The New Testament was written in Hebrew (not Greek)

[WhiteWings]

http://searchwarp.com/swa413703.htm

First we have to look at a couple of facts. One fact is that we have a transcript of the Book of Matthew in Hebrew, which predates any manuscripts we have in Koinia Greek.

We also have to look at New Testament passages themselves. We see that when Yeshua stopped Shaul (Saul) He didn't speak to him in Greek but rather Hebrew

Dr Robert Lindsey, who was my pastor when I was growing up in Israel, translated the book of Mark from Greek into Hebrew. He discovered something rather interesting. He found that when he read the translation in Hebrew rather then from Greek, it made more sense. It wasn't as disjointed as it was in Greek, rather it began to flow and many of the things that were written even had more meaning to the Hebrew ear.

Even the Church Fathers attest to this over and over again:

[WhiteWings]

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

Having said that, there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the texts were originally written in Hebrew, and also that Hebrew was not a "dead language" (as was thought of for quite some time). A good source of information on the latter is "Biblical Archaeology Review" (BAR) magazine. BAR has had articles in the past few years on digs that have unearthed documents from around the first century written in Hebrew, including legal documents and one woman's personal diary.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/hebrew_new_testament.htm

Even E. W. Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, Appendix 94, makes the statement that "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew." Apostle Paul stated that the New Testament Believers "....are built  upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Yahshua the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone;" (Eph. 2:20 KJV).

So let's look into the New Testament and ask some pointed questions:

First, what about all the Hellenized (Greek) names found in the New Testament? Examples, Hezekiah is "Ezekias" in Mat. 1:9, and Judah (more correctly Yahudah, as "Judas," Mat. 1:2. Isaiah is "Esias," Elijah is "Elias" in Matthew 11:14; Yahchanan is "John," Jacob is "James," and so on.

Second, why are there untranslated Hebrew/Aramaic words in the New Testament? That seems to be a dead give away all by itself. Here are a few. Most are Hebrew, some are Aramaic. Abba (Father), Rabbi (teacher), hosanna (Oh Save! An exclamation of adoration), Amen (Surely, or so be it), Talitha Cumi (Maid arise), ephphatha (be opened), corban (a dedicated gift), Sabbath, Satan, Mammon, raca, cumin, maranatha, Emmanuel, Eli lama sabachthani, and many others.

Third, even more convincing evidence for a Hebrew New Testament is the plain, clear Hebrew word order found throughout the New Testament. Many sentences have the verb-noun reversal that is common in the Hebrew and other Semitic languages, but not in Greek or English. Scholars have long understood that the grammar of the New Testament is not good Greek, but is excellent Hebrew grammar.

Fourth, in addition to all these, and the main focus of this article, are the many, many Hebrew expressions and idioms we find scattered throughout the New Testament. If the originals had been Greek, then they would have been written with Greek form and expression. But they were not, and translated word for word into Greek, they make no sense at all.

We understand hundreds of American idioms, but when translated into other tongues, they make no sense at all, and would be unintelligible to them.

Let's take a few examples of Hebrew idioms that the Savior used, that are impossible to understand when translated from Hebrew to Greek, then to English, but make perfect sense when translated back to Hebrew, then directly to English:

These are from a very good book on this subject, called, "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, New Insights From a Hebrew Perspective," by David Bivin and Roy Blissard, Jr.

1). Mat. 5:3, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven . They say that "theirs" is a classic mistranslation from the Greek, and is retained din all modern English versions. It should be translated "of these" or "of such as these." We cannot possess the Kingdom. It does not belong to us. Rather, Yahshua is describing the kind of people who make up that Kingdom. It is the "poor in Spirit," those who have no righteousness of their own, the meek, those who have overcome their pride and vanity.

2). Luke 23:31, For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? Makes no sense whatever in Greek or English, but makes perfect sense when retranslated into Hebrew.

Yahshua is referring to the "green tree" and the "dry tree" from Ezekiel's prophecy against Jerusalem and the Temple (Eze. 20:45 to 21:7). The green tree is the righteous and the dry tree is the wicked. All will be burned up because of the intensity of the fire He will kindle.

So Yahshua is saying, If you knew what is coming, you would not mourn for me, you would mourn for yourselves. If they do this to Me (the righteous), what will they do to you (the wicked)? The "in" should be "do to." This was a reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem , and the suffering and killing of many people, which took place in 69-70 CE.

3). Mat. 11:12, From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." Have you ever wondered about this seeming contradiction? Why would the meek, the passive, the "poor in spirit," resort to violence to take the Kingdom, and why would YHWH allow it? This Scripture as written, as we have it, does not agree with the rest of Yahshua's teachings, does it?

So what is the key to understand this puzzle? Yahshua is making a reference to a well-known rabbinic interpretation of Micah 2:12-13, that reads like this:

12. I will gather all of you, Jacob; I will collect the remnant of Israel . I will put them all together like sheep in a fold, like a flock inside its pen. It will be noisy and crowded with people. 13. The breach-maker ("breaker" in the KJV, poretz in Hebrew) goes through before them. Then they break out, passing through the gate, they leave by it. Their king passes through before them, YHWH at their head.

This is a picture of a shepherd out in the field, penning his sheep up for the night. He makes a sheepfold for them by throwing up a makeshift rock fence against the side of a hill. The next morning, he lets the sheep out by making a "breach" in the fence, and the sheep are eager and impatient to get out after being penned up all night. So they shove and push a bit to get out into the green pasture.

So now we see what Yahshua is saying – the Kingdom of Heaven is breaking forth, NOT suffering violence, and every person in it is breaking forth or breaking out INTO it, NOT "the violent take it by force."

Let's compare Luke 16:16, the parallel verse (Luke 16:16 KJV) "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of YHWH is preached, and every man presseth into it."

The authors say: "Two tremendous things are happening at the same time: the Kingdom is bursting forth into the world like water from a broken dam, and individuals within the Kingdom are finding liberty and freedom."

4). Luke 12:49-50, "I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am straitened till it be accomplished!"

Many Christians think this refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. John the Baptist prophesied that the One to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mat. 3:11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire":).

They think this happened on Pentecost, that the "tongues like as of fire" fulfilled this prophecy. But John clarified what he meant in the very next verse (Mat 3:12, "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.") Malachi 4:1-3 will fulfill this prophecy when it comes to pass, at the end of the age.

And what did Yahshua mean by "…how I am straitened till it be accomplished!"? These verses in Luke are an example of Hebrew poetry, and He meant, "how distressed I am till it is over," referring to the destruction of the "chaff" by fire. The chaff are those who refuse to repent.

5). Matthew 16:19, Whatsoever thou shalt bind (or loose) on earth shall be bound (or loosed) in heaven. In rabbinic literature, these two words in Hebrew, by Yahshua's time, had come to mean "forbid" and "permit." The rabbis were called upon often to interpret Scriptural commands. For example, the Law forbids work on Sabbaths, but does not define "work." So they were called upon to define what they could or could not do. They "bound" or prohibited certain activities, and "loosed" or allowed other activities. Yahshua was transferring this authority to Peter and His other disciples, to make decisions or judgments about how to keep the law more perfectly, NOT to make laws, or change laws. We find a good example of this being done in Acts 15, where the disciples bound (forbade) certain things, and loosed (permitted) others.

6). Matthew 5:20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The Hebrew word for "righteousness" is "tsedakah" and by Yahshua's time had come to have a secondary meaning, "almsgiving," or charity. Help to the poor. So Yahshua was saying that if your concern for the poor is not greater than that of the Pharisees, you will not be a disciple of His. Many think this verse belongs just before Mat. 6:1, where Yahshua is talking about giving alms, helping the poor.

 

7). Matthew 5:17-18, Destroy and fulfill are rabbinic argumentation methods. When one rabbi interpreted a Scripture and another disagreed, he would say, "You are destroying the Law!" Fulfilling the Law was simply interpreting it correctly. Someone had apparently accused Yahshua of misinterpreting a certain Scripture, and He was responding as a rabbi would. No one thought He had come to actually destroy the Law!

8). Luke 6:22, "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast your name out as evil, for the Son of Man's sake." This is a Hebrew idiom that means "defame you" or malign you, or slander you. It is translated in the NRSV as "defame you."

9). Luke 9:44, "Lay these sayings in your ears" is a Hebrew idiom that means "Listen carefully and remember well, for this is very important."

10). Luke 9:51, "He set his face to go," is a Hebrew idiom found in scores of idioms using "face," such as "Hagar fled from the face of Sarai," Jacob from the face of Esau, Moses from the face of Pharaoh, Moses hid his face in fear, Yahweh sometimes hides His face in anger, Yahweh sets His face against idolators, and He can make His face to shine upon us. It simply means to turn in the direction of, or turn away from, take notice of, etc. In the verse cited above, it means "He prepared to leave."

11). Mat. 6:22-23, Good eye, bad eye – "The light of the body is the eye: therefore if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

This is a Hebrew idiom that has confused all the translators. It simply means that if you have a "single" or good eye, you are generous; whereas if you have an evil eye, or bad eye, you are stingy.

Notice that several of these idioms that Yahshua used in His teaching, involves giving: alms, charity, helping the less blessed among us. Many say, "Well, with government aid, we don't need to help – we pay our taxes and that is our charity, our alms." We had better get over that. YHWH hates stingy people, who have the ability to help others and won't.

So, to sum up, when all factors are considered, the evidence seems overwhelming in favor of the New Testament having been first written in Hebrew/Aramaic, and later translated into Greek, in a word-for-word format. This method of translation would make it extremely difficult to ascertain the correct meaning intended by the speaker or writer. Obviously, later on, the originals were lost, as were the original Greek translations. So all that is left are copies of copies. However, there are at least two Hebrew versions of Matthew's Gospel, the Shem Tob and the Du Tillet.

This subject is in the process of on-going discovery, and more confirmation may be forthcoming in the future. In the meantime, be very skeptical of claims for an "inspired Greek New Testament."  (By Frank Brown) ~

[WhiteWings]

http://www.myspace.com/sandiegocutie/blog/470012095

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) .

Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language."

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/new_testament_written_in_Hebrew.htm
http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/new-testament-was-orginally?commentId=1451550%3AComment%3A1344965&xg_source=activity
http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Hebrew%20The%20Purel%20Language.htm

Etc.
Personally I would find it logical. Hebrew also has much more depth to hide little gems.

[Paul Hazelwood]

If true, then aionios as a translated word from hebrew meaning everlasting or eternal in the absolute sense is even less likely than it is now.

[WhiteWings]

Very true Paul.
Then the foundation of ET gets even weaker as it is right now. Same for ED I think.

It would also explain the (little) problem I have with Hades.
Strictly speaking Hades is not the grave. Hades is the god of the underworld
So what's that pagan concept doing in the Bible?
a] Jesus was ridiculing Greek mythology.
b] Jesus agrees the god Hades exists but that Father will defeat the god named Hades.
c] Jesus never spoke the word Hades. He only used the Hebrew sheol.

I fear there are almost no original Hebrew manuscripts left to translate from. I really would like to see a NT translated from that source.

[Quaesitor]

That is a wonderful topic to explore WW, thank you for bringing it up!

3). Mat. 11:12, From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." Have you ever wondered about this seeming contradiction? Why would the meek, the passive, the "poor in spirit," resort to violence to take the Kingdom, and why would YHWH allow it? This Scripture as written, as we have it, does not agree with the rest of Yahshua's teachings, does it?

So what is the key to understand this puzzle? Yahshua is making a reference to a well-known rabbinic interpretation of Micah 2:12-13, that reads like this:

12. I will gather all of you, Jacob; I will collect the remnant of Israel . I will put them all together like sheep in a fold, like a flock inside its pen. It will be noisy and crowded with people. 13. The breach-maker ("breaker" in the KJV, poretz in Hebrew) goes through before them. Then they break out, passing through the gate, they leave by it. Their king passes through before them, YHWH at their head.

This is a picture of a shepherd out in the field, penning his sheep up for the night. He makes a sheepfold for them by throwing up a makeshift rock fence against the side of a hill. The next morning, he lets the sheep out by making a "breach" in the fence, and the sheep are eager and impatient to get out after being penned up all night. So they shove and push a bit to get out into the green pasture.

So now we see what Yahshua is saying – the Kingdom of Heaven is breaking forth, NOT suffering violence, and every person in it is breaking forth or breaking out INTO it, NOT "the violent take it by force."

That saying by Jesus was something I always struggled with..makes so much sense now!

[Quaesitor]

Interesting counter-argument...there's always one.

Stanley,
 
You placed an article out in the public domain- making very wild claims about a Hebrew NT; while there is absolutely no evidence of anything remotely similar to such a manuscript. The closest you can get is the Pe$%&*@$%&ta, which is an aramaic translation done in the late 2nd to 3rd century. There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts recovered- the earliest so far is a fragment called P52 (Papyrii 52) which is dated conservatively to the year 125 AD. Moreover, there is a disputed fragment of Mark 6 called 7Q5 which is dated between 30 and 50 AD!
 
Your position is not only archeologically bankrupt, but is scripturally destitute. Your conclusion rests upon the scriptural writers being jewish, and that the language they use is influenced by their hebrew culture. You then conclude that they must have written in hebrew. (!)
 
What amazes me, is how you degrade and insult the early church fathers- and then you go grovelling back at their feet to try and prove that they were right in positing that Matthew wrote a Hewbrew gospel before the Greek. Whats more, once you think youve proven that Matthew was written in Hebrew; you conclude that therefore the entire NT was originally written in Hebrew! Unfortunately, these days any old quack with an axe to grind and a goat-herd to shepherd can broadcast his false and baseless doctrine to the world. Your scholarship is reprobate, and your scripture twisting is an abomination.
 
My point is that you made a public decleration; but when your ideas were weighed and found wanting- you slinked off into the shadows from where you came... This is nothing new from the Messianic Movements. Ive spoken to atleast 3 people who behaved similarly- ungodly behaviour, lots of anti-christian bias; but no arguments with any substance to prove their theories. Im sure there are many sincere believers in the Messianic realm- too bad their 'rabbis' are all gainsayers. I pray earnestly that the One True God will remove their messianic tumours so that they may grow in His life-giving Spirit.
 
Perhaps you should stick to your website, Stanley- there you can have a monologue and your fantasies will never be challenged. Avoid the embarrassment of having your legs cut out from under you.
 
Once again:
 
Luke-Acts is a single account, written to a gentile Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1-2). Therefore, Luke and Acts were written in Greek, not Hebrew. Ive read your other circular arguments where you try to suggest that Luke was a jew- your most coherent reason was because the NT was written by Jews- in the jewish tongue! The circularity in your system is cancerous.
 
I told you in my first post how John adopted a Greek method of time-keeping rather than the jewish one... This proves his audience was primarily gentile (Compare John 19:14 to Matt 27:45).
 
Mark was a companion with Paul and Barnabas on their gentile church-planting missions. His gospel was for the gentile converts. Want proof? Chapter 5:41. Here Mark tells how Jesus spoke in Hebrew; but then he goes on to translate what that hebrew phrase meant in Greek. Why would Mark translate a Hebrew phrase if his audience were hebrews? This proves that the text was written in Greek, to greek speaking people (including the jews- since they spoke Greek as well).
 
If you could theoretically respond to these alone- I would bury you in Scriptural proof that the epistles were likewise written in Greek (even though its theoretically possible that Hebrews and perhaps James were TRANSLATED into Hebrew later) Your thesis is dead.
 
Could the Jews speak Greek? Lets see... You respect Alfred Edersheim, dont you Stanley? Well, he says:
 
Pg. 17. "When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that in the West, we seem to breathe quite a different atmosphere. ... These Jews of the West are known by the term "Hellenists" from ellhniqein, to conform to the language and manners of the Greeks."
 
Pg. 22 "Why, this sway extended even into Palistine itself, and was felt in the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinism. We are not here referring to the fact that the very language spoken in Palestine came to be very largely charged with Greek, and even Latin, words Hebraised, since this is easily accounted for by the new circumstances, and the necessities of intercourse with the dominant or resident foreigners." --The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
 
How about some scriptural proof?
See Acts 2:5-11;
 
Here, the dispersed jews are astounded when they all hear the men speaking in their own languages. In verse 9 they list all the areas of jews whose languages are being spoken- but in this verse "Judea" is mentioned as ANOTHER language- one thats part of the list, and is NOT the language with which these guys were talking about the miracle. Greek was not on the list- but the Judean tongue WAS. This means that the dispersed Jews were NOT speaking Hebrew or aramaic to oneanother when discussing the miracle- but instead they were speaking Greek; since they distinguished the Judean tongue from themselves. The Diasporic jews communicated with eachother in Greek. It was the language of commerce; and the language of the authorities. Alexander practically spread it across the entire known world.
 
Moreover, if Hebrew was a "holy language" (?!); how come it evolves over time? (ex. Joshua becomes Jeshua- Ex33:11-Neh8:17).
 
There so much more, but I dont want to flood the post. You said the burden of proof was on me; well- Ive answered your call, and demolished your "arguments". Now the burden of proof is on YOU to descredit my attack. But Im not sure you are able to stand at this point- you would atleast have to get over your hatred of christians (which I have probably now made worse), and deal with my arguments- but thats not your style.
 
Theres nothing left for you, Stanley. Your enemies have sacked your city, and taken captive your women- because you dont give God the glory; and His truth- by submitting to His Words. Instead you sell your own false ideas, cause division, and accuse all challengers of the same foul behaviour that you yourself exibit. Your God has used your enemy to point you in the right direction.
 
In conclusion, many christians study and teach Hebrew and Greek to thousands of christians across the world; Because we believe we can enrich our understanding of the scriptures by mastering the original languages they were written in. There is no scriptural reason to suggest that we should become 'outward jews' as a means to better understand the Word; or to improve ourselves in ANY way. In fact, its just the opposite- usually people who suggest this are called 'judaizers'.
 
You dont believe the NT was written in Hebrew because of evidence- as Ive shown you. You believe it because you cannot accept it any way otherwise- you would rather look like a jew, because you blindly assume that God is a respector of language, culture, and people group- even with all the scriptural evidence to the contrary. The New Testament as it stands, condemns all of your practises; thats why you are forced to believe the bible is a pagan corruption- your blinding hatred of greek and gentiles prevents you from seen that the TRUE scriptures were written in Greek. Ps12:6-7: God says that He preserves His Word- but YOU say He is powerless to do so, powerless to preserve the real Hebrew texts. They dont exist Stanley, you're chasing castles in the sky.
 
Your doctrines lead to lawlessness (Torah-lessness)- because you conveniently choose those sections of Torah you wish to keep; and the rest throw in the "fulfilled in Christ" trashcan. You dont wish to submit to all of His commandments, instead you call them hellenistic corruption.
 
Your doctrines also lead to TRUE anti-semitism. You redefine the word "anti-semetic" so that you can call all Christians who submit to the scriptures Anti-Semites. But it is you who is anti-semitic, because you put on the skin of an ethnic jew, and then parade around in their folds as if you were one of them- and you try to draw them away after a different God, named Yeshua- who does not fit in their rebellious system. The JewsForJudaism site is an example of the REAL "ethnic jews" of today- and they absolutely dispise you, Stanley. They call you Messianic guys Christians! Your movement should escape from its perpetual identity-crisis.
 
You know this, and step by step you are driven to be more consistent with your beliefs. And that train will consistently take you straight into the anti-christ apostate judaism- where you seem to feel comfortable.

[WhiteWings]

Interesting counter-argument...there's always one.

I would be suprised if there wasn't one....

About the timekeeping I agree. But stricktly speaking that doesn't mean it wasn't written Hebrew.
There are very early Hebrew manuscripts found too. LXX is also a Greek translation of the Hebrew. So our NT could be another LXX.
Christians were hunted down by the Romans in the early days. I think that minimized the number of copies (in any language)
Then Constantine made it the state religion. Roman and Greek religion was very similar. Different names but more or less the same story.
I wouldn't be suprised that the Hebrew copies where destroyed.   

I can't verify this but it's very interesting. An argument I put a lot of weight in:

Dr Robert Lindsey, who was my pastor when I was growing up in Israel, translated the book of Mark from Greek into Hebrew. He discovered something rather interesting. He found that when he read the translation in Hebrew rather then from Greek, it made more sense. It wasn't as disjointed as it was in Greek, rather it began to flow and many of the things that were written even had more meaning to the Hebrew ear.

Papias (150-170 C.E.)  Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.  (quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)
==> So Matthew wrote the original in Hebrew and then later translated it (into Greek) 

Ireneus (170 C.E.) Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.  (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)                 
==> What was the dialect of the Hebrews?


Origen (c. 210 C.E.) The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)   
==> This sounds like they knew the originals where in Hebrew but they no longer use/have them....?


Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.) Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.  (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24)


Epiphanius (370 C.E.)  They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.  (Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
==> The Nazrenes only had a large part of Matthew. That sounds a bit like only Matthew was ever in Hebrew but I'm sure they likely would have given their life to get the whole NT in Hebrew if they felt is was superior. But it's also unlikely if Matthew was the only Hebrew book they accidently lost part of it. There is a gap in history around that time. Lot's of material (also secular) was lost when libraries where burned down in wars.


Jerome (382 C.E.)  "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.  Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.  I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it.  In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies
==> Strange quote. First is sounds like Matthew was written (composed) in Hebrew but a bit later it sounds like it was translated after the Greek was finished because Hebrew people could not read Greek.
==> Again only Matthew is mentioned. Why always Matthew and not the others?

[WhiteWings]

http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Was%20the%20New%20Testament%20Originally%20Greek.htm

Every book written in the New Testament was written by Israelites whose native language was Hebrew (with the possible exception of Luke). This raises the question, were any of the 27 New Testament books first penned in Greek? Some critics declare that in spite of the preponderance of Israelite authors, the entirety of the New Testament was written in the Greek language.

A number of competent scholars, however, contend that the New Testament was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic, a sister language), basing their assertion on valid grounds.

"The writers were Hebrews; and thus, while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew

At the time of the Messiah, Koine Greek language was the international language. The Hebrew Old Testament had already been translated into Greek, known as the "Septuagint," from the Latin Septuaginta meaning "70" and often represented by the Roman numerals LXX. It is said that 72 Jewish translators sent from Jerusalem produced the version for Ptolemy II for his library in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century BCE.

John (Yahchanan) 19:19-20 reveals that Hebrew, Latin, and Greek were the languages spoken in Palestine at the time the Savior was impaled. Not all understood Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. When the Messiah was teaching His disciples on this earth, the Koine Greek continued as the international language, but was relatively unknown or not understood in the rural towns nor by the Apostles, according to French archaeologist Ernest Renan.

Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source.

"The break between "Gentile Catholicsim" and "Jewish Christianity" came when the "al-Rum" [Roman or Byzantine Christians] complained to the Roman governors about the Jews. They were told by the Roman rulers that if they would separate themselves, praying as the Romans do (while facing east), eating things Romans eat, regarding as permissible such as Romans do, then the Romans would extend special favor to the Gentile Christian body, according to Pines.

When the Gentile Catholics reported this offer to their fellow companions [Hebrew Christians], they were rebuffed. The Romans should have no part in determining the religion of the Messiah, contended the Hebrew Christians. They refused to surrender their New Testaments, but gathered them and fled. The Gentile Catholics reported this to the Romans, who accordingly made a search for them, capturing some who were burned or killed, page 15.

Author Pines discusses how the Gentile Catholics took counsel to replace the New Testament Evangel, seeing that the true and original was lost to them. They constructed their own. A great part of what was contained in the original was missing in their version. Acquaintances among the Gentile Christians were those who remembered much of the true Evangel, but because they were attempting to establish a following, the Gentile Catholics refrained from communicating with them. Quoting from author Pines concerning the Gentile Christians:

"Then there is not among these a Gospel written in the language of [Messiah], which was spoken by Him and His companions, namely the Hebrew language, which is that of Abraham, the Friend of [YHWH] and of the other prophets, the language which was spoken by them and in which the Books of [YHWH] were revealed to them and to the other Children of Israel, and which [YHWH] addressed them. They have abandoned this language.

"Thus there is no Christian among them who in observing a religious obligation recites these Gospels in the Hebrew language: he does not do so out of ruse using a stratagem, in order to avoid public shame," pp. 16-17.

Pines goes on to show the reason they declined to use the Hebrew language was that "the people of the Book" who spoke Hebrew quickly recognized the error and deception of the Gentiles Catholic's gospel, such as quotations from counterfeit authorities. Thus, they employed a language other than Hebrew so the men of knowledge would not grasp their teaching.

Pines notes the Gentile Catholics, "Accordingly, they gave up Hebrew and took up numerous other languages which had not been spoken by [Messiah] and His companions," page 17, ibid.

"…Jewish Christian authors…also deplored the fact that the Christians…no longer read the Gospels in Hebrew, the language of [Yahsha], and all the prophets. Quite clearly, these Jewish Christians believed that they preserved and continued (perhaps clandestinely) the traditions of the first not yet corrupted Christian community of Jerusalem founded by the immediate disciples of [Yahsha] who professed His religion, i.e.…observed the Mosaic Commandments," page 65.

Pines goes on to recount how those denouncing the Hebrew Evangel were triumphant in their use of foreign languages to convert many nations. This gave them the opportunity to bypass the Hebrew Scriptures who were numerous among the Jews. Thus, the Hebrew language and the Old Testament were set aside and Israelite laws ignored as more and more pagans took up New Testament "Christianity."

When Catholicsim became the state religion of Rome, the position of the Hebrew Christians worsened. They were the minority, and their beliefs became the heresy of the Romanized Christian world. The Hebrew Christians found it easier to gather with the Jews at the synagogue (as did Paul), for both groups observed the Old Testament laws. However, paganism was baptized by the church and had become the state religion.

If we can rely upon Pines' work, it is quite understandable that when Titus and his Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E., and Hadrian put down the revolt of Bar Kochba in 135 C.E., that the Jews became fair game because of their insurrection. Along with the Jews, however, were the converts to the Messiah who continued to worship in the synagogue and Temple rather than take up the pagan celebrations of Gentile Catholicsim.

Angry, Hadrian was determined to destroy Jerusalem, vowing there would never be a city there. The Hebrew Scriptures had been misinterpreted by the Jews, assuming Ezekiel was referring to Rome as the enemy that would be overcome. Hebrew Scriptures were blamed for the Jewish insurrection. The Romans took vengeance upon the Jews, not recognizing converts to the Messiah. Unaware of a Hebrew New Testament, the Romans destroyed all Hebrew texts, including Hebrew scrolls of the Hebrew-Christian New Testament as well. Rome did not differentiate between Old and New Testament Hebrew writings nor between Jews and Hebrew Christians.
Later came a division between the religion of the Jews and the New Testament believers in the Messiah. Not only were the Romans responsible for eradicating many Hebrew New Testaments, but the Jews themselves took part in such activity.

Please read the whole article. To summarize: There where many Hebrew copies but the Romans destroyed most of them.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.hebrewnewtestament.com/samples.htm

ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
Check out the few sample pages...

$64 from this site
$47 from Amazon
Reviewshttp://aramaicnt.com/
Matthew 25:46 sound very much like KJVhttp://www.archive.org/details/newtestamentorb00murdgoog
Free and downloadable in many formats: http://ia600307.us.archive.org/26/items/newtestamentorb00murdgoog/

[eaglesway]

If true, then aionios as a translated word from hebrew meaning everlasting or eternal in the absolute sense is even less likely than it is now.

Exactly true- its all about "olam", a word that was used with great variety of meaning, because it was modified by the subject it was combined with.

So, to look to Plato or Aristotle for meaning regarding aion/aionios is futile, since their thoughts to not follow in the chain of language and thought our scriptures originate from, thousands of years before them.

What do ya kno! Looks like we have to interpret the scriptures from the scriptures. Well, Hallelujah! What a surprise!

I stumbled on this on the net and it presents some conclusions I agree with (which don't make em tru of course)

   "The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time"(Jeff A. Benner).

I have also seen that "olam" is used in relation to time(aion) and world(kosmos), so that it sometimes refers to an unkown or variable time, and sometimes refers to  a world beyond the horizon, or the "other world", and is often in the OT used simply as "world". Hence, the reason we have "aion" sometimes rendered "age" and sometimes rendered "world" in the KJV and others- is that "olam" was the original Hebrew word in both usages and was able to fit both contexts in Hebrew.

[Cardinal]

  The Lord told me about 18 years ago, that the church (which bases it's doctrines on the book) had become Helenized. If the church is Helenized, it's because the book has been Helenized. I didn't even know what the word meant, at the time; I had to look it up. Then I understood why He had had me from the beginning, "find" the words of the NT in the Hebrew meanings. And my eyes began to be opened to the OT in the NT and the NT in the OT. Let's look at something in the Hebrew bible......

Nehemiah 8:6 'Ezra blessed ADONAI, the great God; and all the people answered, "Amen! Amen!" as they lifted up their hands, bowed their heads and fell prostrate before ADONAI with their faces to the ground. 7 The L'vi'im Yeshua, Bani, Sherevyah, Yamin, 'Akuv, Shabtai, Hodiyah, Ma'aseiyah, K'lita, 'Azaryah, Yozavad, Hanan and P'layah explained the Torah to the people, while the people remained in their places. 8 They read clearly from the scroll, in the Torah of God, translated it, and enabled them to understand the sense of what was being read.

What was being read above, was out of Deuteronomy pertaining to the feast of Tabernacles. The root word of Torah, comes from a word meaning "to teach", and so it means, "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction, ie. what Christendom is calling the "Word" from the Greek "logos", which to them for the most part, is considered the whole book, or if they contemplate Torah at all, it's only understood to be the first LITERAL NATURAL, 5 books of the OT, given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Now if you understand that the Torah, which is perfect/complete as the modern day Bible codes have proven, and that the language itself is "mystical" in that it is a "house or vehicle" to "carry" the Spirit, and a writing from which all others emanate from like rays from the sun, and is also what Christendom is calling the "Word", then let's take that thought further but "in reverse".......

In the beginning was the TORAH, and the TORAH was with God, and the TORAH was God......

The Torah is God's wisdom, will, and innermost desires, and in the case of the man Jesus Christ or Yahshua HaMachiach, "the Anointed One that saves", is the Torah (invisible) made flesh (visible). It is His SOUL. And Jesus was the Torah made flesh.....

That the Torah pre-existed in/as the heart of God, and was unveiled to His creation in the beginning, is shown by Adam's sons knowing to present sacrifices, which Adam, the first priest of God, would have shown them. Noah was told to take clean and unclean animals into the ark, WAY before Moses received the commandment to write the revelation of the full Torah, down. Abraham knew to give tithes to Melchisedek, again, before the Torah was commanded to be written down by Moses on Sinai.

Again, the Torah is not mere words on a page, but the blueprint of the TRUE, a vehicle or house, for that which is Spiritual and invisible.  Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of the OT = building upon revelations from the beginning, like rays of the sun coming from the one source of light. My  Blessings.....

[Quaesitor]

Fantastic Card.

I'm fascinated by what I'm hearing today!

[eaglesway]

Very cool.... That part about Torah as the soul of Christ....beautiful.

Lo it is written in the volume of the book of me.... I COME TO DO THY WILL O GOD!

Zeal for Thine house CONSUMES ME!

You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity,therefore God, even your God with the oil of gladness above all your fellows

    O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
(Psa 119:97-100)

[Cardinal]

  @ Eaglesway.....technically both are true, but what I was pointing out is that Christ (means anointing or anointed one) which is Spirit, is the soul of God, the invisible Torah. A son and his father are not one in the flesh, as a mother and her son are in the womb, EXCEPT as the SEED is in the father's loins before it ever enters the mother's womb.

This is why our mother is as wisdom and she has been hidden in the Father's heart, lest she be put to an open shame by those that despise wisdom. Those that despise wisdom are breaking the first commandment with promise, ie. that our days might be long upon the earth. This is also why it was said that a man shall leave FATHER AND MOTHER and cleave unto His wife. Who was Adam's mother that he had to leave? And who was Christ's (speaking of the heavenly Christ, not the man Jesus), that He had to leave to cleave unto the church?

This is why Joseph, Mary's husband, was righteous by thinking to put Mary away, lest she be put to an open shame. God's Seed, Christ, was  both in His loins, AND in the womb of the morning (wisdom, New Jerusalem which is above), ie. already in existance before He manifested Him as Jesus, the son of man.

This is how He was the Torah made flesh or natural, and why it says, Thy Word (TORAH) is Truth, and why it says when the Spirit of Truth (TORAH) shall come unto you.......the Spirit of Truth is God's Spirit, which is Christ,/anointing or anointed one (Seed), which is the Torah "UN-scrolled".

When the Word (TORAH) made flesh, was transfiigured on the mount, the "scroll" was opened and "it" was "read" ie. HEARD by the disciples who heard GOD'S VOICE, witnessing that this is the true TORAH.  In the same principle, that "scroll" is opened and "read", when the "heavens" (our carnal minds) are rent (ROLLED BACK like a curtain/veil), and we "HEAR".

It's the returning to the garden when Adam walked with God in the cool (runs into meaning of His breath) of the day. Man shall not live (or have Christ/anointed life) by bread (scroll/letter) alone but every word (spirit-breathed Torah) that proceeds from the mouth of the Father. The Father is a Spirit, and the word that came from His mouth, is Spirit. Blessings......

[Quaesitor]

This is why our mother is as wisdom and she has been hidden in the Father's heart, lest she be put to an open shame by those that despise wisdom. Those that despise wisdom are breaking the first commandment with promise, ie. that our days might be long upon the earth. This is also why it was said that a man shall leave FATHER AND MOTHER and cling unto His wife. Who was Adam's mother that he had to leave? And who was Christ's (speaking of the heavenly Christ, not the man Jesus), that He had to leave to cling unto the church?

Awesome!
I'm seeing deeper that I ever saw before!

[Cardinal]

  I'm glad.......sorry though, I know that word there is "cleave" not "cling"...... LOL

[eaglesway]

the Day is definitely cool, and it is His breath that makes it so, and I catch your drift 

[WhiteWings]

The authors make a very convincing case that the Synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark and Luke) were based on a lost Hebrew text. The translation into Greek was not idiomatic but literal and that is why many of the words of Jesus do not seem to make sense. These Gospels are full of Hebrew idioms and expressions that were taken literally into the Greek and subsequent translations of other languages. Most of the idioms that Jesus used can be understood only in a Hebrew context. The assumption that the entire New Testament was originally communicated in Aramaic has led to significant misunderstandings on the part of both scholars and laypersons.

Firstly, the authors examine the Aramaic and Greek theories. Contrary to the consensus, it now appears that Hebrew was very much alive as a spoken language at the time of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls also point in this direction. As proof, the authors cite scholars like M H Segal, Matthew Black and Max Wilcox. Many words in the Greek versions are not just poor Greek but actually meaningless Greek, because of the literal translation. The undertext reveals a Hebrew original.

Recent linguistic research confirms that Hebrew was the spoken language of Israel at the time of Christ. This knowledge is enabling scholars to correct the numerous mistranslations in the English text, which was translated from the Greek. Some of the scholars quoted are Jehoshua M Grintz, David Flusser, Moshe Bar-Asher, Pinhas Lapide, Harris Birkeland, William Sanford LaSor, Frank Cross and Abbe J T Milik.

Chapter 4 explores the extra-biblical evidence for Hebrew in the writings of Josephus and the Anti-Nicene Fathers, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, on coins and inscriptions and in Rabbinic literature. The case for Hebrew is overwhelming.

But the most convincing indication of the Hebrew origin of these three Gospels can be found in the text itself. The Hebrew undertext is revealed in the sentence structure and the many literalisms and idioms that are peculiar to Hebrew. The authors provide many examples in which confusing passages immediately become clear when translated back into Hebrew.

Chapter 6 considers the theological error due to mistranslation. Unfortunately there are passages of which the mistranslation has caused significant error and unnecessary theological controversies. Thus, the expression Kingdom of Heaven primarily means the community of believers, not the future kingdom. It also becomes clear that Jesus did indeed claim to be the Saviour, by inter alia referring to himself as the "Green Tree", a messianic title. The book also dispels other myths like the ones about pacifism, martyrdom and giving without discernment.

In the Appendix, David Bivin deals with many particular texts in detail, including Matt 5:3, Luke 23:31, Matt 11:12, Luke 12:49 - 50, Matt 16:19, Matt 5:20, Matt 5:17 & 18 (about the iota and tittle). It is quite disturbing to think that for almost two millennia, believers did not read the true meaning that Jesus intended. How strange that this should only have come to light in the last century, and that most modern translations of the Bible still contain the incorrect and confusing translations!

Black and white photographs and illustrations enhance the text throughout. The book concludes with a bibliography and biographical information on the authors. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus is a compelling read, but too short. What it reveals has enormous implications for Christianity. Another book that sheds light on this matter is Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, by Dr Ron Moseley.
A large portion of the texts we have today from around the time of the first century were discovered during my lifetime. The authors make a strong, well-supported case, based on many of these writings of the era, that the common spoken language in Israel at the time (at the very least, for religions discussions and teachings) was Hebrew, not Aramaic, and especially not Greek. They make the further case that the language of the synoptic gospels, especially the sayings attributed to Jesus, have a linguistic structure, vocabulary, and idiomatic expression that make them much more likely to be a (perhaps hasty) translation of Hebrew into Greek, rather than something originally written in Greek. They cite several specific examples where this understanding lets some otherwise puzzling passages make sense. Other scholars have carried this idea further by comparing these passages with other rabbinic writings and teachings of the day.
/EDIT #1 The above review was from this book.

EDIT #2 I wonder if there are already translations that take advantage of this recent research. (Recent is before May 2005)

[Cardinal]

 

[Cardinal]

  This is only SLIGHTLY off topic WW, so don't stone me, but since we're discussing things Jewish on this thread......I was reading an article this morning about why the Jews (for one) don't believe God did anything to disannul Torah which Christendom basically teaches (I don't believe He did either, He just internalized it into spiritually apprehended concepts). Found it interesting that they consider Christianity a "breakaway sect" from Judaism, same as the Sadducees. Anyway, they site as the main reason, they don't believe it is because God spoke to 3 million Jews at Mt. Sinai.

They didn't go up to see Him face to face as Moses did, but they heard Him speak, and they said He gave Moses Torah, not just the 10 words (commandments), which makes perfect sense. Moses was the only one allowed to retain all of it so He could write it, which also makes perfect sense spiritually. So they reasoned that if He changed anything He would not have told one or two men as with other religions, but that He would have spoken to many.

We know He did at the day of Pentecost, the 3000. I knew the 3000 lined up with the 3000 He slew in one day in the OT, but something about that number struck me, in relation to the 3 million. Then it hit me: 3000 X 10 = 30,000 X 10 = 300,000 X 10 = 3,000,000!

What is astonishing about that, is that 10 X 10 X 10 = 1000, the dimensions of the Holy of Holies, which is as a perfect cube, and represents, among other things: the 7th day, the Day of the Lord, the day of our rest, our Sabbath, Christ perfected, the Kingdom of God, the 3rd 1000-year-day from Christ.

Additionally, a tithe of 3000 is 300. If you multiply that tithe 300 X 1000 it equals the 3,000,000 again. Just a little "sacred mathematics"   I saw.......Blessings.....

[WhiteWings]

This is only SLIGHTLY off topic WW,

That already happend several replies ago...

so don't stone me, but since we're discussing things Jewish on this thread......I was reading an article this morning about why the Jews (for one) don't believe God did anything to disannul Torah which Christendom basically teaches (I don't believe He did either, He just internalized it into spiritually apprehended concepts).

What verse is supposed to teach God did that?

[Cardinal]

so don't stone me, but since we're discussing things Jewish on this thread......I was reading an article this morning about why the Jews (for one) don't believe God did anything to disannul Torah which Christendom basically teaches (I don't believe He did either, He just internalized it into spiritually apprehended concepts).

What verse is supposed to teach God did that?

  Did what? Internalized it, or that Christendom teaches he disannulled it?