The Language Barrier
While religious Jews (such as the Nazarene Apostles) have always written Scripture in Hebrew (and/or in its sister tongue, Aramaic) in Acts 11:26 we read something very peculiar. Here we are told that the Apostles were first called by the Greek linguistic term ‘Christians’, at Antioch: 26 And the disciples were first called ‘Christians’ at Antioch. [Acts 11:26]
The Church teaches us to accept this passage as simple factual information, but this statement should cause any real scholar serious pause. The Oracles of Elohim were entrusted to the Jews (meaning religiously devout Hebrews): 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of Elohim. [Romaya (Romans) 3:1-2]
As we will verify below, the Jews have always spoken Hebrew; so why are we told that the disciples were called by a Greek linguistic term, when Jews consider the Greek language abominable?
Why are we told that these Torah-zealous Hebrew disciples, who had purposefully never learned to speak any other language than the synagogue languages of Hebrew and/or Aramaic (and who despised all other languages as errant corruptions) would first be called by a Greek-linguistic term at Antioch, when they would have found the use of a Greek term in a religious context abhorrent?
Acts Chapter Eleven takes place perhaps ten years after Yahshua’s Ascent. If the Jews had spoken Greek as their day-to-day language, and if Greek had been just as good to their ears as Hebrew, then the disciples would have called themselves ‘Christians’ long before Acts Chapter Eleven.
The Western Church informs us that Greek was the lingua franca (the common day-to-day language) of first century Judea; but this is contrary to history. Josephus spoke Greek, but that was only because he had been educated as an aristocrat. He was far more educated than the majority of the other Jews of his day, and although he eventually wrote most of his works in Greek, he tells us he was just one of a handful of Jews who could read or write the language; and even then, he was unable to speak it fluently. He tells us that the Hebrews did not like to learn Greek.
If even scholarly Josephus had difficulty in pronouncing Greek with sufficient exactness (though he had taken great pains to learn it), then how are we to believe that the uneducated fishermen who later became the Nazarene Apostles would have had either the time or the inclination, to learn how to speak it? Moreover, why would they write their epistles in it? Are we to assume that the Nazarenes wrote their epistles in a language that they did not speak, read or write, and which they found morally repugnant?
Is it not far more intelligent to assume that the uneducated Jewish (i.e. religiously-observant) Apostles wrote their epistles in the only languages that they knew; which would have been the synagogue languages of Hebrew and/or Aramaic? Jews have always maintained that Scripture is only properly written in the original divine tongue of Hebrew; and/or its sister Semitic tongue, Aramaic. For this reason, Hebrew and Aramaic have always been the only official languages of the synagogue. Remembering that the Nazarenes were Jews (in the religious sense of the word), they would have known that if they wanted their epistles to be read aloud in the synagogues, then their epistles would have to have been written either in Hebrew, or in Aramaic.
That Yahshua and His Apostles spoke Syriac Aramaic is becoming widely accepted by scholars. Although the two languages are different, the speakers of the one language could often understand the speakers of the other, particularly since the languages are related, and both were used in the synagogue. If that is true, then it would also explain why the Hebrew speakers in Jerusalem were able to identify Kefa as being one of Yahshua’s disciples, merely from having listened to his speech (which would have been in Aramaic): 70 And a little later those who stood by said to Kefa again, "Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.” [Marqaus (Mark) 14:70]
It should also not be seen as a coincidence that the Church of the East has had an Aramaic version of the New Covenant since ancient times. Even though Galilean Yahshua and the majority of His Apostles probably did speak Aramaic, several of the Church fathers (Papias, Ireneus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, et al) tell us that the Apostle Matthew (who may have been from Jerusalem) first penned his epistle in Hebrew; and that it was then translated into other languages. Eusebius says: Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39] Ireneus tells us: Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Ireneus, 170 CE, Against Heresies 3:1]
Beyond this, the Church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerome all tell us that the Apostle Shaul originally wrote his epistle to the Hebrews not in Greek, but in Hebrew: The epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks. [Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2]
There are many more examples, but rather than fill many pages with them, let us ask ourselves just one simple question: Why would a native Hebrew speaker (such as Shaul) write a letter to the Hebrews in Greek? The idea just simply makes no sense; especially not when ancient manuscripts of the New Covenant exist in the Aramaic the Apostles actually spoke; and this Text has been in continuous use since ancient times. What is more, while the New Testament writings make perfect grammatical sense (and flow smoothly) in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, they often read like clumsy translations in Greek. As an example, Greeks never begin a sentence with a conjunction such as “And…” or “For….” However, this practice is perfectly acceptable both in Hebrew, and in Aramaic.
There are many other linguistic reasons why the New Covenant was not inspired in Greek. The Church, however, likes to use one passage in Matthew as proof that the Book of Matthew was written in Greek. This is interesting, considering that even the Church Fathers tell us that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. A Greek inspiration is one of the most cherished of all Christian myths. It was a necessary myth, in that only by telling their people that the Hebrew language was unnecessary was the Church able to spread the Good News so far, so rapidly. [Since the English language is largely derived from the Greek language, this makes perfect sense.]
Next Page - Misunderstandings in Christianity and Twisted Scripture - Click HERE .