Languages of the NT literature

[gnostic]

I know and understand that Jesus supposedly spoke in Aramaic, because it was one of languages spoken in that region.

But what of the writings, like the gospels and all those letters?

Were they ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or Latin?

I have not been privilege to see any of the original or even copy of the scrolls or manuscripts.

My assumption that they were mostly written in Greek ORIGINALLY, because many of the letters of Paul were directed to Greek-speaking people, so it is highly unlikely they were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Greek was also widely spoken in the Near East, and the most likely Greek dialect used in 1st century CE would be Koine.

And even if Jesus spoke and preach in Aramaic, the gospels were more like to be written in Greek.

Was Paul's epistles to the Romans and Hebrew were written in Greek too? Or were each written in respective Latin and Hebrew languages?

 

[Oberon]

I know and understand that Jesus supposedly spoke in Aramaic, because it was one of languages spoken in that region.

But what of the writings, like the gospels and all those letters?

Were they ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or Latin?

I have not been privilege to see any of the original or even copy of the scrolls or manuscripts.

My assumption that they were mostly written in Greek ORIGINALLY, because many of the letters of Paul were directed to Greek-speaking people, so it is highly unlikely they were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Greek was also widely spoken in the Near East, and the most likely Greek dialect used in 1st century CE would be Koine.

And even if Jesus spoke and preach in Aramaic, the gospels were more like to be written in Greek.

Was Paul's epistles to the Romans and Hebrew were written in Greek too? Or were each written in respective Latin and Hebrew languages?

Paul didn't write the epistle to the romans. And yes, there is virtual unanimity in scholarship that the entire NT was originally written in Greek. However, the oral tradition on which the gospels are based were either completely or almost completely originally in aramiac. They were translated into greek prior to the composition of the gospels

 

[gnostic]

However, the oral tradition on which the gospels are based were either completely or almost completely originally in aramiac. They were translated into greek prior to the composition of the gospels

Then are modern scholars basing their Q (-gospel) theory on a lost Greek original writing or that of the Aramaic oral tradition?

 

[Watchmen]

Then are modern scholars basing their Q (-gospel) theory on a lost Greek original writing or that of the Aramaic oral tradition?

either/or fallacy

 

[Oberon]

Then are modern scholars basing their Q (-gospel) theory on a lost Greek original writing or that of the Aramaic oral tradition?

It is not certain that Q was written, although most scholars who believe Q existed think it was.

However, Q as is represented in Matthew and Luke was almost certainly greek by the time they recorded it.

What you have to understand is that during Jesus' day many Jews were at least bilingual, and that many spoke only greek. It is likely that even while Jesus was alive, his teachings were being translated into greek. It is even plausible that Jesus himself knew enough greek to communicate (although this is entirely speculative, and based only on the fact that greek was the lingua franca of the eastern empire). Certainly, by Paul's time, not only were there greek speaking Jews, but also gentiles joining the Jesus movement. The translation of Jesus' teachings into greek occured very earlier, but they retained a good many semiticisms.

 

[dogsgod]

Greek, so probably written in the diaspora.

 

[Oberon]

Greek, so probably written in the diaspora.

Not solid reasoning. Greek was the lingua franca of the entire eastern empire.

 

[dogsgod]

Not solid reasoning. Greek was the lingua franca of the entire eastern empire.

There are other clues besides the language that allows the gospels to have been written in the diaspora such as the author of Mark's unknown Nazareth, as well as other geographical errors a writer unfamiliar with Galilee would make.

 

[Dunemeister]

Paul didn't write the epistle to the romans.

You've gotta be kidding me.

 

[dogsgod]

He's dead serious, the signatures don't match.

 

[Oberon]

You've gotta be kidding me.

Not kidding. Just stupid. I meant to say hebrews. Sorry.

 

[Oberon]

There are other clues besides the language that allows the gospels to have been written in the diaspora such as the author of Mark's unknown Nazareth, as well as other geographical errors a writer unfamiliar with Galilee would make.

Nazareth is not unknown. Archaeological evidence shows this town inhabited long before Jesus. It was just unimportant.

 

[Oberon]

He's dead serious, the signatures don't match.

Romans was DEFINITELY written by Paul. Gnostic stated that Paul wrote Hebrews and Romans, and I meant to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews.

 

[Dunemeister]

Romans was DEFINITELY written by Paul. Gnostic stated that Paul wrote Hebrews and Romans, and I meant to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews.

Ah, gotchya. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[dogsgod]

Nazareth is not unknown. Archaeological evidence shows this town inhabited long before Jesus. It was just unimportant.

There may very well be evidence of an ancient town but there was no place known as Nazareth.

 

[Oberon]

There may very well be evidence of an ancient town but there was no place known as Nazareth.

Yes there was, despite what google told you.

 

[maklelan]

There are other clues besides the language that allows the gospels to have been written in the diaspora

No, there aren't. The language makes no such conclusion likely and the use of local vernacular makes primary composition outside of Syria-Palestine virtually impossible. Heavy editing and redacting did take place, however, elsewhere.

such as the author of Mark's unknown Nazareth,

Nazareth is a town very well attested in the archaeological and textual record. It is found in Jewish sources beginning in the third century CE, but it was inhabited in some form as far back as the Middle Bronze Age. Scholars who disagree with its inhabitation during the period of Christ's ministry do so exclusively from an argument from silence.

as well as other geographical errors a writer unfamiliar with Galilee would make.

You mean like a writer from Jerusalem? No, your assessment is way off base.

John is the only gospel that may have possibly been written outside of Syria-Palestine.

 

[Oberon]

There may very well be evidence of an ancient town but there was no place known as Nazareth.

You like using phrases from a language you don't read, right? I assume you are familiar with argumentum ex silentio? Just because Nazareth is not attested to in most of our sources from the period around Jesus (which aren't all that plentiful) is no argument that it didn't exist. It is attested to in all the gospels, and it was a small, hick town, quite insignificant. Hence the remark in the Gospels "can anything good come from Nazareth?" Also, it is confirmed from actual archaeology.

See, for example,

Meyers, Eric M., and James F. Strange Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981.

Freyne, Sean. Galielee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 CE. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5; Wilmington, DE: University of Notre Dame, 1980.

and North, Robert. "Biblical Archaeology" in New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 1216

 

[dogsgod]

Regardless of archeological evidence of a first century inhabited town, it was not known as Nazareth in the first century. Nazareth is an invention of the author.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of archeological evidence of a first century inhabited town, it was not known as Nazareth in the first century. Nazareth is an invention of the author.

Based on what? argumentum ex silencio? You think Nazareth was the only tiny town not mentioned in the literature during particular periods?