😼 Enjoyed the content. I especially appreciated the emphasis you put on how important it is that the church does not lose the knowledge of the Greek language.
🐈 Great video! It's amazing how we can look back and see God's providential hand in bringing about the perfect time and place for Jesus to enter the world to bring about salvation through the spread of the gospel in a language the world knew. Thanks for the video. I look forward to reading your book!
🦁 I learn from all of your vids. Whether originality spoken, copied or translated from or into Greek matters little. All involved miraculously had the gift of tongues and the guidance of the Holy Spirit so we can trust what we were given.
Good question. But I am fine with a Hebrew/English liturgy. Septuagint+NT is the original Christian Bible, but that hasn't bothered the Church for 1700 years.
😻 Am learning Greek and loving it. So where does the identification of Greek as the language of the Church leave us in terms of the interest (if any) of learning Hebrew?🤔
The early church valued the Septuagint over the Hebrew text, but if we want to work with the inspired works, then we want to work with the original languages, not a translation. The church has further thought through its position on the nature of the canon, inspiration, and transmission since then. So the Hebrew (and Aramaic) should be favored for the TaNaK.
Good question. No, it's second person future middle indicative. The root is φαγ, and this verb form doesn't take a tense formative in the future, so the ῃ ending you'd normally see in a middle future is tagged onto the end. From my grammar: In the second person singular, the combination of the connecting vowel (o) and the σαι primary middle/passive ending makes the sigma intervocalic, and it will drop out. The remaining vowels contract, ο + αι => η + ι and the iota subscripts, ῃ. It could also be understood as a subjunctive which would look identical, but the imperfect hebrew verb form when replicating this command is consistently a future form (2:17 x2, 3:2, 3:3). I hope that helps.
@@bma When compared with John 6:50 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων, ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ. The word φάγῃ for 3rd person singular. ( John 6:51 , Rom 14:23 )
Good question. When the culture speaks the language broadly, people will learn as children by imitation primarily. It starts with those who are particularly gifted with language learning first, and then they help others.
@@andreahoehmann1939 Quite possibly, though I'd expect the household language to be in regular use outside it, too. Could have been Hebrew at home, though, with Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek outside, depending on who the participants were.
🐈⬛Great historical overview. I previously heard about the Jewish scholars sent down to Egypt to create the translation we call the Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX (Latin number for 70). So it’s curious you said 72 were sent. It reminds me of the 70 palm trees seen in the wilderness (Exodus 15) and the 70 disciples sent by Jesus (Luke 10). I wonder if that number was chosen to connect their mission to Exodus 15? Your thoughts?
@@bma Thank you Stephen. I’m looking for your perspective on the King-James-Only approach. The conversation tends to escalate to unnecessary division over something that probably shouldn’t. Do you have a video addressing this topic? 🙏
I would like to see a bit more evidence that Greek was the popular language in Israel during the time of Christ. Most of what I have read is a debate between Hebrew and Aramaic for all of the Gospel discourse. That would also mean that the Greek Gospels were a translation from the original discourses.
There is *lots* of evidence. If you look at secular literature it describes cities like Samaria as "Greek cities" during the Maccabean Revolt (175-134 BC). Try Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek (amazon: amzn.to/3zzgJFf) - I certainly don't agree with everything in this book, but it has lots of handy footnotes for more on the language of Israel during the Hellenization period in chapter 2. There is a neo-Judaizing going on in the church (and online) that I think is unhelpful, and ahistorical.
Only Paul wrote in Greek. The rest of the New Covenant was written in Hebrew. Hebrews was written in Hebrew, and it was not written by Paul. Sha'ul was his Hebrew name, and it means "the man we prayed for". He persecuted the church, and they prayed for him. Annanias also prayed for him. His name is change to the Greek name Paulus, and it means "the humble man". The pharisee, who persecuted the church now became humble. Aramaic was not the language of Jerusalem - Pilate made signs in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Yeshua spoke Hebrew on the cross, and that is why people thought that He called to Elijah. Yeshua was quoting Ps22v2 word for word from the Tanakh. The words in the Cochin gospel are exactly as in Ps22v2. I checked it and it is a match.
I believe that Jesus and Pilate spoke Greek between them. Pilate might know some Hebrew words and Jesus some Latin ones, but they would not be sufficcient for a conversation. So Greek is the most possible medium for that communication.
Yeah I get to comment first on this video. I have spoken with several knowledgeable people regarding this subject. There's a debate between the Greek and Hebrew primacy folks on this. One Syrian Christian informed me there were copies early on of the gospels and some letters in Aramaic, Hebrew, as well as Greek. But in the west Hebrew and Aramaic were down played by the Roman Church.
Thanks for your comment Frank! There is a neo-Judaizing movement around which is appealing to many as a way to return to the sources. However, it's been taken beyond what can be demonstrated from a scholarly perspective. There is an argument for an early (long lost) version of Matthew in Aramaic, but there is no extant evidence for it, and even if there was, we hold the Greek version to be inspired as you say. See my video on Matthew at: th-cam.com/video/si2GWsaOpGA/w-d-xo.html. Beyond that, there is a much larger picture to consider which I discuss in this video.
@@bma Thanks for the reply. Why I mentioned the Hebrew or Greek primacy debate. Because people have aligned with one side of the other. But in talking to an eastern Christian and reading some history it makes sense to me at the time of penning the gospels and letters you would have had copies in these three languages. I don't think that diminishes inspiration though. It's correct we have a lot of manuscripts in Greek. But the Assirian Church also had copies in Arimaic. I am for being trained in Greek, Hebrew, or Arimaic. What is my take away? Be equipped as best as you can. Thanks for the videos.
Thanks for your response! I don't have any problem recognizing that there were translations of the texts into Aramaic and possibly Hebrew. However, the earliest evidence for translations date to the second century into latin. There may have been earlier translations, but if there are, there is no evidence for them with the possible exception of Papias' note about Matthew's gospel (which I addressed in the video on Matthew's gospel). Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
@@frankmckinley1254 There is zero evidence of any "Hebrew primacy." None. Americans are suffering anachronisms, category errors and a host of related misunderstandings. Remember Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius? He read and wrote Koine Greek. Not "Latin." We can't simply match up adjectives and place names like Garanimals. We can't just slap adjectives on things like stickers. We don't have to. We have extensive inventories of documents attached to calendar dates, map locations and names (people, institutions). We should never waste time imagining ("theorizing"). We are not here simply throwing around "facts." These realities are very relevant to effective pedagogy and curricula in our real world Christian institutions here and today. The Koine Greek OT and NT are truly full of technical vocabulary from many disciplines that all our so-called "translations" fail to translate. Now, we do have "translations" targeting low-IQ simplified 5th grade reading levels. But MOST Christians WOULD NOT want to misinterpret Scripture based on such remedial simplifications. We can do much much better. And this doing better will help Christian individuals and Christian communities achieve better outcomes.
Yep, Aramaic. In fact, the Hebrew language adopted the Aramaic script for Hebrew - so the modern Hebrew texts you see are actually using the same script that Aramaic used. Hebrew from prior to the exile is referred to as Paleo Hebrew.
I am going to have to disagree with your preposition that second temple period Israelites spoke Greek, and that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. 1) Vatican EBR 100 2) Breslau 233 3) St. Petersburg A 207 4) NLI Heb 8-751 5) A-C.U.L. O.o.1.16 6) B-Gaster 1616 Those are Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations... all in Hebrew, all linguistically verified as authentic copies of originally written in Hebrew documents. And in cases, correcting errors found in the Greek. But also showing the sourcing of some of the odd or unusual non-Greek words and sentence structures, used in the early Greek NT. Then of course we have the original Bar Kokhba letters _(125AD),_ not only written in Hebrew, but in Palaeo-Hebrew script. Then of course; We have Papias of Hierapolis _(~100AD)_ stating; _"Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated it as he was able."_ But also; Irenaeus of Lyon made a similar statement, saying that; _"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect."_ That said, unlike the OT found in the Codex Septuagint Vaticanus, the Greek NT does not have many translation errors. And those few, have already been known, sometimes, for centuries. Morning Star contradiction for example. _(The Hebrew Revelations not only shows the correct/non-contradicting version, how the translation error came to be, becomes very apparent. As in; a unintentional translation error from the Greek to the Hebrew cannot be done. But a unintentional translation error from the Hebrew to the Greek, can be very easily done.)_ Yes, throughout much of _"Church History"_ scripture written in anything but Greek or Latin was considered heresy, and thus repressed. 19th and early 20th century academia thus didn't know of these documents. _(James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations, were actually found in India by William Carey, a Baptist Missionary. That's document; A-C.U.L. O.o.1.16.)_ Now if the *_whole_* New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, your guess is as good as mine. But some, definitely was originally in Hebrew.
Thanks for your comment. I think you've made a category error here. These are all translations into Hebrew (and not necessarily from Greek either) which creates several layers between them and the original texts (not to mention 1500 years!). I'm not claiming that there were no translations made (there clearly have been many thousands of translations made into many thousands of languages, including Hebrew. However, the original writings were in Greek, not Hebrew and the existence of Hebrew translations such as these does not invalidate this claim. You'd need to produce Hebrew texts from the first few centuries of the church that clearly showed originality. To date none have been found, which means either a) the originals were not written in Hebrew or b) they were quickly translated into Greek and the original texts were forgotten and no longer transmitted. The argument you seem to be making is for the latter, yet, there is no evidence for this position, and it is unlikely that the original would be so lightly esteemed as to be forgotten. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I'm happy to agree to disagree. 😀
@@bma Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree. Those I listed have been verified by linguistical archaeologists from Cambridge and the Israel Antiquities Authority as copies of originally in 1st century AD written Hebrew. If I had listed those not yet verified, that list would have been a lot longer. Lastly a thought; 1) All Bibles, up to the Gutenberg press, were written by hand. Thus, very expensive. 2) As Christianity expanded, demand for Greek Bibles expanded astronomically. 3) Whereas, because of first the Zealot and then the Bar Kokhba revolt, then persecution of all Christians by the Romans, then Jewish Christians persecuted as heretics by the early church, demand for Hebrew Bibles shrunk. An estimate of around 800 to 1,000 Greek Bibles copied, to every single Hebrew, sounds about right. 4) There have been roughly one million times more English Bibles printed/copied than there have been Greek. Would in 1,000 to 2,000 years, someone claim that English was the original language of the Bible? It does out rank all other languages as having the most Bibles ever...
No recognised NT scholar supports the claims that the NT was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The claim is ludicrous. Why would Paul, Luke or John, for example, write to mostly Greek-speaking Gentiles in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonika, etc. in Aramaic or Hebrew - languages few of the intended recipients would understand? And why would they quote from the Septuagint if their audiences knew Aramaic or Hebrew and the Scriptures in those languages? The very existence of the Septuagint was the result of diaspora Jews who couldn't understand Hebrew needing their Scriptures in a language they could understand. To date, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 11 of which date to the 2nd century. The earliest and most famous of these is the Ryland Papyrus P52, dating to 100-150AD, which contains a portion of John's Gospel. That is 400 years earlier than _any_ known Aramaic manuscript. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts are from a millennium later than that!
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Ah yes, and you know every one of those scholars personally. What a crock of... You start out with a pompous _"trust me bro"_ statement, and you end with another pompous _"trust me bro"_ statement, with everything in between, the same. Who do you think we are? Morons that you can bully into submission? 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the NT huh? Did you know that there's more than 1 million times more English NT manuscripts? I guess then by _"your logic;"_ the NT was written in English. Volume of copies, and even age of copies doesn't mean anything. It's meaningless. It's _"statistics don't lie. But liars use statistics."_ Stay away from such nonsense. Do you know how to proof a manuscript, to see if it has originated in the language that you see? You need to learn at least the minimum basics of *_linguistical archaeology,_* before opening your mouth, and making a fool of yourself. Now as far as your Ryland Papyrus P52. Yes, the original editor/linguistical archaeologist stated an estimate of 100 to 150 AD. But, that has been debunked, and a dating of between 200 and 300 AD now used. That's why people write and publish review papers *_before_* submitting their thoughts to the public. So, you are not telling us the whole truth, only the parts that you want to be true. Fact is; That original dating is being strongly contested... for good reason. But once again; in linguistical archaeology, even a solid C14 dating of a manuscript, is near meaningless. Any document *_must have_* clear evidence of grammatically having been written originally in the language presented, or it is a translation, and not of the original linage. That is why the newer Masoretic Text is the authoritative OT, and not the older Septuagint. The older Septuagint only proves that the original Hebrew OT is even older than the dating of the translation, that is the Septuagint. So now to linguistics and the Greek NT... 1) Not all, and not always, but in places, the grammar in the Greek NT is odd, not normal Greek grammar of that time. But, retranslated back into Hebrew, and the grammar is perfectly normal. 2) There are many cases of the Greek NT using words of purely Hebrew origins. That is to say; they don't belong in the Greek/Indo-European language group. Prior to their usage in the Greek NT, they did not exist in *_any_* Indo-European language, in any form whatsoever. Now that said; I do not belong to the camp promoting a Hebrew NT origins only. But by that same token; I do not belong to the Greek only origins camp either. And to both camps I say; This is an ongoing debate. So, just wait and see what comes out of it. It makes no sense to bring emotions and church politics into this matter. Such would be doing a disservice to us all. This is an archaeological debate, not a theological one.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh also, greek was the common language back then in the region. jews spoke aramaic or greek. almost nobody spoke hebrew, except some rabbis or priests. there is no reason to create or write an hebrew manuscript, because only few could read it. theres a reason its written in greek, because everyone could read and understand it.
Obviously it wouldn't be Hebrew because by that time only a few Rabbis understood it. The language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic and there's no significant evidence they spoke any other nor were litterateur even in that. Accounts of the of the life of Jesus have him neither writing -- a scribble in dirt notwithstanding -- nor suggesting anyone else should. Where does Jesus ever hint that there's new holy scripture coming? Greek was the international language of higher learning, but a household language throughout the Roman empire? Where did you get that? In Corinth, sure, that's in Greece, but the Romans pushed Latin. In the 300's the Church made their Latin "Vulgate" -- which literally means common ordinary language -- the official version of scripture, a tradition that survives in Catholicism to this day. You give a light and naive version of history.
Good question. Here's my quick response. The Romans rose to power from around 40 BC, and spoke Latin in Rome, but the world outside Rome was pretty well entrenched in Greek from the time of Alexander (~330 BC), and it was only areas that became highly Romanized that began to adopt Latin. It is no coincidence that the first translations were made in North Africa in the second century, when Latin started to be used more there. Alexandria had become very Roman by the end of the third century AD. However, lest I overstate the importance of Latin in Africa, remember that the Nicean Creed was written in Greek (325 AD) for distribution around the Roman Empire, and Athanasius wrote in Greek during the mid 4th century in North Africa. So, Greek was a dominant force even in North Africa into the 4th century AD - perhaps with Alexandria being more Latin (but while generally retaining high regard for Greek). So, I maintain, that during the first century, outside of Rome, almost everyone spoke Greek rather than Latin, though clearly Latin became more popular as time went on. I hope that helps! 😀
@@bma Thanks for the reply. Greek was the elite written language, as I granted and you now reiterate, but where did you get that it was a *household* language throughout the empire as you had claimed? The first new testament writer, Paul, was a Roman citizen according to Acts, yet even Paul's Letter to the Romans is in Greek. The New Testament is in Greek because Greek was the elite language and the elites were who wrote stuff. Jesus and his disciples were -- best as we can tell -- illiterate Aramaic-speaking monoglots who never suggested their story needs to be written down much less as holy scripture. The city of Alexandria in North Africa as your example?
Greek was the "elite" language - or better, the language of the cultured and educated BEFORE Alexander. After Alexander, it was much more widespread. If you want some written scholarship on this, take a look at Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek (it's conveniently short). There are lots of problems with this book but his research is pretty good on this subject and he provides lots of references you can look at for more information. Here's the link to the book: amzn.to/3Y6VJPL I hope that helps.
First, we do have surviving MSS of the NT in Hebrew that my team has discovered and continues to discover. Second, German scholarship believed Hebrew to be a dead language starting around the 18th-19th century. Scholars corrected that later in the 20th century with the discovery of DSS. Sadly, many Western scholars still believe in the Aramaic and Greek supremacy. Jesus and the apostles spoke Hebrew, NOT Greek. Lastly, you are still using outdated information. We know today that Hebrew was the language of the Jews in Judea, and they used only the Hebrew scriptures in the Temple and local synagogues. The NT contains Hebrew and Aramaic words that were not translated into Greek but left in their original form. In Acts 6:1, Greek Jews and Hebrew Jews disagree with each other. Jesus and the apostles were NOT Greek Jews, nor did they speak Greek or Aramaic in their homes. Greek was NOT the default language of the Jews or the NT. You are sadly mistaken.
Where would someone find these original manuscripts from the first century which are written in Hebrew that you speak of? I'd love to see your evidence that I'm wrong if you can provide it!
@@bmaobviously the good news was written 1st in Hebrew then translated to other languages. As it is written good news comes first to the "Isralites" before to the outsiders just like you and me . Show me evidence that ALL people in Israel poor to elites can expect Greek or has capacity to speak it in those days.
@@bma The vast of Scholarly work is using outdated sources that go back to the 18th 19 century German scholarship. You could see a list of all the newly discovered Hebrew New Testament manuscripts at my academia page.
The New Testament is the official publication from the politicians of pagan Rome. It's not the inspired Word of God. For starters, Paul was a false apostle who contradicted both himself and Jesus. When Paul references the Tanakh he nearly always twists the meaning to support his false gospel of salvation by grace through faith e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead on the 3rd day ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.. There is no such scripture. It's a phantom reference. Romans 9:25 "As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” vs Hosea 2:23 "and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’” Hosea was prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel and he was speaking about the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom. Paul twists this to apply it to pagans in Rome.
@@edcarson3113 Jonah was a prophet who disobeyed God and the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish has nothing to do with Jesus being crucified and rising from the dead. Where in the Book of Jonah does it say that the Messiah will be crucified and rise from the dead? It doesn't.
The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament do not contain some of the errors found in the Greek versions. Unless you fine gentlemen would like to explain how Jesus and His disciples can be authentic while getting the Torah wrong in many places. Here is 1 example . Read Mathew 26:17, mark 14:12 & Luke 22:7. If you can tell me there’s no problem then you don’t know Torah. These verses are fixed in the Hebrew manuscripts
Thanks for your comment! You'll have to do more to prove the Gospels were written in Hebrew. I don't know how these verses prove your point. Don't believe the neo-judaizers who want to return to the Old Covenant or Jewish traditions. There is no evidence that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. On an early version of Matthew in Aramaic, see my video here: th-cam.com/video/si2GWsaOpGA/w-d-xo.html. Thanks again for your comment!
@@bmahey sir . Read those 3 verses all talking about “on the first day of unleavened bread they are looking to celebrate Passover” . Well no messiah (the word made flesh) or disciple or even a Hebrew for that matter would ever think Passover IS unleavened bread . There on different days and they mean different things . Check Leviticus 23 Whoever translated into the Greek obviously didn’t know Torah
I hate to tell you, but in the time of the New Testmaent people spoke Aramaic, and in the time of the Old Testament, the upper classes spoke Greek. Most of the Old Testament was ritten during the last four hundred years before Christ, from 500 until the time of Christ. Don't you know ANYTHING? The fact is there were Hebrew or Aramaic versions of some writings, especially Matthew, which was popular among Jewish Christians in Palestine; it was likely an entirely separate edition. However, Christianity did not survive in Palestine. It survived and mostly spread in the former Greek empire where people spoke Greek, like Asia Minor and Egypt, and around Rome.
Thanks for your comment. Presumably you're familiar with both Hebrew and Greek and can articulate why the NT Greek is "poorly translated"? Can you point me to evidence of these original Hebrew texts - not medieval translations of Greek or Georgian texts, but something that proves antiquity of Hebrew texts?
@@bma The Hebrew gospels from Sepharad and Cochin authenticate each other. They were rediscovered about 3 years ago. After a comparison after 2000 years, they are remarkably the same. They are copies of copies, but the text is a 1st century text. I have read Matthew, John, James, Jude, Revelation. Revelation is called Sodot, meaning "the scroll of mysteries". There is no way that these Hebrew manuscripts were translated from Greek. The Greek had to be translated from them. A good example is that "Olam" was used in John1v10 3x, and all 3x was translated to "world". Here we see a poor translation as "Olam" has 3 different meanings. We also see here that the deity of Yeshua is somewhat compromised in the Greek translation. It starts by saying: "He was Olam [not "in the Olam"] and the only meaning that fits here is "Eternal". "He was Eternal [Olam], and the universe [olam] was made through Him, and the world [olam] knew Him not" [Jn1v1 - Hebrew]. Here you can see that although the wordplay of "olam" can't be translated into Greek, it is poorly translated in meaning. Generally, we would say that sinners are in the world, and Yeshua was not a sinner, but He was the Eternal. This is just one verse that justifies that the Hebrew was not translated from Greek. In Jn1v1, we don't have "Word", but "Son", which is the same with the Romaunt translation of the Waldensess, as the Waldensess used the Hebrew script. In Jn1v29, we don't have "The Lamb of God". "...Behold! This is Elohim who takes away the sin of the world [Jn1v29 - Hebrew]. In all the Hebrew gospels, Yeshua is the son of the smith [not carpenter]. Joseph was very likely a silver smith or a blacksmith. The Greek translation was done only for a Greek and Roman audience as it has "Son of Man [the Human]" as the translation. The Hebrew says, "Son of the Virgin". I believe this change was done to eliminate confusion between the Greek and Roman virgin goddesses Aphrodite [mother of Eros] and Venis [mother of Cupid]. The Hebrew gospels were rediscovered by Dr. Miles Jones [Writing of God].
@@bestKaffir.underTheSonPlease, not the Cochin Gospels nonsense again. As we've discussed before, these are known to be late translations of the Peshitta.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have never studied the Cochin gospels and you are going by what lies were told to you. I know that the Freiberg Hebrew gospels are translations, and therefore a later text. I also know that the Cochin gospels are copies of copies from the original first century text, and the text predates the Greek. Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Mattityahu [Matthew] says in Mt1v19. Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Luka [Luke] says in Lk1v1-4. Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Yokhanan [John] says in Jn1v10. I am asking you these questions without looking at the script. Try being bold and answer me without making a fool of yourself. If you can't give an answer to the 3 questions, you are either a fool or a liar.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Tell me what language Yeshua spoke on the cross. The Peshitta here gives you 2 different versions of Aramaic. This indicates that this verse is very likely from the Greek. The Greek gives Aramaic and translates it, just like the KJV translates everything into English. The text from Greek and the Peshitta says "Passover, a feast of the Jews" on several places, because it was meant for a Greek audience. Only a twerp like you would explain to a Jew what Passover is. In the Cochin gospels we don't have "feast of the Jews" as it is not a translation from Greek. There is no need for a Jew to explain to a Jew what Passover is, and this indicates that the Greek and the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew. The Greek word "tekton" is used for a tradesman or builder. A tradesman can be a carpenter, but a carpenter cannot be a smith [metal worker]. When I last checked, timber was not a metal. The Greek says "tekton", while modern translations from Greek, and the Peshitta say "carpenter". The Cochin gospels say "smith". Joseph was very likely a silver smith, but he could also have been a blacksmith. Only a twerp would tell me that "carpenter" from the Peshitta was translated to "smith" in Hebrew. But it is obvious that "smith " was original, and translated to "tekton", and then translated to "carpenter". The Hebrew was translated into Greek. The Peshitta was most definitely not translated to Hebrew. Your opinion of the Cochin gospels being translated from the Peshitta is illogic and in fact a very ignorant opinion.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qbHbshrA1f0/mqdefault.jpg)
😼 Enjoyed the content. I especially appreciated the emphasis you put on how important it is that the church does not lose the knowledge of the Greek language.
🐈 ~ Darryl, thanks again for all that you’re sharing with us.
🐈 Great video! It's amazing how we can look back and see God's providential hand in bringing about the perfect time and place for Jesus to enter the world to bring about salvation through the spread of the gospel in a language the world knew. Thanks for the video. I look forward to reading your book!
🦁 I learn from all of your vids. Whether originality spoken, copied or translated from or into Greek matters little. All involved miraculously had the gift of tongues and the guidance of the Holy Spirit so we can trust what we were given.
Thank you for the history and review. Appreciate it. (I already knew so of it, but it's good to review).
🐈 I love history. Thanks for the content.
Brilliant explanation, thank you 🐈
Good question. But I am fine with a Hebrew/English liturgy. Septuagint+NT is the original Christian Bible, but that hasn't bothered the Church for 1700 years.
Very good explanation, thanks.
You are welcome!
😻 Am learning Greek and loving it. So where does the identification of Greek as the language of the Church leave us in terms of the interest (if any) of learning Hebrew?🤔
The early church valued the Septuagint over the Hebrew text, but if we want to work with the inspired works, then we want to work with the original languages, not a translation. The church has further thought through its position on the nature of the canon, inspiration, and transmission since then. So the Hebrew (and Aramaic) should be favored for the TaNaK.
Text from Gen 2:16
καὶ
ἐνετείλατο Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Ἀδὰμ λέγων Ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου τοῦ ἐν τῷ
παραδείσῳ βρώσει φάγῃ·
Is the word φάγῃ for 3rd-person ?
Good question. No, it's second person future middle indicative. The root is φαγ, and this verb form doesn't take a tense formative in the future, so the ῃ ending you'd normally see in a middle future is tagged onto the end. From my grammar: In the second person singular, the combination of the connecting vowel (o) and the σαι primary middle/passive ending makes the sigma intervocalic, and it will drop out. The remaining vowels contract, ο + αι => η + ι and the iota subscripts, ῃ. It could also be understood as a subjunctive which would look identical, but the imperfect hebrew verb form when replicating this command is consistently a future form (2:17 x2, 3:2, 3:3). I hope that helps.
@@bma When compared with John 6:50
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων, ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ.
The word φάγῃ for 3rd person singular. ( John 6:51 , Rom 14:23 )
Yes, that's the aorist subjunctive with its lengthened connecting vowel and no personal ending.
@@bma
Exodus 34:15
μή ποτε θῇς διαθῆκην τοῖς
ἐνκαθημένοις πρὸς ἀλλοφύλους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐκπορνεύσωσιν ὀπίσω
τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ θύσωσι τοῖς θεοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ καλέσωσίν σε καὶ φάγῃς
τῶν θυμάτων αὐτῶν,
Mark 14:12
Καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον, λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Ποῦ θέλεις ἀπελθόντες ἑτοιμάσωμεν ἵνα φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα;
φάγῃς : V-ASA-2S... for 2nd person singular.
φάγῃ : V-ASA-3S... for 3rd person singular.
Terima kasih atas perhatiannya. 🙏
@@bma may I ask you once again?
🐱Well-spoken! A good antidote for some of the new "Inspired KJVO English" videos that are popping up. Thank you!🙏📖
Think!!
How did people learn foreign languages before the introduction of printed textbooks?
Good question. When the culture speaks the language broadly, people will learn as children by imitation primarily. It starts with those who are particularly gifted with language learning first, and then they help others.
@@bma Is there data on the prevalence of multilingualism at that time?
Pretty much the same way children become bilingual in bilingual cultures today.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Aramaic was spoken at home, and Greek outside...?
@@andreahoehmann1939 Quite possibly, though I'd expect the household language to be in regular use outside it, too. Could have been Hebrew at home, though, with Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek outside, depending on who the participants were.
🐈⬛Great historical overview. I previously heard about the Jewish scholars sent down to Egypt to create the translation we call the Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX (Latin number for 70). So it’s curious you said 72 were sent. It reminds me of the 70 palm trees seen in the wilderness (Exodus 15) and the 70 disciples sent by Jesus (Luke 10). I wonder if that number was chosen to connect their mission to Exodus 15? Your thoughts?
The story is likely made up (it's a little too perfect) but the number begins as 72 and later was simplified to just 70, hence the LXX abbreviation.
@@bma Thank you Stephen. I’m looking for your perspective on the King-James-Only approach. The conversation tends to escalate to unnecessary division over something that probably shouldn’t. Do you have a video addressing this topic? 🙏
Not yet, but perhaps I should. - Darryl
I would like to see a bit more evidence that Greek was the popular language in Israel during the time of Christ. Most of what I have read is a debate between Hebrew and Aramaic for all of the Gospel discourse. That would also mean that the Greek Gospels were a translation from the original discourses.
There is *lots* of evidence. If you look at secular literature it describes cities like Samaria as "Greek cities" during the Maccabean Revolt (175-134 BC). Try Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek (amazon: amzn.to/3zzgJFf) - I certainly don't agree with everything in this book, but it has lots of handy footnotes for more on the language of Israel during the Hellenization period in chapter 2. There is a neo-Judaizing going on in the church (and online) that I think is unhelpful, and ahistorical.
Only Paul wrote in Greek. The rest of the New Covenant was written in Hebrew. Hebrews was written in Hebrew, and it was not written by Paul.
Sha'ul was his Hebrew name, and it means "the man we prayed for". He persecuted the church, and they prayed for him. Annanias also prayed for him.
His name is change to the Greek name Paulus, and it means "the humble man". The pharisee, who persecuted the church now became humble.
Aramaic was not the language of Jerusalem - Pilate made signs in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
Yeshua spoke Hebrew on the cross, and that is why people thought that He called to Elijah.
Yeshua was quoting Ps22v2 word for word from the Tanakh. The words in the Cochin gospel are exactly as in Ps22v2. I checked it and it is a match.
The Septuagint.
Fun to see the AI concepts of viking age Scandinavians. 😀
I believe that Jesus and Pilate spoke Greek between them. Pilate might know some Hebrew words and Jesus some Latin ones, but they would not be sufficcient for a conversation. So Greek is the most possible medium for that communication.
Roman governors had staff for that.
@@brygenon there's no mention of a translator anywhere
Yeah I get to comment first on this video. I have spoken with several knowledgeable people regarding this subject. There's a debate between the Greek and Hebrew primacy folks on this. One Syrian Christian informed me there were copies early on of the gospels and some letters in Aramaic, Hebrew, as well as Greek. But in the west Hebrew and Aramaic were down played by the Roman Church.
Thanks for your comment Frank! There is a neo-Judaizing movement around which is appealing to many as a way to return to the sources. However, it's been taken beyond what can be demonstrated from a scholarly perspective. There is an argument for an early (long lost) version of Matthew in Aramaic, but there is no extant evidence for it, and even if there was, we hold the Greek version to be inspired as you say. See my video on Matthew at: th-cam.com/video/si2GWsaOpGA/w-d-xo.html. Beyond that, there is a much larger picture to consider which I discuss in this video.
@@bma Thanks for the reply. Why I mentioned the Hebrew or Greek primacy debate. Because people have aligned with one side of the other. But in talking to an eastern Christian and reading some history it makes sense to me at the time of penning the gospels and letters you would have had copies in these three languages. I don't think that diminishes inspiration though. It's correct we have a lot of manuscripts in Greek. But the Assirian Church also had copies in Arimaic. I am for being trained in Greek, Hebrew, or Arimaic. What is my take away? Be equipped as best as you can. Thanks for the videos.
Thanks for your response! I don't have any problem recognizing that there were translations of the texts into Aramaic and possibly Hebrew. However, the earliest evidence for translations date to the second century into latin. There may have been earlier translations, but if there are, there is no evidence for them with the possible exception of Papias' note about Matthew's gospel (which I addressed in the video on Matthew's gospel). Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
@@frankmckinley1254 There is zero evidence of any "Hebrew primacy." None. Americans are suffering anachronisms, category errors and a host of related misunderstandings. Remember Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius? He read and wrote Koine Greek. Not "Latin." We can't simply match up adjectives and place names like Garanimals. We can't just slap adjectives on things like stickers. We don't have to. We have extensive inventories of documents attached to calendar dates, map locations and names (people, institutions). We should never waste time imagining ("theorizing"). We are not here simply throwing around "facts." These realities are very relevant to effective pedagogy and curricula in our real world Christian institutions here and today. The Koine Greek OT and NT are truly full of technical vocabulary from many disciplines that all our so-called "translations" fail to translate. Now, we do have "translations" targeting low-IQ simplified 5th grade reading levels. But MOST Christians WOULD NOT want to misinterpret Scripture based on such remedial simplifications. We can do much much better. And this doing better will help Christian individuals and Christian communities achieve better outcomes.
What was the language of the Babylonian exile?
Aramaic
Yep, Aramaic. In fact, the Hebrew language adopted the Aramaic script for Hebrew - so the modern Hebrew texts you see are actually using the same script that Aramaic used. Hebrew from prior to the exile is referred to as Paleo Hebrew.
@@bma Yes, and Hebrew itself was originally a Canaanite dialect.
😸
😻
😺
🐈
🐱
🐱
Greek killed off the Apostles as dead as can be , I study Greek now and it's killing me.
Hellenization...
I am going to have to disagree with your preposition that second temple period Israelites spoke Greek, and that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
1) Vatican EBR 100
2) Breslau 233
3) St. Petersburg A 207
4) NLI Heb 8-751
5) A-C.U.L. O.o.1.16
6) B-Gaster 1616
Those are Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations... all in Hebrew, all linguistically verified as authentic copies of originally written in Hebrew documents. And in cases, correcting errors found in the Greek. But also showing the sourcing of some of the odd or unusual non-Greek words and sentence structures, used in the early Greek NT.
Then of course we have the original Bar Kokhba letters _(125AD),_ not only written in Hebrew, but in Palaeo-Hebrew script.
Then of course; We have Papias of Hierapolis _(~100AD)_ stating; _"Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated it as he was able."_
But also; Irenaeus of Lyon made a similar statement, saying that; _"Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect."_
That said, unlike the OT found in the Codex Septuagint Vaticanus, the Greek NT does not have many translation errors. And those few, have already been known, sometimes, for centuries. Morning Star contradiction for example. _(The Hebrew Revelations not only shows the correct/non-contradicting version, how the translation error came to be, becomes very apparent. As in; a unintentional translation error from the Greek to the Hebrew cannot be done. But a unintentional translation error from the Hebrew to the Greek, can be very easily done.)_
Yes, throughout much of _"Church History"_ scripture written in anything but Greek or Latin was considered heresy, and thus repressed. 19th and early 20th century academia thus didn't know of these documents. _(James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations, were actually found in India by William Carey, a Baptist Missionary. That's document; A-C.U.L. O.o.1.16.)_
Now if the *_whole_* New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, your guess is as good as mine. But some, definitely was originally in Hebrew.
Thanks for your comment. I think you've made a category error here. These are all translations into Hebrew (and not necessarily from Greek either) which creates several layers between them and the original texts (not to mention 1500 years!). I'm not claiming that there were no translations made (there clearly have been many thousands of translations made into many thousands of languages, including Hebrew. However, the original writings were in Greek, not Hebrew and the existence of Hebrew translations such as these does not invalidate this claim. You'd need to produce Hebrew texts from the first few centuries of the church that clearly showed originality. To date none have been found, which means either a) the originals were not written in Hebrew or b) they were quickly translated into Greek and the original texts were forgotten and no longer transmitted. The argument you seem to be making is for the latter, yet, there is no evidence for this position, and it is unlikely that the original would be so lightly esteemed as to be forgotten. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I'm happy to agree to disagree. 😀
@@bma Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree. Those I listed have been verified by linguistical archaeologists from Cambridge and the Israel Antiquities Authority as copies of originally in 1st century AD written Hebrew. If I had listed those not yet verified, that list would have been a lot longer.
Lastly a thought;
1) All Bibles, up to the Gutenberg press, were written by hand. Thus, very expensive.
2) As Christianity expanded, demand for Greek Bibles expanded astronomically.
3) Whereas, because of first the Zealot and then the Bar Kokhba revolt, then persecution of all Christians by the Romans, then Jewish Christians persecuted as heretics by the early church, demand for Hebrew Bibles shrunk. An estimate of around 800 to 1,000 Greek Bibles copied, to every single Hebrew, sounds about right.
4) There have been roughly one million times more English Bibles printed/copied than there have been Greek. Would in 1,000 to 2,000 years, someone claim that English was the original language of the Bible? It does out rank all other languages as having the most Bibles ever...
No recognised NT scholar supports the claims that the NT was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The claim is ludicrous. Why would Paul, Luke or John, for example, write to mostly Greek-speaking Gentiles in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonika, etc. in Aramaic or Hebrew - languages few of the intended recipients would understand? And why would they quote from the Septuagint if their audiences knew Aramaic or Hebrew and the Scriptures in those languages?
The very existence of the Septuagint was the result of diaspora Jews who couldn't understand Hebrew needing their Scriptures in a language they could understand.
To date, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 11 of which date to the 2nd century. The earliest and most famous of these is the Ryland Papyrus P52, dating to 100-150AD, which contains a portion of John's Gospel. That is 400 years earlier than _any_ known Aramaic manuscript. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts are from a millennium later than that!
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Ah yes, and you know every one of those scholars personally. What a crock of...
You start out with a pompous _"trust me bro"_ statement, and you end with another pompous _"trust me bro"_ statement, with everything in between, the same. Who do you think we are? Morons that you can bully into submission?
5,800 Greek manuscripts of the NT huh? Did you know that there's more than 1 million times more English NT manuscripts? I guess then by _"your logic;"_ the NT was written in English. Volume of copies, and even age of copies doesn't mean anything. It's meaningless. It's _"statistics don't lie. But liars use statistics."_ Stay away from such nonsense.
Do you know how to proof a manuscript, to see if it has originated in the language that you see? You need to learn at least the minimum basics of *_linguistical archaeology,_* before opening your mouth, and making a fool of yourself.
Now as far as your Ryland Papyrus P52. Yes, the original editor/linguistical archaeologist stated an estimate of 100 to 150 AD. But, that has been debunked, and a dating of between 200 and 300 AD now used. That's why people write and publish review papers *_before_* submitting their thoughts to the public. So, you are not telling us the whole truth, only the parts that you want to be true. Fact is; That original dating is being strongly contested... for good reason.
But once again; in linguistical archaeology, even a solid C14 dating of a manuscript, is near meaningless. Any document *_must have_* clear evidence of grammatically having been written originally in the language presented, or it is a translation, and not of the original linage. That is why the newer Masoretic Text is the authoritative OT, and not the older Septuagint. The older Septuagint only proves that the original Hebrew OT is even older than the dating of the translation, that is the Septuagint.
So now to linguistics and the Greek NT...
1) Not all, and not always, but in places, the grammar in the Greek NT is odd, not normal Greek grammar of that time. But, retranslated back into Hebrew, and the grammar is perfectly normal.
2) There are many cases of the Greek NT using words of purely Hebrew origins. That is to say; they don't belong in the Greek/Indo-European language group. Prior to their usage in the Greek NT, they did not exist in *_any_* Indo-European language, in any form whatsoever.
Now that said; I do not belong to the camp promoting a Hebrew NT origins only. But by that same token; I do not belong to the Greek only origins camp either.
And to both camps I say; This is an ongoing debate. So, just wait and see what comes out of it. It makes no sense to bring emotions and church politics into this matter. Such would be doing a disservice to us all. This is an archaeological debate, not a theological one.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh also, greek was the common language back then in the region. jews spoke aramaic or greek. almost nobody spoke hebrew, except some rabbis or priests. there is no reason to create or write an hebrew manuscript, because only few could read it. theres a reason its written in greek, because everyone could read and understand it.
Obviously it wouldn't be Hebrew because by that time only a few Rabbis understood it. The language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic and there's no significant evidence they spoke any other nor were litterateur even in that. Accounts of the of the life of Jesus have him neither writing -- a scribble in dirt notwithstanding -- nor suggesting anyone else should. Where does Jesus ever hint that there's new holy scripture coming?
Greek was the international language of higher learning, but a household language throughout the Roman empire? Where did you get that? In Corinth, sure, that's in Greece, but the Romans pushed Latin. In the 300's the Church made their Latin "Vulgate" -- which literally means common ordinary language -- the official version of scripture, a tradition that survives in Catholicism to this day. You give a light and naive version of history.
Good question. Here's my quick response. The Romans rose to power from around 40 BC, and spoke Latin in Rome, but the world outside Rome was pretty well entrenched in Greek from the time of Alexander (~330 BC), and it was only areas that became highly Romanized that began to adopt Latin. It is no coincidence that the first translations were made in North Africa in the second century, when Latin started to be used more there. Alexandria had become very Roman by the end of the third century AD. However, lest I overstate the importance of Latin in Africa, remember that the Nicean Creed was written in Greek (325 AD) for distribution around the Roman Empire, and Athanasius wrote in Greek during the mid 4th century in North Africa. So, Greek was a dominant force even in North Africa into the 4th century AD - perhaps with Alexandria being more Latin (but while generally retaining high regard for Greek). So, I maintain, that during the first century, outside of Rome, almost everyone spoke Greek rather than Latin, though clearly Latin became more popular as time went on. I hope that helps! 😀
@@bma Thanks for the reply. Greek was the elite written language, as I granted and you now reiterate, but where did you get that it was a *household* language throughout the empire as you had claimed? The first new testament writer, Paul, was a Roman citizen according to Acts, yet even Paul's Letter to the Romans is in Greek.
The New Testament is in Greek because Greek was the elite language and the elites were who wrote stuff. Jesus and his disciples were -- best as we can tell -- illiterate Aramaic-speaking monoglots who never suggested their story needs to be written down much less as holy scripture.
The city of Alexandria in North Africa as your example?
Greek was the "elite" language - or better, the language of the cultured and educated BEFORE Alexander. After Alexander, it was much more widespread. If you want some written scholarship on this, take a look at Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek (it's conveniently short). There are lots of problems with this book but his research is pretty good on this subject and he provides lots of references you can look at for more information. Here's the link to the book: amzn.to/3Y6VJPL I hope that helps.
First, we do have surviving MSS of the NT in Hebrew that my team has discovered and continues to discover. Second, German scholarship believed Hebrew to be a dead language starting around the 18th-19th century. Scholars corrected that later in the 20th century with the discovery of DSS. Sadly, many Western scholars still believe in the Aramaic and Greek supremacy. Jesus and the apostles spoke Hebrew, NOT Greek. Lastly, you are still using outdated information. We know today that Hebrew was the language of the Jews in Judea, and they used only the Hebrew scriptures in the Temple and local synagogues.
The NT contains Hebrew and Aramaic words that were not translated into Greek but left in their original form. In Acts 6:1, Greek Jews and Hebrew Jews disagree with each other. Jesus and the apostles were NOT Greek Jews, nor did they speak Greek or Aramaic in their homes. Greek was NOT the default language of the Jews or the NT. You are sadly mistaken.
Where would someone find these original manuscripts from the first century which are written in Hebrew that you speak of?
I'd love to see your evidence that I'm wrong if you can provide it!
@@bmaobviously the good news was written 1st in Hebrew then translated to other languages.
As it is written good news comes first to the "Isralites" before to the outsiders just like you and me .
Show me evidence that ALL people in Israel poor to elites can expect Greek or has capacity to speak it in those days.
I never said ALL, but almost all. There are a number of scholarly works, a few of which I've referred to in other comments on this video.
@@bma The vast of Scholarly work is using outdated sources that go back to the 18th 19 century German scholarship. You could see a list of all the newly discovered Hebrew New Testament manuscripts at my academia page.
@@dralgarzaSo name even a single Hebrew manuscript of the NT dated by recognized paleography experts to earlier than 1000AD.
Just a worldly point of view from a carnal mind.
Wow. Thanks for your assessment of my mind! Have a great day!
The New Testament is the official publication from the politicians of pagan Rome.
It's not the inspired Word of God.
For starters, Paul was a false apostle who contradicted both himself and Jesus.
When Paul references the Tanakh he nearly always twists the meaning to support his false gospel of salvation by grace through faith e.g.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead on the 3rd day ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE..
There is no such scripture. It's a phantom reference.
Romans 9:25 "As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
vs
Hosea 2:23 "and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’”
Hosea was prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel and he was speaking about the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom. Paul twists this to apply it to pagans in Rome.
Jonah
@@edcarson3113 Jonah was a prophet who disobeyed God and the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish has nothing to do with Jesus being crucified and rising from the dead.
Where in the Book of Jonah does it say that the Messiah will be crucified and rise from the dead? It doesn't.
The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament do not contain some of the errors found in the Greek versions.
Unless you fine gentlemen would like to explain how Jesus and His disciples can be authentic while getting the Torah wrong in many places.
Here is 1 example . Read Mathew 26:17, mark 14:12 & Luke 22:7.
If you can tell me there’s no problem then you don’t know Torah.
These verses are fixed in the Hebrew manuscripts
th-cam.com/video/Fp2qQIHmqdY/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
th-cam.com/video/Fp2qQIHmqdY/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Thanks for your comment! You'll have to do more to prove the Gospels were written in Hebrew. I don't know how these verses prove your point. Don't believe the neo-judaizers who want to return to the Old Covenant or Jewish traditions. There is no evidence that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. On an early version of Matthew in Aramaic, see my video here: th-cam.com/video/si2GWsaOpGA/w-d-xo.html. Thanks again for your comment!
@@bmahey sir . Read those 3 verses all talking about “on the first day of unleavened bread they are looking to celebrate Passover” . Well no messiah (the word made flesh) or disciple or even a Hebrew for that matter would ever think Passover IS unleavened bread .
There on different days and they mean different things . Check Leviticus 23
Whoever translated into the Greek obviously didn’t know Torah
@@bmaand the Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament don’t have those errors. Indicating they are more of the original words than the Greek
I hate to tell you, but in the time of the New Testmaent people spoke Aramaic, and in the time of the Old Testament, the upper classes spoke Greek.
Most of the Old Testament was ritten during the last four hundred years before Christ, from 500 until the time of Christ. Don't you know ANYTHING?
The fact is there were Hebrew or Aramaic versions of some writings, especially Matthew, which was popular among Jewish Christians in Palestine; it was likely an entirely separate edition. However, Christianity did not survive in Palestine. It survived and mostly spread in the former Greek empire where people spoke Greek, like Asia Minor and Egypt, and around Rome.
It seems you're the ignorant one here...
The gospels were written in Hebrew and poorly translated into Greek.
Thanks for your comment. Presumably you're familiar with both Hebrew and Greek and can articulate why the NT Greek is "poorly translated"? Can you point me to evidence of these original Hebrew texts - not medieval translations of Greek or Georgian texts, but something that proves antiquity of Hebrew texts?
@@bma The Hebrew gospels from Sepharad and Cochin authenticate each other.
They were rediscovered about 3 years ago. After a comparison after 2000 years, they are remarkably the same. They are copies of copies, but the text is a 1st century text.
I have read Matthew, John, James, Jude, Revelation. Revelation is called Sodot, meaning "the scroll of mysteries".
There is no way that these Hebrew manuscripts were translated from Greek. The Greek had to be translated from them.
A good example is that "Olam" was used in John1v10 3x, and all 3x was translated to "world". Here we see a poor translation as "Olam" has 3 different meanings. We also see here that the deity of Yeshua is somewhat compromised in the Greek translation.
It starts by saying: "He was Olam [not "in the Olam"] and the only meaning that fits here is "Eternal".
"He was Eternal [Olam], and the universe [olam] was made through Him, and the world [olam] knew Him not" [Jn1v1 - Hebrew]. Here you can see that although the wordplay of "olam" can't be translated into Greek, it is poorly translated in meaning. Generally, we would say that sinners are in the world, and Yeshua was not a sinner, but He was the Eternal. This is just one verse that justifies that the Hebrew was not translated from Greek.
In Jn1v1, we don't have "Word", but "Son", which is the same with the Romaunt translation of the Waldensess, as the Waldensess used the Hebrew script.
In Jn1v29, we don't have "The Lamb of God". "...Behold! This is Elohim who takes away the sin of the world [Jn1v29 - Hebrew].
In all the Hebrew gospels, Yeshua is the son of the smith [not carpenter]. Joseph was very likely a silver smith or a blacksmith.
The Greek translation was done only for a Greek and Roman audience as it has "Son of Man [the Human]" as the translation. The Hebrew says, "Son of the Virgin". I believe this change was done to eliminate confusion between the Greek and Roman virgin goddesses Aphrodite [mother of Eros] and Venis [mother of Cupid].
The Hebrew gospels were rediscovered by Dr. Miles Jones [Writing of God].
@@bestKaffir.underTheSonPlease, not the Cochin Gospels nonsense again. As we've discussed before, these are known to be late translations of the Peshitta.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have never studied the Cochin gospels and you are going by what lies were told to you.
I know that the Freiberg Hebrew gospels are translations, and therefore a later text.
I also know that the Cochin gospels are copies of copies from the original first century text, and the text predates the Greek.
Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Mattityahu [Matthew] says in Mt1v19.
Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Luka [Luke] says in Lk1v1-4.
Tell me what the Cochin gospel of Yokhanan [John] says in Jn1v10.
I am asking you these questions without looking at the script.
Try being bold and answer me without making a fool of yourself.
If you can't give an answer to the 3 questions, you are either a fool or a liar.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Tell me what language Yeshua spoke on the cross.
The Peshitta here gives you 2 different versions of Aramaic. This indicates that this verse is very likely from the Greek. The Greek gives Aramaic and translates it, just like the KJV translates everything into English.
The text from Greek and the Peshitta says "Passover, a feast of the Jews" on several places, because it was meant for a Greek audience. Only a twerp like you would explain to a Jew what Passover is. In the Cochin gospels we don't have "feast of the Jews" as it is not a translation from Greek. There is no need for a Jew to explain to a Jew what Passover is, and this indicates that the Greek and the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew.
The Greek word "tekton" is used for a tradesman or builder. A tradesman can be a carpenter, but a carpenter cannot be a smith [metal worker]. When I last checked, timber was not a metal.
The Greek says "tekton", while modern translations from Greek, and the Peshitta say "carpenter".
The Cochin gospels say "smith".
Joseph was very likely a silver smith, but he could also have been a blacksmith.
Only a twerp would tell me that "carpenter" from the Peshitta was translated to "smith" in Hebrew.
But it is obvious that "smith " was original, and translated to "tekton", and then translated to "carpenter".
The Hebrew was translated into Greek. The Peshitta was most definitely not translated to Hebrew.
Your opinion of the Cochin gospels being translated from the Peshitta is illogic and in fact a very ignorant opinion.
🐈