Questions about the Greek of the New Testament

[Ehav4Ever]

Hi @Ehav4Ever
The specific fact that the Greek of the New Testament is not a “very well-educated Koine Greek” is not a "basis" for answering this question nor does it inform us who was and who was not educated in Greek.

I agree. That is why my question was really not about the quality of the Greek but the institution from which the authors who were native of the Galilee area learned enough Greek to write it in the format that the NT is written in.

Hi @Ehav4EverHowever, the New Testament text was produced by a world where almost all of western asia had already become Hellenized.
Greek was the lingua franca for that portion of that world for several hundred years and there was no general need for “specialized institutions” at all because many, many people would have been familiar with Greek.

For example, about the time of the Messiah, the coastal cities of Israel were mainly occupied by independent non-Jewish communities.
If one was to do business and trade with people of the coastal cities (and they with ships and merchants from foreign lands) greek as a lingua franca was invaluable.
Even before the Hellenic age Gaza did significant commercial business with Greece.

Okay, so here I think you more or less answered some of what I was asking about. i.e. What the institutions that the Galilee based authors of the NT learned at in order to read and write level of Koine Greek used in their works.

Hi @Ehav4Ever
Good luck finding the answers to your questions.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[Brian2]

You are assuming that the gospels are literally written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. Scholars say this is not so.

Some scholars say that, and those people who want to believe them do and some use it to discredit the authenticity of the New Testament.
The assumption that brings scholars to say that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is the naturalistic methodology of science, they assume that prophecy is rubbish and so the synoptics had to have been written after 70AD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some scholars say that, and those people who want to believe them do and some use it to discredit the authenticity of the New Testament.
The assumption that brings scholars to say that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is the naturalistic methodology of science, they assume that prophecy is rubbish and so the synoptics had to have been written after 70AD.

You have that backwards, of course. It is the believers that wish that their book wast true that cling to discredited claims. A scholar, unlike you, is not allowed to simply want something to be true. They have to be able to show evidence for their claims.

 

[Brian2]

Koine Greek was not a debased form of Greek, it was the one form of Greek that survived at the time. Empires, such as the one of Alexander the Great tend to generate a single common language. And that ended up being the language of the empire that he started. By the time of Jesus it was a formal language so you will hear scholars that will inform you that the Gospels were formally trained in Koine Greek. That would appear to exclude any of the disciples.

Koine Greek - Wikipedia

Luke, as a doctor, probably was formally trained and if the other writers did not know the written Greek others could have done the writing. So it does not exclude the disciples as the source. And of course there is the source from earlier writings in the synoptics, whether that be Mark or some other source.

 

[Brian2]

You have that backwards, of course. It is the believers that wish that their book wast true that cling to discredited claims. A scholar, unlike you, is not allowed to simply want something to be true. They have to be able to show evidence for their claims.

In the study of sacred scriptures such as the gospels, the assumption that the prophecies are not true prophecy is an assumption that can only discredit the writings and end with a conclusion that they are not authentic.
Before this assumption came in the scholarship worked out much earlier dates from the evidence in the gospels. This evidence is just thrown away because of the naturalistic assumption.
So we end up with dates from scholars who respect the texts and later dates from sceptical scholars and people who say that scholars are not real scholars if they do not use the naturalistic methodology of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke, as a doctor, probably was formally trained and if the other writers did not know the written Greek others could have done the writing. So it does not exclude the disciples as the source. And of course there is the source from earlier writings in the synoptics, whether that be Mark or some other source.

There is a possibility that Luke was the author of Luke. Though even that is doubtful. The others, not so much.

 

[metis]

Koine Greek was not a debased form of Greek, it was the one form of Greek that survived at the time. Empires, such as the one of Alexander the Great tend to generate a single common language. And that ended up being the language of the empire that he started. By the time of Jesus it was a formal language so you will hear scholars that will inform you that the Gospels were formally trained in Koine Greek. That would appear to exclude any of the disciples.

Koine Greek - Wikipedia

An irony was that even though Koine Greek often had quite of bit of "slang" that was used, it nevertheless was used extensively amongst scholars back then, probably because it was so widely spoken throughout the Mediterranean region that included North Africa. Thus, it would have a wider audience than if standard Greek was just used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the study of sacred scriptures such as the gospels, the assumption that the prophecies are not true prophecy is an assumption that can only discredit the writings and end with a conclusion that they are not authentic.
Before this assumption came in the scholarship worked out much earlier dates from the evidence in the gospels. This evidence is just thrown away because of the naturalistic assumption.
So we end up with dates from scholars who respect the texts and later dates from sceptical scholars and people who say that scholars are not real scholars if they do not use the naturalistic methodology of science.

You are abusing the word assumption. Scholars do not make those sorts of assumptions. In fact you are the one assuming without evidence.

All of the Gospels are anonymous. None of them have any statement by the author claiming that he wrote them. The names were added in the second century by church tradition. You are assuming that church tradition was right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An irony was that even though Koine Greek often had quite of bit of "slang" that was used, it nevertheless was used extensively amongst scholars back then, probably because it was so widely spoken throughout the Mediterranean region that included North Africa. Thus, it would have a wider audience than if standard Greek was just used.

There wasn't even a standard Greek at that time. Languages were very local. A modern example of that is Hindu where some speakers of Hindu cannot understand others. English is an official language there because it allows people to converse with any other English speaker. You do not have to learn countless dialects to understand everyone. So Koine Greek allowed the speakers of various languages and dialects in Alexander the Great's empire to converse with each other without learning a slew of languages.

 

[metis]

There wasn't even a standard Greek at that time.

Ya, I probably shouldn't have used that word, so lt me substitute "official" as used by government officials.

My wife's Italian also has such similarites as she speaks an old Sicilian dialect. She can understand the "official" Italian, but there's enough differences whereas she sometimes has to get clarification.

As for me, I'm still struggling with English.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some scholars say that, and those people who want to believe them do and some use it to discredit the authenticity of the New Testament.
The assumption that brings scholars to say that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is the naturalistic methodology of science, they assume that prophecy is rubbish and so the synoptics had to have been written after 70AD.

There is a long list of reasons why the New Testament is not the word of God, but the fact that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John is not among them. After all, there are pseudopigraphical books in the Tanakh as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a long list of reasons why the New Testament is not the word of God, but the fact that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John is not among them. After all, there are pseudopigraphical books in the Tanakh as well.

Correct. Though the names were added later it does nothing to confirm or refute the books. It is a bad sign when someone tries to impute impure motives on those that merely are after the facts.

 

[Brian2]

You are abusing the word assumption. Scholars do not make those sorts of assumptions. In fact you are the one assuming without evidence.

Of course I am not abusing the word assumption. The assumption is that prophecy is not true and that is the assumption that some scholars make in order to work out their dating and authors.
The assumption is that all supernatural events in the scripture are not true.

All of the Gospels are anonymous. None of them have any statement by the author claiming that he wrote them. The names were added in the second century by church tradition. You are assuming that church tradition was right.

I assume that church tradition by people who lived back then and knew what was passed down to them, has a greater chance of being correct then people who are guessing 2000 years later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I am not abusing the word assumption. The assumption is that prophecy is not true and that is the assumption that some scholars make in order to work out their dating and authors.
The assumption is that all supernatural events in the scripture are not true.


I assume that church tradition by people who lived back then and knew what was passed down to them, has a greater chance of being correct then people who are guessing 2000 years later.

Incorrect. You are abusing the word. Properly speaking a prophecy is not accepted without evidence. But then that applies to any claim. And the amount of evidence for a claim depends upon the claim. You might make that sort if assumption about a claim. It is improper to claim that others do. This is not the sort of assumption allowed in the sciences.

You might want to study Hitchens' Razor. It is not a claim that others are wrong when they make unsupported claims, but it is perfectly acceptable to treat them as if their claims were wrong. One can dismiss unsupported claims.

Your assumption at the end is not properly justified since it appears that you have not fully studied the matter.

 

[Lain]

From what I understand, the oldest versions of the New Testament were written in a very well-educated Koine Greek. Starting with the Gospels and the book of Acts I have the following questions.

1. According to Chritianity, is it claimed that the authors of the Gospels wrote the New Testament, themselves, in the type of Greek found in the oldest surviving versions of the New Testament?
2. If so, from who and where did they learn that level Greek from?
3. Were they raised in the Galilee reading, speaking, and writing in this level of Greek?
4. Is it considered that the conversations, talking, debates, etc. that are recorded in the New Testament took place using the level of Greek found in the New Testament? If not, is it considered that the NT authors were translating the conversations from, let’s say Hebrew/Aramaic, into Greek?

Thank you.

1) Depends on the book. For instance St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic either the whole Gospel in the order we have it or the sayings of Jesus (depends on what "logia" is interpreting to refer to) and it was later translated or edited into the version we have now by some unknown person (I say unknown for all the traditions and are not solid, so it is clear that no one knows who did it). If he wrote just the sayings (some say this might be Q, and would be like the GoT) that means all the events and such were added in by said editor. At other times a scribe is relied on and based on the Greek in it and subjects discussed (I believe this is the case with both Epistles of St. Peter) it is clear that the person was very creatively involved in the making of the document and it was not just pure dictation. With the Gospel of St. Mark, St. Mark (not an Israelite from Galilee) is clearly said to be the translator of St. Peter in the traditions about it, so I do not think St. Peter wrote Greek at all. Same for St. John (who had his stuff written by another St. John, the traditions on them fused likely, but books such as Revelation were clearly edited after they were seen). With others such as St. Paul they would have.

2) I don't know.

3) Highly doubt it, especially considering their class.

4) Yes, it is a translation clearly. The Lord Jesus is often quoted in Aramaic, which indicates that He is being translated by these authors.

All of that is just my opinion of course.

 

[Brian2]

Incorrect. You are abusing the word. Properly speaking a prophecy is not accepted without evidence. But then that applies to any claim. And the amount of evidence for a claim depends upon the claim. You might make that sort if assumption about a claim. It is improper to claim that others do. This is not the sort of assumption allowed in the sciences.

You might want to study Hitchens' Razor. It is not a claim that others are wrong when they make unsupported claims, but it is perfectly acceptable to treat them as if their claims were wrong. One can dismiss unsupported claims.

Your assumption at the end is not properly justified since it appears that you have not fully studied the matter.

The evidence for the early dating is what supported the claims of true prophecy for about 2000 years.
When it comes to dating, Church Fathers were quoting from the gospels before they were supposedly written according to some "scientific" historians. It's more than tradition which links authors to the gospels. Early Church Fathers, who should have known, do that in their writings.
Who Wrote the Gospels – Testimony from the Church Fathers | Come Reason's Apologetics Notes
Early Church and the Authorship of the New Testament Gospels | Titus Institute

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for the early dating is what supported the claims of true prophecy for about 2000 years.
When it comes to dating, Church Fathers were quoting from the gospels before they were supposedly written according to some "scientific" historians. It's more than tradition which links authors to the gospels. Early Church Fathers, who should have known, do that in their writings.
Who Wrote the Gospels – Testimony from the Church Fathers | Come Reason's Apologetics Notes
Early Church and the Authorship of the New Testament Gospels | Titus Institute

That is pretty weak sauce. The earliest is fifty years after Mark was written, assuming a 65 CE dating for it. At that point it is merely a weak unsubstantiated belief. It is why modern scholars do not think that the names on the Gospels reflect authorship at all. They were all written by people well educated in Koine Greek. That does not appear to describe any of the earliest of followers of Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

That is pretty weak sauce. The earliest is fifty years after Mark was written, assuming a 65 CE dating for it. At that point it is merely a weak unsubstantiated belief. It is why modern scholars do not think that the names on the Gospels reflect authorship at all. They were all written by people well educated in Koine Greek. That does not appear to describe any of the earliest of followers of Jesus.

I think that is pretty good textual testimony really even if the synoptics were written in the 50s.
I don't think that is why modern scholars don't think the names on the Gospels reflect authorship. It is because the dates for their writing have been pushed to after 70AD. That is the reason.
The education of the disciples should have nothing to do with it because even if they could not read or write at all they could get others to write what they told them.
The way I see it, Acts was a sequel to Luke's Gospel going by the internal evidence. Luke was a companion of Paul and Acts ends with Paul in Rome, probably with Luke and they probably both died there in the persecution by Nero in 64AD. Acts does not record the destruction of the Temple or death of Paul or Peter so Acts was probably finished in the early 60s. This means that his gospel was probably written maybe in the 50s, and he seems to have copied stuff from Mark or Q, both of which would have been around in the 50s.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that is pretty good textual testimony really even if the synoptics were written in the 50s.
I don't think that is why modern scholars don't think the names on the Gospels reflect authorship. It is because the dates for their writing have been pushed to after 70AD. That is the reason.
The education of the disciples should have nothing to do with it because even if they could not read or write at all they could get others to write what they told them.
The way I see it, Acts was a sequel to Luke's Gospel going by the internal evidence. Luke was a companion of Paul and Acts ends with Paul in Rome, probably with Luke and they probably both died there in the persecution by Nero in 64AD. Acts does not record the destruction of the Temple or death of Paul or Peter so Acts was probably finished in the early 60s. This means that his gospel was probably written maybe in the 50s, and he seems to have copied stuff from Mark or Q, both of which would have been around in the 50s.

Since he could not have known any of the authors it does not sound at all reasonable. And your dating of the Gospels is off. You appear to be following apologist sources rather than ones by historians. You know what historians are don't you? They are the people that study the time and language of an era and gather evidence to tell us what happened at that time.

By the way, if you deny history you cannot claim that history agrees with the Bible. Luke is the only one that may have been written by the person whose name is on it and it was written in the 80's at best.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are assuming that the gospels are literally written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. Scholars say this is not so.

I think that the crux. The authorship is yet to be determined, if ever.