Aramaic and Hebrew Words and Phrases

On October 12, in the year 1492, a Spanish Jew called Christopher Columbus sighted and landed

on a small island somewhere near present day Cuba. Today no one knows for sure which island it

was. It certainly was a momentous event in our history.

When Columbus got home, he wrote a letter to Gabriel Sanchez,1 treasurer for the King of Spain.

He recounted for Sanchez, "everything done and discovered in this our voyage." The letter makes

interesting reading. Since it was sent to a Spanish official, we should not wonder that it was

written in Spanish. Later, it was translated into Latin and later still, English.

However, for our study, there is one very memorable sentence in Columbus' letter. He first tells

Sanchez that he has named the island on which he landed in honor of the Savior. (He named it

San Salvador, which translates as, Holy Savior.) Then he says, "But the Indians called it

Guanahany."

By this sentence, Columbus makes a clear distinction between Spanish and the language of the

Indians. Without being told anything else about them, Sanchez knew the Indians spoke a

language other than Spanish. He knew this because he understood the distinction Columbus

made. He knew Guanahany was not a Spanish word. We can read the letter and know the same

thing. Those Indians did not speak Spanish.

Just as Columbus put an Indian word in his Spanish letter, we find Aramaic and Hebrew words in

the Greek New Testament. This all the more confirms to us that the book was written in Greek.

For if it had been written in Aramaic or Hebrew then translated into Greek, the Aramaic and

Hebrew words simply would have been translated along with the rest of the book. The New

Testament writers put these words and expressions in the New Testament. Then they translated

these words for their readers.

Why were these translations made? They would not have been made by someone writing in

Aramaic to someone who understood Aramaic. There can be only one reason. The writer is

writing in Greek. He simply transliterates a number of the names of people, places, and

12

expressions from Aramaic into Greek. Then he translates these words for his readers, knowing

they spoke no Aramaic. This tells us the writers knew that their readers did not know Aramaic.

Now, we begin to see the magnitude of proof from the book itself that the New Testament was

indeed written in Greek.

ABBA

Let's focus on "Abba" for a moment. Paul put this Aramaic word in his letter to the Romans.

But ye have received the Spirit of adoption,

whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:15

The Romans knew "Abba" was not a Greek word. They knew Paul was using a language other

than the one in which he was writing to them. Paul also knew Abba was an unfamiliar word for

the Romans. That is why he followed it with the Greek translation, "Father." Since Abba is an

Aramaic word for Father, we know the letter to the Romans was not written in Aramaic.

EMMANUEL IN MATTHEW

In the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament the Holy Spirit puts us on notice this

book is not originally in Aramaic or Hebrew. Matthew quotes Isaiah.

Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

Matthew. 1:23

This is what Isaiah had written hundreds of years earlier. Matthew simply tells his readers what

Isaiah said. In doing so, he brings into his text the Hebrew word "Emmanuel."

One point Matthew makes here is that the birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of prophesy. A second

point he establishes is found within the meaning of the word Emmanuel. It is a point

Matthew cannot make unless his readers know what the word means.

Matthew is compelled to translate Emmanuel for his readers. When he does this, we can see that

he knew they would not understand Hebrew. It further shows us that he was not writing in

Hebrew.

Which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 1:23

Here at the very outset of the book, for every unbiased person, any notion of an original Hebrew

New Testament vanishes. The Bible is telling us the New Testament was not written in Hebrew.

At this point, all that needs to be done is believe the Bible.

13

Matthew would not have been thinking very clearly to translate this word if his readers were

conversant with Hebrew. Because he translates, we know he is dealing with two languages. We

also know the word Emmanuel is being translated from Hebrew into the language in which the

book is being written. Therefore, it is impossible for the book to have been written in Hebrew.

Greek was the language in which Matthew was writing.

IMMANUEL IN ISAIAH

What did Isaiah do when he wrote the same word in his book? Nothing. Remember, Isaiah wrote

in Hebrew and he wrote for Hebrew readers. Because of this, it was not necessary for him to

translate the word Immanuel.

Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14

Now, Isaiah was writing in Hebrew. He knew his readers understood what "Immanuel" means.

The language of Isaiah's readers and the language of which Immanuel is a part were the same. He

found no need to translate the word for them.

On the other hand, Matthew knew his readers would not understand what this word means. The

language of his readers and the language of which Immanuel is a part are different. Therefore he

translated for them.

I know this is basic. It is simple. It is also absolute proof that the New Testament was not written

in Hebrew. The only other way one can deal with this use of Emmanuel is deny that Matthew

wrote it. Such a thing we will not do. Matthew wrote his book in Greek.

TALITHA CUMI

Mark gives his readers one of the sayings of Jesus just as it sounded in Aramaic. Then he

translates it for them.

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her,

Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise.

Mark 5:41

Here Mark uses two Aramaic words. He transliterate these words into the text of his narrative,

then translated them for his readers. He proved to us by this translation, that his readers did not

understand even simple Aramaic words.

No one can fail to take these facts into account. "Little girl, get up" are words a child would

know. Simply because of Mark's translation, we realize his readers knew no Aramaic. They did

know Greek.

ELOI, ELOI

14

Another example of an Aramaic phrase which Mark saw a need to translate for his readers is the

cry of Jesus from the cross.

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,

saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why has

thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:33,34

Jesus is speaking Aramaic. Mark wanted his readers to hear the very words Jesus spoke. He also

wanted them to know the meaning of these words. But, knowing they would not understand the

Aramaic language, he translated the words into Greek. It is obvious these people knew no

Aramaic. They could read Greek. It is also quite obvious Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek.

RABBI

At the beginning of his Gospel, John translated three everyday words for his readers. We need to

check them. First there is the word Rabbi.

They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being

interpreted, Master,) where dwelleth thou?

John 1:38

Rabbi is another Hebrew word. (John also translated the Aramaic, Rabboni in chapter 20.) It

means master, as in schoolmaster, a teacher. It is such a common Hebrew title, such an often used

word, anyone even vaguely familiar with Hebrew would have known it.

However, John's readers did not know it. Therefore, we know they did not speak Hebrew. They

were Greek speakers. John knew that. He took it into account as he translated this simple Hebrew

word into Greek for them.

MESSIAS

John used the word Messias twice in his Gospel. It is found nowhere else in the New Testament.

He translated it for his readers each time.

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith

unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:41

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias

commeth which is called Christ.

John 4:25

15

The word "Messias" was a staple in the language of the Jews. It is inconceivable that even one of

them would not have known it. But John had to translate it for his readers. This tells us

conclusively, he was not writing to Jewish people. The word he translated Messias to, "Christos,"

is an altogether Greek word. This further shows he was writing in Greek. Even in English the

word remains largely Greek.

John translated the Hebrew not just once, but both times he used it. It should be mentioned here

that Daniel also used Messiah twice in his book.2 Daniel, who is definitely writing for Jewish

readers, did not find a need to translate the word for them.

The reason is simple enough. Daniels's readers spoke Hebrew. John's, did not.

CEPHAS

The surname which Jesus gave to Simon produces a third translation in John's first chapter.

And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art

Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas,

which is by interpretation, A stone.

John 1:42

Cephas is an Aramaic word. It's the kind of word children learn soon after they begin to walk

barefoot in the yard and step an small stones.

He translated it into Greek as Petros. Our English translators brought it further into our language

as a stone. Why did John translate it?

John was writing in a language other than the one of which the word Cephas is a part. John's

readers did not even know the Aramaic word for stone.

Therefore, we are able to tell they were not Aramaic speakers. It would have been impossible for

them to have read a complete book in Aramaic. Neither would John have written his Gospel for

them in that language. He knew they understood no Aramaic. Because the Bible tells us these

things, we know John was writing in Greek.

THE HEBREW

Another way of knowing John did not write in Hebrew is to study his use of the phrase, "the

Hebrew."

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.

John 19:13

16

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place

called the place of a skull, which is called in the

Hebrew Golgotha.

John 19:17

John is speaking here of the Hebrew language. He first gives his readers the words in Greek.

Then he tells them what the Jews, who lived there, called these places. It would have been

impossible for him to have done this unless he was involved with two languages. One was

Hebrew. One was something other than Hebrew.

Had he been writing in Hebrew, it would have been altogether unnecessary for him to have said,

"but in the Hebrew." Not only would it have been unnecessary, it would have been foolish for

him to have said it. Here again we are told by the Bible that John was not writing in Hebrew.

I could write to you about a favorite vacation spot is my home state. I might say my wife and I

went to a place called The Smoky Mountains. Since I am writing this for readers of English,

would I then need to say to you, "which being interpreted is The smoky Mountains"? You would

think me quite foolish. Would you not? John was not foolish.

John has translated both Hebrew and Aramaic words for his readers within the space of one

paragraph. He tells his readers what two places were called in the Hebrew language. Had he been

writing in Hebrew, he would have done neither.

Here is something we should take special note of. In all the Old Testament, which indeed was

written in Hebrew, there is not a single case of either, not even one. It is just more proof the New

Testament was written in Greek.

ACELDAMA

In his books, Luke also translated words for Theophilus. We have already considered examples of

this in our study of his books. There is another word in Luke's writings for us to examine.

And it was known unto all the dwellers at

Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called, in their

proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field

of blood.

Acts 1:19

It is the word Aceldama on which we will focus. It is an Aramaic word. This tells us Aramaic was

"the proper tongue" of "the dwellers at Jerusalem." This verse presents a special set of problems

for any person who wants to believe the New Testament was written in Aramaic.

Think about it. Who said the words, "that is to say, the field of blood"? If advocates of an

Aramaic New Testament suppose Peter said them, they are forced to conclude that Peter was not

even speaking Aramaic in the upper room.

17

On the other hand, if they concede that Luke put them in as he wrote (which is exactly what

happened), then they must concede that Luke did not write in Aramaic.

Such a dilemma is not made necessary by so simple a problem. The obvious solution is that the

book was originally written in Greek.

IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY

So far, we have seen that each writer of the five narrative history books of the New Testament

translates Hebrew or Aramaic words for his readers. The cumulative evidence is overwhelming.

They all did it. They were all writing in Greek.

Of course we could just deny these translations were part of the original New Testament. This is

what advocates of an Aramaic original do. Here is what C. C. Torrey says regarding Matthew's

translation of Emmanuel.3

The Greek adds, 'which means God is with us.'

You see, he claims Matthew did not write "which being interpreted is, God with us." He thinks

some uninspired person added these words years later. He says the same for Mark's translation of

"Talitha cumi," for John's translation of "Rabbi", and for all the others. He is compelled to say

this because if the writers used the word "translated," his Aramaic New Testament theory is

finished.

I cannot say such a thing. I am bound by the conviction that God's Word does not belong to me. It

belongs to God. If I take something from God's Word, then I am well taking something

from God's Word. This is not mine to do.

It seems to me that I should change what I believe to fit God's Word, rather than change God's

Word to fit what I believe. Is a person allowed to throw out part of the Word just because it does

not agree with his pet theory? If so, then another person can throw out something else. Before you

know it, the Bible has been shredded.

I am also bound by the only conclusion a reasonable person can make: the New Testament was

written in Greek by its original writers.

Footnotes

1. M. Lincoln Schuster, A Treasury of the World's Great Letters (New York, Simon and Schuster,

1940), pp. 61-68

2. Daniel 9:25,26.

3. Charles Cutler Torrey, The Four Gospels, a new translation (New York, Harper, 1933), pp. 4,

64, 74, 80, and etc.

CHAPTER 5- Sha'ul Knew Greeks. He Also Knew Greek.

Twice each month I receive a newsletter from a company in Colorado. I usually read almost

everything it says. It is written with a purpose. Its stated purpose is to bring the best information

on a variety of subjects to people who are very busy. It is to select and generate that information

18

completely free of advertisements. Also, it is to get that information to these people quickly,

accurately, and efficiently.

Knowing the purpose, and knowing I speak English, you will of necessity, conclude that this

newsletter is written in English?

The reason for such a conclusion is simple. The writers speak English. I speak English. The

writers read and write English. I also read and write English. It is my native language. It can

certainly go without saying; I want information in English.

While the newsletter I receive is not the New Testament, the purposes of the two are not so

different. Both want to get information to people. Surely the prime rule for disseminating

information is to do so in the language of those addressed. Otherwise, as Paul so bluntly put it,

"he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." This is such a basic principal of communication,

we might assume everyone already knows it. But for the sake of clarity, we are digging out and

explaining the most minute and elementary details.

PAUL

Think about Paul. He was one of the great communicators of the New Testament. Paul sent more

letters to more people than all the other writers combined. He was a Jew. He spoke the language

of the Jews.

He learned the Mosaic law under the instruction of Gamaliel. He said he had been a Pharisee. He

was born in Tarsus, a city in the Roman province of Cilicia.

Cilicia was part of Asia, which had been conquered by Alexander the Great about 300 years

before Paul was born. The whole area was thoroughly Greek, both in culture and in language. The

Romans took control of it about 100 B.C. Paul was born a Roman citizen and probably knew

Greek from childhood. Regardless of when he learned it, he was fluent in it. From these facts, we

realize the diverse abilities of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

The one fact that overarches this section of our study is Paul's ability to communicate in the

Greek language. He was sent by the Lord to the very people he had grown up among and whose

language he knew.

PAUL'S READERS

To whom did this great man write his letters? If to Greek speakers, then he would have written in

Greek. Shall we check? Look at a list of his letters.

Romans

Corinthians (2)

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

Thessalonians (2)

19

Timothy (2)

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

These are fourteen letters in all, written to eleven groups and individuals. Nine of them were

written to churches in specific cities. Every city was Gentile, most were Greek. These are the

people to whom Paul was sent.

TIMOTHY

Of the individuals, we know Timothy, whose mother was a Jew and his father a Greek, had not

been circumcised by the time he was a young adult. Though he had learned the Old Testament

from childhood, he could not have been raised strictly according to the religion of the Jews. The

Law required circumcision on the eighth day of life or at conversion.

He grew up in a Greek speaking area. His name is Greek. He traveled with Paul to Greece to

minister to Greek speakers. Paul once asked him to remain in Ephesus to work among Greek

Christians there.

That he spoke Greek, just like Paul, cannot be doubted. If he could not speak Greek, he could not

have performed his duties in assisting Paul's work for the Lord.

TITUS AND PHILEMON

About Titus, we know he was a Greek. From Paul's letter to him, we also know at least part of his

work was on the Greek Island of Crete.

Of Philemon we know little. His name is Greek. He was very likely a Gentile of the church at

Colosse.

Paul would have written to these men in their own language. There can be no reason to doubt that

they spoke Greek.

HEBREWS

Now look at the churches to whom Paul wrote. With the exception of Hebrews, they are Gentile,

every one. The book of Hebrews comes in question only because we are considering Paul's work,

based on what the Bible says. First, the Bible does not say Hebrews was written by Paul. He does

not put his name on it anywhere. Second, the letter itself does not say it was written to Hebrew

people. Paul, in every other letter, gave his name when he wrote. He also addressed his letters to

someone (or the saints at some place) by name.

We will accept two very ancient traditions here. One: Paul wrote this book. Two: it was written to

Jewish Christians. Only one point will I make then. Paul quotes numerous times from the Old

Testament. These quotations come largely from the Greek Old Testament.1 This indicates that the

Jews to whom Paul wrote were familiar with that version of the Bible.2 If they had read the Old

Testament in Greek, they could speak Greek.

20

Many Jewish Christians whom Paul won to the Lord were Greek speakers. Even before Paul's

conversion, there were numerous Greek speaking Jewish Christians in the church at Jerusalem.

The New Testament calls them Grecians. This letter, Hebrews, was written to Greek speaking

Jewish Christians, Grecians.

All the other letters of Paul are the direct result of his work among the Gentiles, the non-Jews.

These non-Jews spoke Greek. Greek was the language of the Roman empire.

Corinth was in the country of Greece. It was only a few miles from Athens, where Paul also

preached. Philippi was in Macedonia, as was Thessalonica. Macedonia was the first kingdom of

Alexander the Great. Need I say it was Greek.

The use of Greek was widespread during that time. It was as English today. Much of the world

spoke it as a first language. It was the second language of many other people.

IN GREEK AND FOR GREEKS

The gospel is to people in their own language. See what the prophecy says.

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,

having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them

that dwell on the earth, to every nation, and

kindred, and tongue, and people.

Rev. 14:6

The gospel is to be preached in every tongue, every language. If the gospel was to the Greeks,

then it was to them in their language. Paul once said, "I am made all things to all men, that I

might by all means save some." When Paul preached the gospel among the Greeks, he preached

in their language. When he needed to write to them, he wrote to them in their language.

Would all those Gentiles to whom Paul preached in those many countries have known Hebrew or

Aramaic? They wouldn't have. They could not have. In those areas, many of the Jews did not

even know these languages. They also spoke Greek.

Over the years, a few scholars have made some efforts toward proving that one New Testament

book or another was written in Aramaic. Only one or two of these have been able to push

common sense and logic out of the way long enough to suppose Paul wrote letters to Greek

churches in the Aramaic or Hebrew language. Paul's letters, like the rest of the New Testament,

were written in Greek.

Footnotes

1. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, Broadman,

1932). IV, 327-451.

2. Robertson, IV, 330. Dr. James Moffatt reasoned that because of the extensive quotations from

the Greek Old Testament by the writer of Hebrews, the book was not written to Jews at all, but to

Gentile Christians.

21

CHAPTER 6- The Writers Keep Explaining Things for Their Readers

A few months ago I bought a little book entitled, Facts About Israel.1 It is filled with hundreds of

bits of information about Israel and the Jewish people. It makes for enjoyable, informative

browsing. In the chapter on communities, there is a statement that you may find interesting.

Since Israel is the state of the Jewish people, Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) and Jewish festivals

are official holidays...

While it is a true statement and necessary in this book, it also tells us three facts that every Israeli

already knows.

1. Israel is the state of the Jewish people.

2. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath.

3. The Sabbath and Jewish festivals are holidays in Israel.

While Jewish people certainly published this little book, the common, everyday customs and

practices it explains and defines makes us know, if we do not already, that it is written for people

who are not Jewish. (What need would there have been to explain for Jews that Saturday is the

Jewish Sabbath?) It is written for people who know little or nothing about things Jewish. For this

reason alone, one would know it is not written in Hebrew.

Are there such bits of information in the New Testament? Do we find everyday customs

explained? Are common practices defined in such a way as to tell us, here is a book that was not

written to Jewish people?

The New Testament was not a publication of The Information Division of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs in Jerusalem. It was, however, written by Jews (except for Luke). Just as certainly, it was

written for non-Hebrew speaking people. This can be found out by just reading the book.

Most of the events described in the five narrative history books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and

Acts, took place in Jewish lands among Jewish people.

Still, the conclusion that the book was written to people who were not Jews is forced upon us.

Yes, it thunders at us from every nook and cranny of the book. The conclusion is inescapable.

There are explanations of such simple Jewish customs they could have been written only to

people who are not Jews.

This completely concurs with what we have studied in previous chapters. Definitions of Jewish

practices, clarifications of Jewish holy days, and explanations of Jewish customs are made

repeatedly. This would need to be done only if the New Testament writers knew their readers

would not understand these Jewish things.

KILLED THE PASSOVER

22

Consider what Mark said about the Passover.

And the first day of unleavened bread, when

they killed the Passover...

Mark 14:12

Every Jew knew the Passover lamb was killed on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.2

They celebrated the feast every year, had done so for centuries. All the Jews knew the order in

which these things were done.

Why does Mark judge it necessary to explain this to his readers? If he was writing to Jews, his

explanations show a low opinion of their intelligence. No, Mark would not have made such an

insulting statement to Jewish people.

However, it is all too obvious he realized his readers would not know this fact about the feast.

Therefore, he makes it clear to them. At the same time, he makes it very clear to you and me that

his gospel is not written to Jewish people.

What are you and I to understand from this? It once was said, "All roads led to Rome." Every

road you and I have taken leads to one destination as well. The New Testament was not written to

Jewish people. Mark's readers are not Jewish. The language of Mark's Gospel is not Jewish. Like

the rest of the New Testament, it was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but in Greek.

A FEAST OF THE JEWS

Such explanations are not uncommon in the New Testament. It is a book that was written across

cultures. Often one culture needed to be enlightened to the ways of the other. Here is what John

said about the same feast.

And the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

John 6:4

John, like Luke, sees the need to clarify for his readers just what the Passover is. Would not every

Jewish person have known the Passover was "a feast of the Jews"? John cannot be writing to

Jews. He would not have said such a thing to Jewish people.

Put it in its simplest form, here is how it looks.

A. All Jews knew the Passover was a feast of the Jews.

B. The people to whom John wrote did not know the Passover is a feast of the Jews.

C. Therefore the people to whom John wrote were not Jews.

It is the only conclusion possible. John wrote to Gentiles. He would not have written to them in

the language of the Jews. Greek was the common language of the Gentiles of John's day. Since

we know he did not write in Hebrew or Aramaic, we can say with certainty he wrote in Greek.

SIX STONE WATER POTS

You may not have considered it before, but Jesus turning water into wine has something to do

with the New Testament language. Have you ever thought of what the Bible says about it?

23

And there were set there six water pots of stone,

after the manner of the purifying of the Jews...

John 2:6

John tells his readers why the pots of water were there. It was the Jewish manner (custom) at a

wedding. Again, we see a writer explaining a Jewish tradition for the benefit of his readers. He

did this only because they were not Jewish. Had they been Jewish they would have known why

the water pots were there. He is writing to Gentiles. He is writing in the language of Gentiles,

Greek.

THE JEWISH RELIGION

Paul defines his former beliefs for the non-Jewish Galatians. He writes of his Judaism in a way he

would only have done when addressing non-Jews. Here is what he said.

For ye have heard of my conversation in times past

in the Jew's religion, how that beyond measure I

persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and

profited in the Jew's religion above many my

equals in my own nation...

Galatians 1:13,14

You can judge for yourself. Would he have written in this manner to Jews? Would he have said

"the Jews religion" if he had been talking to Jews? He would not have done so. Neither would he

have made reference to, "mine own nation" unless he was writing to people not of his own nation.

THE MANNER OF BURIAL

Perhaps it is becoming a little tiresome to multiply examples and repeatedly reach the same

conclusion. Surely by now, it is plainly seen by every reader of the New Testament that the book

was not written to Jews. Therefore we know it was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Nevertheless, before we conclude this chapter, let's consider just one more explanation of a

Jewish tradition.

Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in

linen clothes with spices, as the manner of the Jews

is to bury.

John 19:40

John told his readers how they wrapped Jesus' body in linen, along with spices. Then, realizing

his readers were not familiar with this custom, he explained, "as the manner of the Jews is to

bury." It was necessary for John to define this burial practice as Jewish. Had his readers been

Jewish, it would not have been necessary.

24

The Bible speaks to us. By giving us case after case after case, the New Testament declares itself

to have been written in a language other than the one Jewish people spoke. The Jews in and

around Jerusalem, in New Testament times, spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. We know the New

Testament was not written in either of those languages. This book was written in the common

language of the Gentiles.

Footnotes

1. Facts about Israel, (Jerusalem, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Division, 1985), p. 90.

2. Exodus 12: 6, 18 Deuteronomy 16: 4

CHAPTER 7- The Greek Old Testament Quoted

There is a copy of the Koran on one of my book shelves. It is in English. George Sale translated

and first published it in 1734. My copy is only a little more than a hundred years old. The Koran

was originally written in Arabic. Many Moslems believe translations of it are sacrilege. To them,

if it is translated, it is not the Koran.

Our Old Testament was originally written (with the exception of a few chapters) in Hebrew. After

their dispersion into Gentile countries, many Jews of later generations could not read Hebrew.

They had grown up and were educated knowing the language of the place where they lived. This

was the time when numerous Jews learned Aramaic. Under a large and growing Greek influence,

many of them knew only the Greek language.

OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATED

During the first quarter of the third century B.C., Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt

began the translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Seventy (or perhaps seventy-two)

translators worked at the behest of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.).1 At first, this version

comprised only the five books of The Law. The rest of the books were finished over a period of

about one hundred years. The Greek Old Testament is often called the Septuagint. (Which being

translated, means "seventy". My translation of this Latin word proves I am not writing in Latin.

But that was already obvious, wasn't it?) Sometimes it is referred to simply as The LXX.

Many rabbis are said to have wept when the Greek translation was made. They proclaimed a sad

state of affairs in Israel. Some believed the sky was darkened because of God's displeasure with

such a perverted book. They, like the Moslems, were convinced the Holy Writings must be read

only in the original language. (If this were true, would you or I be serving God?)

However, not all Jews believed as those rabbis. The people of the New Testament did not. They

commended the Greek Old Testament by reading from it. They studied it. They quoted it. They

preached from it. They went so far as to include much of it in the New Testament. This cannot be

thought of as unusual; they are both Greek books.

NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES

What are the sources of the information in the New Testament? Have you ever thought about it?

In the main, the writers of the historical books just wrote what happened. Three of them had seen

25

much of it. Luke, who had not been an eye-witness to the life of Jesus, got his information from

others.

The New Testament letters arose out of the need for the churches and individuals to be taught and

directed. As the Holy Spirit moved these men, they wrote the books.

Their own accounts and the eyewitness accounts of others were not the only sources used by New

Testament writers. As the Holy Spirit motivated these holy men, much of what they wrote is

quoted from the Old Testament. These quotations from the Old Testament make up a significant

part of the New

Testament. There are numerous uses of single words and phrases. Direct quotations also abound.

It is absolutely amazing that most of these quotations are from the Greek Old Testament.

The New Testament writers had access to both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments. They

chose to quote many times from the Greek. The book of Hebrews is filled with quotations from

the Septuagint. (This argues against it having been written to Hebrew speakers.) Paul and the

other writers were well acquainted with the Greek Old Testament. They used it often. Why don't

we review a few cases in point?

READING THE GREEK

A government official from Ethiopian has been to Jerusalem to worship. He is on his way home.

On the road near Gaza, he is setting in his chariot with a scroll unrolled before him. He is reading

in the Old Testament book of Isaiah. Let's read along with him.

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;

And like a lamb dumb before his shearer,

So opened he not his mouth:

In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:

Who shall declare his generation?

For his life is taken from the earth.

Acts 8:32,33

He was reading the Greek Old Testament.2 Remember, he was an Ethiopian. Ethiopia is a

neighbor country to Egypt, where the Old Testament was translated into Greek. An Ethiopian Jew

whom the Queen trusted to care for her finances, this man served God in the religion of his

fathers. Still, he possessed the Scriptures in the Greek language.

God's Spirit led Philip to approach the Ethiopian. Rather than condemn the version of the Holy

Scriptures he was reading, Philip used the very verses he was reading to teach him about Jesus.

Philip put his approval on the Greek Old Testament by preaching from it. Luke further endorses it

by quoting its words as he writes the book of Acts. Neither Philip nor Luke offers a single word

of correction to the Ethiopian or to us about this Greek version. God sanctioned the Greek

translation by moving the man to salvation as he heard the Word.

Ultimately, you and I can see from all this how Luke, when he wrote Acts, would not have quoted

from the Greek Old Testament if he had been writing in Hebrew. He had the Hebrew Old

26

Testament available to him. He could have quoted it. It was certainly still in use among many

Jews. So why would Luke have translated the Greek words back into Hebrew, when he could

have simply quoted the Hebrew to begin with? He would not have. He was not writing in

Hebrew.

JOEL IN THE LXX

Paul quotes many times from the Greek Old Testament. (At least one scholar believes every Old

Testament quotation Paul makes is from the Greek.)3 A striking example of this is found in

Romans where Paul quotes from the prophet Joel.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the

Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:13

The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament says, "delivered". The Greek says, "saved". The

Greek speaking Paul is writing to the Greek speaking Romans. It is not surprising that he quotes

from the Greek Old Testament. It is the one they can read. This is just a bit more of the abundant

evidence that the New Testament was written in Greek, by writers of Greek, to readers of Greek.

MAKE A COMPARISON

Shall we find a quotation in the New Testament and compare it with both the Hebrew and Greek

Old Testaments? The quotation in Luke 4:18 is from Isaiah 61:1 and the comparison is easily

made.

A. The New Testament:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,..."

B. The Greek (Septuagint) Old Testament:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,..."

C. The Hebrew (Masoretic) Old Testament:

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,..."

Note the word GOD is absent from both the Greek Old Testament and the New Testament. This

comparison shows everyone who is unbiased that Luke is quoting from the Greek. How could

anyone conclude he is quoting the Hebrew Old Testament? He is not. Because of this, we know

he is not writing in Hebrew.

Other comparisons are equally easy to find. Look at Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14.

A. The New Testament:

"Behold a virgin shall be with child..."

27

B. The Greek (Septuagint) Old Testament:

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive..."

C. The Hebrew (Masoretic) Old Testament

"Behold the young woman shall conceive..."

The Jewish people do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. They think he was born just like

any other man. The Old Testament in their language (which they translated to English) has the

prophet say young woman, not virgin. But the Greek Old Testament has virgin, just like the New

Testament. Matthew was not quoting the Hebrew; he was quoting the Greek. Like other New

Testament writers, he knew and quoted the Greek Old Testament to his readers.

STEPHEN READ THE LXX

Many Old Testament facts are narrated by Stephen in his speech before the Jewish council. That

he had read and studied the Old Testament in its Greek version is evident form comparing his

words with both versions of the Old Testament. Stephen's count of the number of Joseph's

kindred who went down into Egypt agrees with the Septuagint at seventy-five.4 The Masoretic

(Hebrew) text has seventy.5

Is it just a coincidence that Stephen and the LXX agree? It is not. The Greek Old Testament is

obviously the book he had read. The Holy Spirit is telling us something, if we will hear it: Luke

wrote this book in Greek. Isn't it amazing. The people who wrote the New Testament quoted the

Greek Old Testament as they wrote. The Greek Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew.

The Greek New Testament is the original. It was never in Hebrew. It is a Greek book.

Footnotes

1. Charles Thompson, The Septuagint Bible, trans. (Colorado, Falcon's Wing Press, 1960), pp.

xvii-xxiv.

2. Robertson, III, 111.

3. C. H. Wright, Bible Reader's Encyclopedia and Concordance, rev. W. M. Clow (London,

Collins, nd.).

4. Charles Thompson, trans. See Gen. 46:27.

5. The Holy Scriptures, According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication

Society of America, 1955), See Gen. 46:27.

CHAPTER 8- New Testament Manuscripts in Greek

Among my books, there are a number that are written using the Hebrew alphabet. Two of these

are of particular interest for our study. The first is a Yiddish New Testament. Of course, Yiddish

is not Hebrew. (Just like Aramaic is not Hebrew, in spite of the fact they both use the same

alphabet.) Yiddish is to some extent a hybrid language. It has borrowings from German as well as

Hebrew. Eastern European Jews and many of their descendants around the world speak and write

28

this language. This New Testament is in the native language of millions of Jews. Still, we are

compelled to recognize it as a translation. It was made from Greek manuscripts.

The other book related to our study is a copy of the New Testament in Hebrew. It is in the

language of the nation of Israel. Large numbers of Jewish people world-wide speak this language.

It is also taught to thousands of Jews immigrating to Israel each year. Many of whom speak little

or no Hebrew. Simply because a person is Jewish is not an indication of the language he or she

may speak. You may find it amazing that more Jews live in American than in Israel.

This particular New Testament is in the official language of the nation of the Jews. But, it was not

copied from an original Hebrew manuscript. It had to be translated from Greek manuscripts.

Isn't that an interesting fact? Think about it. If the New Testament was originally written in

Hebrew, why did this Hebrew edition have to be translated from Greek? There is one very simple

answer to this question. There are no ancient Hebrew copies of manuscripts of the New

Testament. All the early manuscripts are in Greek.

Very ancient manuscripts of Old Testament books exist both in Hebrew and Aramaic. But when

we want to examine a manuscript of the New Testament in either of these languages, we are

unable to find one. Not even one exists. This presents a very large and difficult problem for

advocates of an original Hebrew New Testament. It leaves them without a single piece of

empirical evidence to back their case.

A MYSTERY

Aren't mysterious things fascinating? Are you familiar with the Loch Ness Monster? It is

supposed, by some people, to be a large water creature that lives in a lake (loch) in Scotland. The

best evidence for its existence is a picture taken some years ago. The man who took the picture

died recently. On his death bed he confessed the picture is a fake.

Then, there is Big Foot. That's the man-like creature believed to roam the woodlands of the

western United States. It is surprising how many people believe he exists. They hunt diligently

for him. Some claim to have seen him. There are pictures, but there is no Big Foot.

How can I know there is no Loch Ness Monster? Why am I sure Big Foot does not exist?

Because there is not a single piece of empirical evidence for their existence. Where is something

for me to put my hands on? Where is something for me to look at? Capture a Big Foot and bring

him home. Corner the water creature in one end of the lake. No one has done this. No one is

going to. Why? It is simple. There is no Loch Ness Monster. There is no Big Foot. It is the same

with an ancient Hebrew manuscript of the New Testament. It is very mysterious, not unlike those

Super Market Tabloid mysteries. So far no one has brought one home.

GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

There are hand-written copies of the New Testament in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, and even

Hebrew. Every manuscript in each of these languages is, like my Hebrew New Testament, a

translation from Greek. Greek manuscripts do exist. They can be examined. That is empirical

evidence. There is something to put your hands on. There is something to see.

Either whole or in part, there are over five thousand manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.1

These are not translations; they are copies. This number is not approached by any other ancient

29

book. Manuscripts of the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian born about A.D. 37, number only

a handful. Other ancient writers cannot be found in as large a number as that. But, of the New

Testament there are five thousand plus manuscripts, all in Greek. This is an impressive amount of

evidence.

KNOW BY QUOTATIONS

Many ancient writers are known only because other writers quoted them. No manuscripts of their

work exist. Papias, a contemporary of the Apostle John, is an example of these. No copies of his

works are extant. He is quoted in the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Because of these

quotations we know some of what he wrote.

Most of the works of Origen, a third century writer, are lost. One of these is his Hexapla. This

was a Hebrew and Greek version of the Old Testament arranged in six columns. Thanks to

quotations of his writings by other men, we can know at least some of his works.

The Greek New Testament is the most often quoted ancient book. Many, many, many ancient

writers quote from it. These quotations verify its authenticity repeatedly. The Greek New

Testament is quoted over 10,000 times by ancient writers.

FIFTEEN THOUSAND WITNESSES

To the five thousand plus Greek manuscripts, we add more than ten thousand quotations by

ancient writers.2 That is a staggering sum of witnesses to the Greek New Testament. It is

especially impressive because advocates of a Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament can find exactly

zero evidence of manuscripts to support their theory. If you were setting about to prove

something, think of how you would feel if you had exactly no evidence.

What is the Score?

Original Greek New Testament ...........15,000 +

Original Hebrew New Testament..................0

BUT ALWAYS PRAY

The people of one sacred name group, with which I am personally acquainted, have been told by

their leader to pray for God to bring to light a manuscript of a Hebrew New Testament. They

think one may be hidden in the Vatican Library. They also hope more scrolls will be found in the

caves around Israel. Their prayer is for a Hebrew scroll of the New Testament to be found among

them.

Of course, you can see that such an action amounts to an admission there is no evidence for a

Hebrew New Testament. Such an admission is correct. There is no evidence. The reason there is

no evidence: there is not now nor was there ever such a New Testament. When a thing has not

happened, it leaves no evidence.

THE RYLAND FRAGMENT

A very weighty piece of evidence lies in the John Ryland Library in Manchester England. It is a

fragment of the eighteenth chapter of John's Gospel. It is commonly called the Ryland Fragment

30

and is numbered p52. It was found in Egypt in 1934. While it is not the original Gospel written in

John's own handwriting, it is likely a copy made directly from the original. Manuscript specialists

date it in the first quarter of the second century. Some set the date as early as A.D. 100.3 An

interesting note on the contents of this small piece of John's writing: it has the name of Jesus in

Greek. The same Greek in which John wrote the original.

You see how all the physical evidence points in one direction. Since its writing, the New

Testament has been translated into hundreds of languages. One of these is Hebrew. Without

exception, the evidence that can be seen or touched, proves our Book was originally written in

Greek.

Footnotes

1. J. D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids,

Zondervan, 1974). p.628.

2. James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible (New York, Scribner's 1903), IV, 735. In the

article, Text of the New Testament, written by Eberhard Nestle, we have these words: "from

Augustine alone D. de Lagarde collected 29,540 quotations from the N. T.'' Our use of the 10,000

figure is conservative indeed.

3. G. S. Wegener, 6000 Years of the Bible (New York, Harper, 1963).

CHAPTER 9- The Dead Sea Scrolls

Sometime around A.D. 1000, Eric the Red, Leif Ericsson, and other Norse men discovered

Greenland and Vinland (North America). An Icelander, Thorfinn Karlesefin, made an expedition

with three ships in 1003. His intention was to establish a settlement in Vinland. He returned after

three years, complaining of the hostile natives. Still, it is thought by historians that perhaps a

colony of these Vikings may have survived on the North American continent.

If a permanent settlement existed, American archaeologists believe physical evidence of it

eventually will be found. In the mean time, the few pieces of promising evidence that have been

found have not supported the "Permanent Settlement Hypothesis".

There are both historians and archeologists who would like to unearth confirmation of this theory.

It would ensure a degree of fame for the person making such a discovery. Over the years, a

number of scholars have worked toward this end. A Danish student of ancient artifacts, Karl

Rafn, saw a Viking house in the ruins of a circular stone building in New England. It turned out

to have been only a more recent windmill. It had never been a Viking house. Very often men will

see whatever they want to find. Other men have seen Scandinavian Runic writings in the rock

drawings of Native Americans. Runic writings have been imagined into all sorts of naturally

made scratches on stones.

31

So, is there no evidence of a permanent Viking presence? The best evidence is "The Kinsington

Stone." It was found (?) in 1898 by Olof Ohman, a farmer of Norwegian descent, who lived near

Kinsington, Minnesota. The stone is about sixteen inches wide, about thirty-three inches tall, and

is inscribed with Runic letters. Translated into English, this message says:

Eight Goths and twenty-two Norwegians on an

Expedition from Vinland to the west. Our camp

was on a rocky island a day's march from this

stone. One day we went out fishing and when we

returned found ten men covered in blood and dead,

AVM (Ave Maria) deliver us from evil. Ten men

watched by the sea for our ships fourteen days'

march away from the island. 1363.

This is an astonishing piece of evidence. Except for one problem, it proves the Norsemen were in

the very heart of America over one hundred years before Columbus sailed. The one problem with

the Kinsington Stone is that it is a fake.1 There is no evidence of a permanent Viking settlement

in North America. Regardless of how much such evidence may be desired, wishing for it will not

make it appear. Imagining evidence and contriving evidence, will serve only to confirm its non-

existence.

HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS

Some have purported to believe Hebrew New Testaments were found among the Dead Sea

Scrolls. When such New Testaments cannot be found in the scroll inventory, we are told that on-

site Catholic scholars secreted them away to the Vatican Library. You see how an over-active

imagination can work to provide whatever a person wants to believe. Wishing for evidence will

not bring it into existence. Such contriving just further confirms that the evidence does not exist

at all.

THE DISCOVERY

The first scrolls discovered near the Dead Sea were of the book of Isaiah. One was almost

complete; the other partial. They were found in 1947 by a Bedouin shepherd boy named

Muhammed-Ah-Dhib (Mohammed the Wolf).2 He was hunting for a lost goat among the rocks

and crags a few hundred yards from the Dead Sea. While resting, he happened to throw a rock

into an opening in the cliff. He heard the sound of breaking pottery and was curious enough to

investigate. He and a friend later found his rock had gone into a cave just above the Wadi (Dry

Creek) Qumran. They explored the cave and found clay jars in which were stored tightly rolled

scrolls.

During the next few years, eleven caves were found near Qumran. In these caves, there were

thousands of manuscript pieces. A number of whole and almost whole scrolls were also found.

Most of the writings were in Hebrew and Aramaic. However, some were in Greek.

For about fifty years now, lively interest has continued concerning the scrolls. What is their

origin? What do they mean? What is their true importance for both Jews and Christians? What

effect do they have on our understanding of and belief in the Bible?

32

Most students of the scrolls believe they originated with the Essenes, a Jewish religious sect.

There are ruins of buildings on the hill above the caves. It is believed an Essene commune

occupied these buildings from about 160 B.C. until the war with Rome in A.D. 68-70.

The Essenes are spoken of in the writings of the historians Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the elder.

There is nothing in the writings of these men, nor in the ruins, nor even in the scrolls, which

directly connect the caves, the ruins, and the Essenes. Some scholars believe the buildings were a

fort and no Essene commune at all. There will always be some doubt as to the origin of the

scrolls.

Regardless of their origin, many of the scrolls are of scriptural books. Some are of rules for a

religious community to live by. Others are apocalyptic in scope and doubtful in meaning. One is

an account of many caches of gold and silver hidden in and around Israel. The writings are on

rolls of parchment and papyrus, with the exception of one. It is a roll of copper.

OLD TESTAMENTS FOUND

Every Old Testament book was found, at least in fragmentary form, except the book of Esther.

Were any books of the New Testament found? Here is how one scholar answers that question.3

The claim that New Testament manuscripts were found at Qumran can be dealt with in a

sentence. None was found - for a very good reason: New Testament texts are later than the

Qumran texts.

NEW TESTAMENTS FOUND?

However, other scholars differ about the New Testament. Jose O'Callaghan, a Bible language

scholar, believes he has found remnants of New Testament books. In 1972, while poring over tiny

fragments of manuscripts found in cave seven, he believes he matched one with the book of

Mark. Later, O'Callaghan would write these words about his theory.4

My proposition that purports to identify fragments from cave seven with Mark 6:52,53 has been

around now for several years.

O'Callaghan also believes at least eight other Qumran fragments are from the New Testament. He

identifies three from Mark and one each from I Timothy, James, Acts, II Peter, and Romans. All

these fragments are from cave seven. It is astonishing that every one of them is written in Greek.

There is not even a single Hebrew word on any of the nine fragments O'Callaghan has identified

as belonging to the New Testament. There is another fascinating note on fragment number seven.

O'Callaghan identifies it with Mark 12:17. This verse contains the name of Jesus.

And Jesus said unto them, render to Caesar the

things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that

are God's.

33

In their book, "The First New Testament" two other scholars comment on whether fragment

seven has the name of Jesus.5

Fragment 7 appears to do exactly that by containing both the name of Jesus and the title Caesar.

That these nine fragments are in Greek, is a puzzle for an original Hebrew New Testament

advocates. Further, the name of Jesus in a Greek manuscript dated A.D. 50 or earlier, is quite a

vexatious problem for these people. If this is indeed a fragment of Mark's Gospel, it may be

Mark's own handwriting.

OTHER SCHOLARS

O'Callaghan does not stand alone in his assessment of at least part of these fragments. In recent

years, other scholars have accepted his theory and argued forcefully for it. Notable among them is

German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede. His book "The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?" is a well

thought out approach to this question.6 Still, the majority of Bible language scholars, both

Hebrew and Greek, think O'Callaghan's findings to be doubtful at best.

Each student of the Bible can make his or her own decision. Or a decision can be withheld until

more information is available. From all this, at least one thing is clear. If New Testament

manuscripts were found at Qumran, they were every one written in Greek.

Moreover, it is idle speculation, it is mere imagination, to believe Hebrew New Testaments were

found in any of the caves at Qumran. That is imagining evidence to be where there is none.

As elsewhere, so also among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the original Hebrew New Testament

advocates are left without any evidence for their theory. There is an obvious reason for this. The

New Testament was originally written in Greek.

Footnotes

1. Adolf Rieth, Archaeological Fakes, trans. Diana Imber (New York, Praeger, 1967), pp. 160-

168.

2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (New York, Weathervane Books,

1969).

John Allegro, Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Revealed (New York, Gramercy, 1981).

3. Hershel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, Random House, 1993),

p. 49.

4. David Estrada amd William White, Jr., The First New Testament (Nashville, Nelson, 1978), p.

7.

5. Estrada and White, p. 114.

6. Carsten Peter Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? (Great Britain, Paternoster, 1992)

CHAPTER 10- A Few References

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers

brought forth on this continent a new nation

34

conceived in liberty and dedicated to the

proposition that all men are created equal.

You may remember this statement. It is the first sentence of one of the most recognizable

speeches ever given. Like me, you may have memorized the complete speech when you were in

school. Of course, it is President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The main speaker at

Gettysburg spoke for over two hours. Mr. Lincoln had been asked to speak afterward. He spoke

less than three minutes. His simplicity of expression and elevated sentiment make the speech one

that perhaps will never be forgotten.

Our history teachers and our history books taught