History Lesson

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Dear Brother Tim and Brother Kirk,

No original manuscripts have made it down to our time, and because all
that remains are copies of
copies no one can use as proof the actual autographs to say which
language the hands of the apostles
wrote.  To say that, because all that remains are Greek copies of copies
proves they were all Greek,
is stretching it a bit.   Luke didn’t use Iesous if he wrote Greek,
which I agree is very possible, he
used .  Now, if this was the best transliteration they could come up
with for the Hebrew
, that is what he would have had to use, even though he himself would
know the true
pronunciation from hearing Peter, he couldn’t convey it to Theophilus if
he used .
If a new group of people were discovered, along with a new language that
was unknown as well, it
would be absurd, when it came time to translate the Bible, to
transliterate the Saviour’s name using
Jesus as a starting point.  Anyone who desired accuracy and truth would
insist on the original,
knowing that a copy of the original is always better then a copy of a
copy.  And although we don’t
have the original manuscripts  we do have the true Hebrew name of the
Saviour.  For these people to
use a name derived from the word Jesus would be equal, or even less so,
then us using Jesus, which
is taken from Latin, which is taken from Greek, which is taken from the
original Hebrew.


Hebrew or Greek?
The language of first century Judaea and Galilee must be understood in
the context
of the national and cultural policies then in existence, not what
existed in
neighboring Greek-speaking countries or in literature produced centuries
later
when the political and cultural situation was entirely different. Nor
can some
tombstones belonging to wealthy Jewish merchants or pro-Roman Jews in
the
government of Judaea inscribed with Greek stand to outweigh ancient
testimony on
the subject. The common Jewish man in Judaea did not place inscriptions
on his
tombstone, so any comparison is sorely flawed. The loss of the Judaean
state,
beginning in 70 C.E. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple,
and then
its total annihilation after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E., marked
the end of the
domination of the Hebrew language over Judaea and Galilee. Yet,
tombstones
found in Greek-speaking countries or loan-words found in literature
centuries later
do not erase the fact that prior to 70 C.E. the Hebrew-Aramaic tongue
held sway
and Greek, for the most part, was snubbed. To ignore the words of
Josephus, an
educated Jew born and raised in Judaea and living in the time frame at
question,
and to postulate that the common people of Judaea and Galilee spoke
Greek merely
to satisfy a desired religious objective is unwarranted, without
historical
foundation, and borders on dishonesty.

The Jewish people living in Judaea-Galilee during the first century C.E.
spoke
Hebrew and Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew), the same languages used in the
Old
Testament, and actually loathed the Greek language. The evidence will
also
demonstrate that the messiah and his followers, like the Jews among whom
they
lived, spoke and taught in Hebrew-Aramaic.

It is improper to couple the script and language found in the earliest
surviving New
Testament documents with the language spoken in Judaea and Galilee
during the
first century C.E. Not only do these remaining fragments post-date the
originals by
at least a century and more—and the larger manuscripts several
centuries—but all
are found outside of Palestine.

Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient western world during that
period. It
would have been quite natural for the original Hebrew manuscripts to
have been
translated into Greek shortly after their composition. The fact that
these documents
and fragments left to us are written in Greek, therefore, proves
nothing. Contrary to
popular opinion, the New Testament was originally composed in
Hebrew-Aramaic,
the same language used in the Old Testament, but it was shortly
thereafter
translated into Greek as an aid for those numerous converts who could
not read
Hebrew. Unfortunately, the original Hebrew texts were later suppressed
and
destroyed by both the Jews (who saw them as heretical) and the
Christians (who
came to view them as Judaizing).

For our present purpose now, we shall concentrate upon the evidence
demonstrating that the language spoken in Judaea-Galilee by the messiah,
his
original twelve apostles, and the other Jews living there during the
first century
C.E. was Hebrew-Aramaic.

The Jews of Judaea and Galilee during the first century C.E. despised
the Greek
language. All historians specializing in Jewish history are aware of the
great
sacrilege committed by the Greek-speaking Syrians under Antiochus
Epiphanes
(175–164 B.C.E.) against the Jewish people, their capital city
Jerusalem, and their
Temple. The forced Hellenization policy that was perpetrated upon the
Jews of
Palestine by Epiphanes created a tremendous backlash, resulting in
revolt and the
establishment of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) priest-kings as rulers of
Judaea.
[See EJ, 3, p. 74, 7, pp.1455f. Josephus also reports the innate hatred
of the Greek-speaking
Syrians against the Jews (Jos., Wars, 1:4:3).] The majority of the Jews
of Palestine, left
with a bitter taste from this forced Hellenization policy of the Greek
Seleucid
ruling house, became heavily anti-Greek. They were not only against the
Greek
culture but the Greek language. The Jews chose instead to continue with
Aramaic
as their language of international trade, which had long been the lingua
franca of
the Middle East.  [See EJ, 3, pp. 259–282;]
What often confuses the adherents to the “inspired Greek” view is the
fact that
many of the Jews living outside Palestine and within the Graeco-Roman
world did
know Greek, especially in Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and Greece. But
these fell
under different circumstances. They were not living in a land dominated
politically
by Jews, but in countries controlled by Greek-speaking peoples and
perforce had to
acquire that tongue. Indeed, evidence that some of these Greek-speaking
Jews
resettled in Judaea is also well-known, i.e. some of the Alexandrian
Jews from
Egypt. [For example, the Tosef. Meg, 3:6, reports that during the first
century there existed a
“synagogue of Alexandrians in Jerusalem.” That there was a “synagogue”
in Jerusalem attended
to by Hellenic Jews called Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and
those from Cilicia and Asia, a
list of names indicating a Greek-speaking community, is also attested to
in Acts, 6:9. Yet, the very
fact that these Greek-speaking Jews had their own synagogue actually
proves that Greek was not
part of the language of Judaea. If it had been there would have been no
reason for them to join
together into one synagogue. They would have simply attended any one of
a number of Jewish
synagogues in that sprawling community.]
 But these minority populations hardly constituted a small percentage in
Judaea and
Galilee in the first century C.E., let alone rival the majority of
Hebrew-speaking
Jews.

Proof that the Jews of Palestine during the first century C.E. continued
to speak
Hebrew and Aramaic, and were in fact unfamiliar with Greek, comes from
the first
century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus. Josephus was born in Jerusalem
to a noble
family of priests. After studying the various Jewish sects, he also
became a priest
and joined the most popular religious group in Judaea, the Pharisees.
Highly
educated he was proficient in Jewish history. In 66 C.E. Josephus was
entrusted
with an important commission as general of a military force from
Galilee. [That
Josephus was from a noble priestly family see Jos., Life, l. In his
Apion, l:10, Josephus writes that
he was “a priest and of priestly ancestry,” and that he was “well versed
in the study” of the
“sacred books” of the Jews. He also boasted that he “made great
progress” in his education and
had gained “a reputation for an excellent memory and understanding.”
“While a mere boy,” he
goes on, “about fourteen years old, I won universal applause for my love
of letters insomuch that
the chief priest and the leading men of the city constantly used to come
to me for precise
information on some particular in our ordinances” (Life, 2). Josephus
claims to have been fully
accomplished in all three of the major Jewish sects (Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes) as well as
having gained three years experience under a man named Bannus (who lived
in the wilderness
wearing clothing made from trees and using frequent ablutions of cold
water day and night for
purity sake). After these experiences, and being but nineteen years of
age, Josephus returned to
Jerusalem and joined the majority sect or party of Judaism, called the
Pharisees (Life, 2). That
Josephus served for a time as commander in Galilee see Jos., Apion, 1:9;
Wars, 20:4–5; Life, 7–8.]

Between 75 and 79 C.E. Josephus wrote a history of the Jewish wars with
Rome.
[see Thackeray,
Jos., II, Intro., p. xii.]  He informs us that this work had originally
been “composed in
my vernacular tongue” (i.e. Hebrew-Aramaic), [Thackeray, Jos., II,
Intro., pp. ix–xi, 4f, n.
a, “Aramaic or Hebrew.” ] and had been sent to the Israelites living
within the Parthian
empire. [Jos., Wars, pref. l–2. The Parthian Empire of the first century
C.E., called “the
up-country barbarians” by Josephus, ruled over old Assyrian-Babylonian
country, the region today
commonly called Iran, and various adjoining lands to these. According to
Josephus, living in this
vast land “beyond the Euphrates river” were the ten exiles tribes of
Israel, who in his day had
become “countless myriads whose number cannot be ascertained” (Antiq.,
9:5:2). It was to these
exiled tribes of Israel that Josephus had sent his book on the Jewish
wars, originally composed in
the Hebrew-Aramaic language.]
He also tells us that, “with the aid of some assistants,” he later
translated this
edition into Greek. [Jos., Apion, l:9.]  Yet, Josephus found his task as
translator
immensely wearisome because, as he informs us, he had to translate “so
vast a
subject into a foreign and UNFAMILIAR TONGUE.” [Jos., Antiq., pref., 2.]
These
comments illustrate two things: first, the vernacular or native tongue
of the Jews of
Palestine was not Greek; and second, Greek was a “foreign and unfamiliar
tongue,”
even for a highly educated Judaean priest like Josephus. At the end of
another great
work produced by Josephus, entitled Antiquities of the Jews, he makes
yet one
more important claim that the Jewish people of his time had little
knowledge of the
Greek language: [Jos., Antiq., 20:11:1.]

“For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in
learning
belonging to the Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain
the learning
of Greek letters and prose, although I have so long accustomed myself to
speak our
own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for
our
nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many
nations, and
(who) so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;
because they
look upon this sort of accomplishment as beneath their dignity, not only
to all sorts
of freemen, but (also) to as many of the servants as please to learn
them. But they
give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with
our laws,
and is able to interpret their meaning: on which account, as there have
been many
who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this
learning, there
have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded
therein, who
were immediately well rewarded for their pains.”

The priests and religious scholars of Judaea were the educated class
among the
Judaeans. Yet the priest Josephus (born to a priestly family and
educated as a
Pharisee, the dominant religious party in Judaea) considered Greek a
“foreign and
unfamiliar tongue.” He even required “some assistants” to translate his
Hebrew-Aramaic into Greek. Further, after a long period of study into
the Greek
language, Josephus still found it difficult to speak Greek; it was
“beneath their
dignity” as Jews of Palestine to even learn a foreign language. We have
no choice
but to conclude that the vast majority of Jews living in Judaea and
Galilee were
completely unfamiliar with the Greek language.

Other evidence comes from the Talmud. In the work entitled Baba Qamma we
read
that Gamliel II, who held the position of Patriarch in Judaea beginning
in about 80
C.E., and his family were permitted to learn Greek only because they
were “near to
the government.” [B. B.Q., 83a. Also see App. C.]  As R. Travers Herford
comments,
“The Patriarch was the official representative of the Jews, and since as
such he
must have had frequent intercourse with the government, the knowledge of
Greek
was necessary.” [CTM, p. 89.]

Yet even for families, like that of Gamliel II, who worked in high
public positions
where many contacts with foreigners were made and Greek was necessary,
permission had to be obtained to even learn the Greek language. The
experience of
Gamliel II becomes even more poignant when we consider that it took
place after
70 C.E., the year that Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed and the
last
vestiges of Jewish political independence came to an end.

The general attitude towards Greek culture is also expressed in the
Talmud during
the story of Ben Damah’s request to his uncle, Rabbi Ishmael (early
second century
C.E.), to study Greek philosophy. Mimicking the general theme mentioned
by
Josephus, permission was denied and a verse from Joshua, 1:8, was held
as
authority, “You shall meditate upon it (the Torah) day and night,” after
which
Ishmael ordered his nephew, “Go seek a time when it is neither day nor
night, and
therein study Greek philosophy.” [B. Men., 99b. The Sotah, 9:14, states,
“During the war of
Titus they (the Jewish leaders) forbade that a man should teach his son
Greek.” The Cambridge text
reports this restriction took place in the time of Quietus. Also see
JNES, 1, p. 52.]

Even the attitude of the Judaean Jews towards any Greek translation of
the Old
Testament was negative. The Talmud, for example, in response to the
propaganda
exhorting the virtues of the Greek Septuagint version, invented a myth
that the day
that the Septuagint was produced Palestine was struck by a severe
earthquake that
shook every inch of ground in that country. The reason for this ominous
sign, they
explain, is the fact that the almighty was demonstrating his anger that
his sacred
words had been translated into a heathen tongue. Rabbinical Jews
regarded this
translation as a national disaster, “like the day on which the golden
calf was
made.” [Expos., Nov., 1900, p. 348f; ADB, 4, p. 439.]

With the end of the Jewish revolt under Bar Kochba in 135 C.E.—which
brought
about the complete annihilation of the Judaean state, the exile or
murder of most of
the Jewish population, and the repopulating of Judaea-Galilee with
foreign
peoples—Hebrew officially ceased to be the language of Judaea. [EJ, 2,
p. 685.]  But
even long after the Bar Kochba revolt, at a time when one would expect
great
inroads by the Greek language among the remnant of Jews left in
Palestine,
Hebrew-Aramaic was still held as the proper tongue for the Jews
remaining in the
homeland. For instance, Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, who edited the
Mishnah at the
beginning of the third century C.E., is said to have always spoken
Hebrew in his
home: as did the maidservants of his household. Yet, being Patriarch,
like Rabbi
Gamliel II before him, he was a student of Greek—a necessity for his
post. [Danby,
Mishnah, pp. xx–xxi.]

The small percentage of Greek-speaking Jews that returned to live in
Palestine
during these years is not only reflected in Josephus’ statement that
Greek was an
“unfamiliar tongue” for his countrymen but by the literary finds
generally labeled
as the Qumran scrolls. Among these ancient documents found in Judaea,
Greek
texts of the Bible are rare. The overwhelming number of such documents,
as well
as Targums and other writings, are produced in Aramaic and Hebrew. Even
when a
Greek text is found, it is acknowledged by scholars that it was created
or possessed
by Greek-speaking Jews who settled in Palestine and is not reflective of
the main
population. [J. P. Siegel goes so far as to argue that the
Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem
possessed a copy of the Scriptures written entirely in Hebrew (IEJ, 22,
1972, pp. 39–43). In the
evidence he cites, though, it appears that only the sacred name was
written in Hebrew with gold
letters while the rest of the text was in Greek, common practice in the
ancient Septuagint
translations during this early period.]

Other ancient writers also testify that the language of the Jews living
in first
century Palestine was Hebrew and not Greek. Papias (early second
century) and
Irenaeus (second century) tell us that the apostle Matthew wrote his
text  “in the
Hebrew language” and “among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” [Papias,
cited in
Eusebius, H.E., 3:39:16; Iren., 3:1:1, and cited in Eusebius, H.E.,
5:8:2.]
Jerome likewise writes that Matthew composed his work about the messiah
“in
Judaea in Hebrew” but that this text “was afterwards translated into
Greek, though
by what author is uncertain.” [Jerome, Lives, 3.]

Similarly, Eusebius (early fourth century)—speaking of the New Testament
book
to the Hebrews—states that the apostle Saul (in Greek called “Paul”) had
“spoken
in writing to the Hebrews in their native language, and some say that
the evangelist
Luke, others say that this same Clement translated the writing.”
[Eusebius, H.E.,
3:38:2.]

Jerome tells us: “He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own
tongue
and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in
Hebrew were
more eloquently turned into Greek.” [Jerome, Lives, 5.]

Each of these records proves that the language of the Jews living in
Palestine
during the first century C.E. was Hebrew, “their native language,” not
Greek.
Letters and works composed by Matthew and Saul (Paul) and sent to the
Jewish
assemblies in Palestine were only later translated into Greek by some
unknown
scribes for the benefit of the Greek speaking assemblies living
elsewhere.

Though the New Testament documents left to us are in Greek, much can be
gleaned from them which demonstrate that the actual language used in the
first
century C.E., not only by the messiah and his disciples but by the Jews
in general
who were living in Judaea-Galilee, was Hebrew-Aramaic. This evidence
comes
from idioms, quotes, and statements found in the New Testament. As for
the
substitutions “theos” and “kurios,” which are found in direct quotes
from the Old
Testament, these were introduced into the New Testament translations
much later
via the adoption of the “ineffable name” doctrine by the Christians in
the second
century C.E., [See Chap. XVII]  a doctrine already long practiced among
the various
sects of Judaism.

Numerous words and terms remain in our Greek editions of the New
Testament
that are pure Hebrew and Aramaic. They were simply transliterated. For
example,
the words “amen,” “alleluia (Hallelu-Yah),” “messiah,” “sabbath,”
“maranatha,”
“abba,” “rabbi,” “Satan,” “hosanna,” and so forth. [For a list of
references to “amen,”
see YAC, p. 32; for “alleluia” see Rev., 19:1–6; for “messiah” see John,
l:41, 4:25; for a list of
references to “sabbath” see YAC, p. 829, nos. 4 and 5; “maranatha” see 1
Cor., 16:22; for
“abba” see Rom., 8:15; Gal., 4:6; For “rabbi” and “rabboni” see Matt.,
23:7–8; John, l:38, 49,
3:2, 26, 6:25, 20:16; for a list of references to “Satan”see YAC, p.
836;]

It was necessary in a number of places for a Greek translation to be
supplied for the
Greek readers, i.e. “abba, (meaning) (father),” “messiah, which is,
being
interpreted, (the christ),” “Kephas (Keph), which is interpreted, (small
stone),” and
so on. [For examples see Mark, 14:36; Rom., 8:15; Gal., 4:6; John, l:41,
4:25; John, l:42.]
These are editorial notes meant to aid the Greek reader who was
unfamiliar with
the Hebrew terms and names used in the original texts. There was simply
no reason
to do this unless the original words were spoken in Hebrew-Aramaic.

Some mistranslations of these original Hebrew-Aramaic terms have left
the reader
in total confusion. Let us take for an example the famous quote from
Yahushua,
translated from Greek into English to read, “it is easier for a camel to
pass through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God.” [Matt.,
19:24; Mark, 10:25; Luke, 18:25.] The word translated as “camel” is
found in our Greek
text as “ (kamelon).” While it is true that “kamelon” in Greek means
“camel,” the
word kamel in Aramaic means “rope.” [See for example HBP at the verses
cited above This
translation is based upon the Aramaic version of the New Testament.]  If
we understand
Yahushua’s allegorical line to mean, “it is easier for a rope to pass
through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of  Yahweh”
his
metaphor takes on a much clearer meaning.

Proof that the Jewish population living in first century Palestine
regularly spoke
Hebrew and Aramaic but not Greek—and that subsequently we are to
understand
the words spoken in the New Testament by the messiah and his disciples
as
originally in Hebrew-Aramaic thought and meaning—is further adduced from
the
absence of direct testimony. No place in the New Testament does it admit
to the
circumstance that the messiah or any of his twelve apostles spoke or
wrote to these
Jews in Greek. Nowhere, for example, do we read, “and the messiah spoke
to them
in the Greek language” or that “such and such an apostle said to the
Jews in
Greek.” Actually, the opposite is true. The best example of this comes
in the
discussions about Saul (Paul), who unlike the messiah and the twelve,
was not a
native of Palestine but in his adult life he did hold an important
religious post in
Judaea. [Acts, 9:1–2, 26:10; Jerome, Lives, 5.]
.
Saul’s Testimony
Saul was a Jew raised in Tarsus, Cilicia, a land located in southern
Asia Minor.
[Acts, 21:39; 22:1–5. Jerome, Lives, 5, notes that Saul was from the
town of Giscalis in Judaea, but
when this town had been taken by the Romans his family moved to Tarsus
in Cilicia. Saul was later
sent by his parents back to Jerusalem to study law, where he was
educated by Gamaliel, a most
learned man whom Luke mentions (cf. Acts, 5:34, 22:3).]
 In Cilicia the Greek language was commonly spoken. Saul clearly knew
the Greek
language, and if the population in Judaea, the messiah, or the other
disciples knew
Greek Saul most certainly would have been able to communicate in this
tongue.
What the New Testament reports in this regard is revealing. In the book
of Acts we
read that, while at Jerusalem, Saul was accused by the Jews not only of
teaching a
doctrine opposed to popular Jewish interpretation of that time but of
bringing
Greeks into the Temple. [Acts, 21:26–29.] This incident, by the way,
tells us
something of the attitude held by the Jews of Palestine towards the
Greeks. In the
tumult that followed, Saul was taken to a fortress by Roman soldiers. On
the way,
Saul asked the chief captain if he would allow him to speak. The soldier

responded, “Do you know Greek?,” indicating that Saul had addressed the
Roman
in Greek. [Acts, 2l:30–37.]  The surprise that Saul knew Greek comes
from the fact
that Greek was not generally spoken by the Jews in Judaea. If it had
been, the
Roman soldier would have had no need to ask the question. The fact that
Saul
spoke Greek caused the Roman soldier to jump to an unwarranted
conclusion. The
captain challenged Saul, asking, “ (Then*) are you not the Egyptian who
before
these days caused a confusion and led out into the desert the four
thousand men of
the assassins?” [Acts, 2l:38, *“ara ” ( means “then, therefore”; see
GEL, p. 113; SEC, Gk.
#686).] Carefully notice that when Saul spoke Greek he was not
identified with the
Jews of Palestine but with some notorious criminal from Egypt who had
just
shortly before caused a great problem for the Romans. The confusion was
caused
because of the tumult of the crowd against Saul and because Saul spoke
to the
soldier in Greek. If the Jews of Judaea-Galilee had known Greek there
would have
been no need for the soldier to single Saul out as a foreign
troublemaker. The
captain, accordingly, had deduced that Saul must be the Egyptian they
had been
looking for. No such assumption would have been possible if Saul had
spoken
Hebrew, for it was the Egyptians, not the Jews of Palestine, who spoke
Greek. Saul
corrected the Roman and told him that he was a Jew and a citizen from
Tarsus,
Cilicia, and made a request to speak to the Jews of Jerusalem who had
come
against him. The captain granted Saul his request. If the Jews of
Palestine
commonly spoke Greek here was an excellent opportunity for the
Greek-speaking
Jew from Tarsus to stand up and demonstrate that principle. Yet the book
of Acts
twice tells us that Saul addressed his Judaean adversaries “in the
Hebrew
language,” and in one of these states, “and having heard that in the
Hebrew
language he (Saul) spoke to them (the Jews of Jerusalem), the more they
kept
quiet.”  That is, once they found out that Saul was a Hebrew-speaking
Jew and not
a Hellenizer, the Jews of Jerusalem were more willing to listen to him.
As Jerome
notes in his Lives of Illustrious Men, Saul, “being Hebrew wrote Hebrew,
that is
his own tongue.”

The Apostles
Let us now examine the evidence with regard to the apostles. After the
messiah had
been delivered up to the Jewish high priest, he was followed to the
court of the
high priest by the apostle Keph (Kephas; Cephas), translated into Greek
as “Peter,”
also called Simeon. There, outside the court, Keph denied knowing
Yahushua
(called “Jesus” in the English translations) three times. It was during
these denials
that some who were standing about said to Keph, “Truly, from among them
(the
followers of Yahushua) you are, for you are a Galilaean and your speech
agrees.”
[Mark, 14:70; cf. Luke, 2l:56–59. Yahushua likewise was recognized as a
man from Galilee (Luke,
23:4–7; and cf. John, 4:43–45, 7:52), and therefore would also have
spoken with a Galilaean
accent. This point is supported by the fact that Keph (Peter) was
identified with Yahushua and his
disciples because he was both a Galilaean and a man who spoke with the
Galilaean dialect (Mark,
14:70). The assembly of disciples that gathered on the Feast of Weeks
(Pentecost) shortly after the
messiah was resurrected are also identified as Galilaeans (Acts, 2:1–7).
Indeed, the entire
movement came to be associated with the country of Galilee. Emperor
Julian (fourth century C.E.)
and Epictetus, for example, both refer to the assemblies as “Galilaeans”
(Julian, Ag. Gal.; cf.
Gregory, Ag. Jul., 76 [115]). One of the chief cities of Galilee was
called Nazareth, from which the
surrounding country was also named, and the inhabitants were called
“Nazarenes.” Therefore,
Yahushua, who was from Nazareth and often called “Yahushua of Nazareth”
(for a list of
references see SEC, p. 709), as well as his disciples, were all
identified as Nazarenes (Matt., 2:23;
Acts, 24:5). The Talmudic Jews often referred to Yahushua and his
followers as “the Nazarenes”
(see for example, B. Sanh., 103a, 107b; B. A.Zar, 6a, 16b; B. Taan.,
27b). The name still exists in
Arabic as the common designation for a Christian (DB, p. 434). Emperor
Julian also uses the term
“Nazarene” as equal to “Galilaean” (Phot., letter #55).]  They did not
say, “and you speak
Greek,” but rather that his dialect was identifiable with that spoken by
a Galilaean.
A. F. Walls concludes that Keph (Peter) “spoke Aramaic with a strong
north-country accent.”  [NBD, p. 971.]
That the apostles Keph and John only knew Hebrew-Aramaic is supported by
the
fact that both are said to be “ (unlearned in letters)” and “
(uninstructed),” i.e.
without a formal education. [Acts, 4:13.]  It is also supported by the
words of Papias,
who personally knew John the Elder, the author of Revelation, who, in
turn,
personally knew some of the apostles. [See App. D, latter part.]
Papias states that John told him that Mark, who wrote the synoptic text
by that
name, “became Peter’s  interpreter.” [Papias, cited in Eusebius, H.E.,
3:39:15.]  If Keph
knew Greek, why would he need an interpreter? At the same time, since
even the
highly educated in Judaea, like Josephus, found the Greek language
difficult to
master, how could one justify this linguistic knowledge for unschooled
Galilaean
and Judaean Jews like the apostles? As a result, A. F. Loisy concludes
that Peter
(Keph) did not know the Greek language and “would teach his hearers in
Aramean.” [ONT, p. 67.]

The use of Hebrew-Aramaic by the apostles is also supported by a
statement found
in the works of Jerome, the late fourth century C.E. author of the Latin
Vulgate
version of the Old Testament. Jerome reports that copies of the original
manuscript
published in Jerusalem by the apostle Matthew still survived in his day.
This text,
he adds, was composed in Hebrew—not Greek. He also makes another
important
observation: [Jerome, Lives, 3.]
“In this it is to be noted that wherever the evangelist, whether on his
own account
or in the person of our lord the saviour quotes the testimony of the Old
Testament
he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint
BUT THE
HEBREW.”
If the citations from the Old Testament used by the messiah and his
disciples had
originally been in Greek, why did Matthew quote from the Hebrew?
Further, if he
quoted the original Hebrew text in those places (and there are several)
where the
sacred name appeared, Matthew would have retained the sacred name. [For
examples
see Matt., 3:3 (Isa., 40:3), 4:4 (Deut., 8:3), 4:7 (Deut., 6:16), 4:10
(Deut., 6:13), 5:33 (Deut.,
23:21), 21:42 (Ps., 118:22f), 23:39 (Ps., 118:26).]

The Words of the Messiah
Next, we shall examine the New Testament references which demonstrate
what
language the messiah used when he spoke to his disciples. As already
shown, Saul
knew Greek. If the messiah commonly spoke Greek he would find a
comprehending ear in Saul. Yet, when the messiah first met with Saul, as
Saul was
traveling on the road to Damascus (in the country of Syria where Greek
was
spoken), we are told by the book of Acts:26:14, “And all of us having
fallen down
to the ground, I (Saul) heard a voice speaking to me and saying IN THE
HEBREW
LANGUAGE, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”  When Saul asked to whom

it was that he was speaking the voice said “I am Yahushua, who you are
persecuting.”  Yahushua, therefore, would have used the Hebrew form of
his
earthly name, not the Greek. It was this same Yahushua whose last dying
words
were, “Eli, eli lama sabachthani?,” which is Hebrew-Aramaic for “My el,
my el,
why have you forsaken me.” This statement  was a direct quote from
Psalm, 22:1.
[Matt., 27:46. That this statement is a quote from Psalm, 22:1, see AB,
NT, p. 45; SRB, p. 10, n. j;
NJB, p. 1657.]  Here is proof that the messiah cited the Torah using the
original
Hebrew verse. Another proof that Yahushua spoke in Hebrew comes in Mark,
5:41.
In this passage we are told that in healing a young girl, Yahushua took
hold of her
hand and said, “Talitha, koumi.” This verse follows the Hebrew with a
Greek
translation, “which is, being interpreted, ‘Damsel, to you I say,
arise.’” “Talitha,
koumi” is pure Hebrew-Aramaic. [See SEC, Gk. #5008 and 289l, and cf.
Heb. #2924, or
(teleth), “lamb” (i.e. young girl, or an infant, see HEL, p. 100); and
Heb. #6966, (koom), “rise.”]

Therefore, in the statement from Mark we have a direct quote of Yahushua
left in
the Hebrew. In the corresponding verse from the book of Luke (8:54),
meanwhile,
there is no indication of the original Hebrew. Only a Greek phrase
remains. This
evidence shows that Yahushua spoke to the girl in Hebrew-Aramaic,
reflected by
the scribe who translated Mark’s work, while the scribe translating Luke
chose to
leave out the transliteration of the original words.

In Mark, 7:34, we are told that Yahushua healed a deaf man by placing
his fingers
on the man’s ears and saying, “ (Ephphathah),” which this verse then
defines as
meaning, “be opened.” This term is Hebrew-Aramaic, based on the term
(phathah
or phphathah), “to open.”[SEC, Gk. #2188, Heb. #6605–8. The dot or
dagesh forte found in
the letter (ph) indicates that this consonant is doubled (i.e. phph)
(see IHG, p. 6), therefore the
reading “phphathah.”]  In Mark, 14:36, we read that the messiah began
his famous
prayer to Yahweh with the word “ (abba).” Abba is Hebrew-Aramaic, based
upon
the Hebrew term (ab), meaning “father.” [SEC, Gk. #5, Heb. #2. The form
abba is Aramaic
(the [ah] sound ending many Aramaic words), see NJB, p. 1681, n. 14,
d.]  In this verse the
Greek phrase “ (o pater, i.e. “meaning father”) is added for
definition.  Insightfully,
in the corresponding versions of this prayer given in Matt., 26:39, and
Luke, 22:42,
we find only the Greek term (pater, father). These details prove that
Yahushua
spoke his prayer in Hebrew but that later translators of Matthew and
Luke rendered
it entirely in Greek.

The evidence has compelled the leading linguistic experts to conclude
that the
language of Judaea and Galilee during the time of the messiah was
Hebrew-Aramaic and not Greek. The noted Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce,
for
example, concludes: “Aramaic is known to have been the common language
of
Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in
all probability
the language which he and his apostles habitually spoke.” [NTD, p. 38.]
Bruce also
notes that the apostle Peter (Keph) spoke a “Galilaean Aramaic” and that
the Greek
translations left to us “in places preserves the Aramaic idiom quite
unmistakably.”
[NTD, p. 37.] The well-known linguist Edward Horowitz also points out
that the
language of Galilee and Judaea during the first century was Hebrew. He
further
writes:  “Hebrew gradually ceased being a spoken language after 70 C.E.,
when the
Jews were driven from the land of Israel by the Romans and were
scattered
throughout the world. Hebrew, of course, remained alive, and was used
constantly
in other ways. It was the language of prayer, study, reading the Torah,
and
correspondence. Above all it was used as the language of a tremendously
rich
literature of law, theology, philosophy, science, medicine, astronomy,
poetry,
grammar and other fields of human knowledge.”  [HHLG, p. 6.]

The Hebrew language in Judaea and Galilee only began to “gradually”
decrease in
use after many of the Jews of Judaea and Galilee were dispersed in 70
C.E., forced
out by the Roman conquest and the destruction of Jerusalem and its
sacred Temple.
It especially faded after the failure of the Jewish revolt against the
Romans under
Bar Kochba, which ended in 135 C.E. and entirely removed even the
outline of a
Jewish state. Nevertheless, Hebrew certainly would have been continued
by the
generation that was dispersed as well as by those who remained in their
homeland.
But the period before 70 C.E. is when the messiah taught and the lion’s
share of the
New Testament was composed. Therefore, the messiah and his apostles
lived
during the period when Hebrew-Aramaic dominated the culture of Judaea
and
Galilee, and at a time when Greek was despised. There is an important
question
that many Christians fail to consider. Why would Yahushua (the Yahweh
seen by
the Patriarchs of the Old Testament) teach in Greek when he had
originally given
his Scriptures to the Israelites in Hebrew? This question is further
enhanced when
we consider that, while he was sojourning on earth as a man, Yahushua
was living
among a Hebrew speaking people who possessed copies of the original
manuscripts of the Torah and the Prophets written in Hebrew. Why would
he
converse about his own book to them in another language? With all of
this
evidence it becomes unthinkable to assume that the messiah and his
disciples went
about Galilee and Judaea teaching Scriptures to the Jews of these
regions using the
Greek language. They were in the land of the original Scriptures, among
people
who still spoke the language found in the Torah and who possessed copies
of the
original manuscripts of the Old Testament (there being as of this time
no New
Testament books and letters yet authored). When the messiah or his
disciples
quoted Scriptures, they would quite naturally use the Hebrew version, as

Matthew’s text shows, not the Greek Septuagint translation, which was
meant for
Greek-speaking Jews living outside of Palestine and in Greek-speaking
countries.
The evidence also shows that, as was the case with Keph, the apostles,
like their
contemporary the Jewish priest Josephus, did not even know Greek
(Josephus
having only learned it later on in his life, and after he left Judaea to
live in Rome).
Even if, despite the evidence, one were to continue to argue that the
New
Testament was originally composed in Greek, he still would be compelled
to
understand it from its underlying Hebrew thought and meaning. As F. F.
Bruce
reminds us, “The general religious vocabulary of the Greek language was
pagan in
character.” [BP, p. 159.]  Greek meanings are simply not reliable.
Neither does
Greek carry with it adequate power to transmit the original Hebrew
meanings. As
the ancient translator of the Hebrew book later called Ecclesiasticus
has warned us,
finding it necessary to apologize for the various imperfections in his
Greek
translation, “For the things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the
same force in
them when they are translated into another tongue.” [Ecclus., Prologue.]

Yahweh, who does not change, revealed himself in the Hebrew tongue, not
Greek.
Therefore, regardless of what language the surviving texts of the New
Testament
are found, Yahushua and his disciples of Judaea-Galilee during the first
century
C.E. read, spoke, and taught in Hebrew-Aramaic. These facts demand that
when
reading the New Testament we must understand that direct quotes from the

messiah and his disciples and the various discussions carried on by
these people
were conducted in the Hebrew-Aramaic language. When the messiah or his
apostles directly quote the Old Testament, for example, proper
investigation
demands that the original Hebrew verse be consulted. This practice will
lead us to
a much clearer and more in-depth understanding of the issues and
doctrines that
motivated the messiah and his disciples. It also reveals, as we shall
illustrate, that
regardless of which language the New Testament may or may not have been
originally composed, the messiah and his disciples not only spoke and
taught in the
Hebrew-Aramaic language but regularly used the sacred name.

Portions taken from The Scared Name,  Chapter XI  “The Language of
Judaea and
Galilee” pages 127 - 139 and Appendix C.