Was the New Testament originally written in Hebrew?

By David Maas

I would normally agree with the position that the question of whether the N.T. was composed in Greek or Hebrew is or should be a minor one. It does not matter whether God chose to use Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin. What matters is whether we have an accurate version of the original N.T.  But this is, in fact, the real issue because certain groups not only argue that the original was Hebrew, but also allege the present Greek text is riddled with later corruptions, intentionally or not insinuating that the N.T. as it exists is unreliable. Since no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the N.T. exist, or at least have not been found, any effort to reconstruct the Hebrew or Aramaic original would by default be speculative.

A difficulty is that this issue touches on more technical areas with which the average Christian is unfamiliar. Many Christians are ill-equipped to examine this objectively.  I refer to subjects like Greek, the history of the transmission of the N.T. text, the culture and history of the eastern Mediterranean region of the first century, etc.  300+ years of Hellenic influence established Greek as a widely-spoken language in the region by the first century, including by many Jews. The largest Jewish population at the time was not in Jerusalem but in Alexandria, Egypt, a heavily Hellenized city. Moreover, the existence of the Greek Septuagint demonstrates that many Jews of the period did speak Greek. This raises the question:  if Paul, Peter or John intended to spread the Gospel far and wide to the Gentile world, why would he choose to do so in Hebrew or Aramaic? Greek would be the practical and obvious choice, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Why, for example, would Paul write in Hebrew to a largely Gentile congregation in Corinth in the very heart of Greece ? And Acts attests that Paul knew both Hebrew and Greek (e.g., Acts 17:22-31, 21:40).  

The strongest evidence offered for a Hebrew original is the quote from Papias. However, no copies of his original document in which this statement reportedly was made have survived.  Only a few fragments from his book have been mediated to us through later Church authorities, including Irenaeus and Eusebuis.  This means the information is at best second-hand and its accuracy cannot be independently verified. Have Irenaeus and Eusebuis quoted Papias accurately?  We cannot know for sure. And what if Papias himself was simply misinformed?  

All surviving ancient manuscripts of the N.T. or fragments thereof were written in Greek and there are no manuscripts or fragments representing a Hebrew or Aramaic original text, period. Moreover, the several ancient translations that have survived to us, such as the several Syriac versions, Old Latin and Coptic, give evidence of being translations of Greek originals.

Putting aside the manuscript evidence, the internal evidence of the N.T. is more decisive. By “internal” I mean things like an author’s style, vocabulary, familiarity with Greek; the use of wordplays, assonance, compound Greek words (Hebrew does not lend itself to the formation of compound words), etc., all of which are difficult to explain if the N.T. is a translation from a Hebrew original. For example, wordplays based on like-sounding words are difficult to duplicate from one language into another. Paul's wordplay on the like-sounding Greek terms for "mutilation" and "circumcision" in Phil. 3:2-3, for example, cannot be accurately represented in English or Hebrew (katatomé, peritomō). And the many verses that translate Hebrew or Aramaic terms into Greek for the benefit of a book’s audience also attest to Greek as the original language of the N.T. (e.g., Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, 5:2, 19:13). Why would John need to translate the Hebrew Messiah in John 1:41 for a Hebrew-speaking audience?

Then there is the extensive but not always consistent use of the Greek Septuagint in the N.T. Approximately 50% of O.T. citations and allusions in the N.T. rely on the Septuagint. With few exceptions, for example, both Revelation and Hebrews follow the text of the Septuagint. But Paul sometimes follows the Septuagint and other times the Hebrew text. Similarly, Matthew when he cites an O.T. passage as narrator most often follows the Hebrew text. However, when he places the quote on the lips of Jesus he often uses the Septuagint. Such mixed usage is difficult to explain if Matthew and Paul composed their documents in Hebrew, which were then later translated into Greek by other hands. 

One could also point to places where a theological point is difficult to explain from the standpoint of a Hebrew original. For example, Paul's important metaphor for the church, the "body of Christ," uses the Greek noun sōma or "body."  Biblical Hebrew has no word that corresponds directly to "body" or sōma. The O.T. often employs the Hebrew term for "flesh" or basar where a Greek or English speaker would use "body." But if the metaphor instead was "flesh of Christ" it would not work theologically, especially considering how Paul elsewhere deals with the term "flesh" or sarx ("flesh" in Paul is used either negatively or at best is morally neutral. But "body" is used positively).