Is There Any Evidence that the New Testament was Originally Written in Greek?

[praise_yeshua]

As I suspected. No one can provide direct evidence that the New Testament text was originally written in Greek. Or this would have been provided very quickly and the purpose of the thread would have been met. That this has not and can not be done should show the very weak position for people who continually claim Greek primacy.

The Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament | The Bart Ehrman Blog

I have begun to explain the field of “textual criticism,” the academic discipline that tries to establish what an author actually wrote if you don’t have his original but only copies made from later times. In this post I begin to summarize some of the most important information about the…

ehrmanblog.org

Maybe you will accept the words of an enemy of the NT.

"All of the NT writings were originally produced in Greek"

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the first. It contains a portion of the Gospel of John from the early 2nd century.

Hey..... BTW. Make sure you read all of the reference provided.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Note: Looking for actual evidence. Not by those that don't know that 150 AD is NOT in the first century.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As far as I know, the only early extant NT documents and fragments we have are in Greek. I'm not aware of any extant Aramaic NT documents, so it's of no use to speculate if there are any differences (assuming Aramaic was used in any of them).

 

[praise_yeshua]

Note: Looking for actual evidence. Not by those that don't know that 150 AD is NOT in the first century.

Who said anything about the first century?

 

[praise_yeshua]

As far as I know, the only early extant NT documents and fragments we have are in Greek. I'm not aware of any extant Aramaic NT documents, so it's of no use to speculate if there are any differences (assuming Aramaic was used in any of them).

There isn't any. There are Old Syriac documents that are from a different dialect of Aramaic. I keep mention this to him and he keeps ignoring it.

He believes there is some "smoking gun" manuscript in the Vatican archives that will make the connection for him. It is a preposterous position.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Note: Looking for actual evidence. Not by those that don't know that 150 AD is NOT in the first century.

How much work have you put into this "rabbit hole" you're been in for years? It should be humbling.

Everyone of us make mistakes and waste time. That is why we aren't born fully grown. It takes time for our stubbornness to be broken.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

As far as I know, the only early extant NT documents and fragments we have are in Greek. I'm not aware of any extant Aramaic NT documents, so it's of no use to speculate if there are any differences (assuming Aramaic was used in any of them).

Yes, the earliest is around 150 AD (unlike some here who think that means it was written in the first century, LOL). However, the entire point even in my first post of this thread, is that does NOT prove the text was originally written in Greek. It only proves that there was a Greek manuscript in existence around 150 AD.

Where is the evidence for Greek originals in the first century?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, the earliest is around 150 AD (unlike some here who think that means it was written in the first century, LOL). However, the entire point even in my first post of this thread, is that does NOT prove the text was originally written in Greek. It only proves that there was a Greek manuscript in existence around 150 AD.

Where is the evidence for Greek originals in the first century?

Where is the existence of the Aramaic originals in the first century?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, the earliest is around 150 AD (unlike some here who think that means it was written in the first century, LOL). However, the entire point even in my first post of this thread, is that does NOT prove the text was originally written in Greek. It only proves that there was a Greek manuscript in existence around 150 AD.

Where is the evidence for Greek originals in the first century?

You keep repeating yourself.

Tell me, where is the Aramaic canonical council that defined the accepted books of the NT?

It is worse than you even know. You haven't said a thing about the canon distribution of the manuscripts. The fact is, you don't know.

 

[Frank Russell]

What evidence is there that the New Testament text was originally written in the Greek language?

The main evidence is how well the gospel spread back then.

If the gospels were originally in Hebrew, it would have remained a Jew only cult.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The main evidence is how well the gospel spread back then.

If the gospels were originally in Hebrew, it would have remained a Jew only cult.

Very true. If it was written in Hebrew, only those who understood Hebrew would benefit. During that era only the religious leaders knew Hebrew. Not even the common people knew Hebrew.

So how well did the Gospel spread? The Greek text spread west through the Roman Empire. And the Aramaic text spread east through the Parthian Empire, to India and beyond all the way to China. So which text did more to spread the Gospel? Which one proves that the original text was in Greek?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Very true. If it was written in Hebrew, only those who understood Hebrew would benefit. During that era only the religious leaders knew Hebrew. Not even the common people knew Hebrew.

So how well did the Gospel spread? The Greek text spread west through the Roman Empire. And the Aramaic text spread east through the Parthian Empire, to India and beyond all the way to China. So which text did more to spread the Gospel? Which one proves that the original text was in Greek?

You're asking over simplistic questions. You have nothing without dealing with the timing of the canonical acceptance of each individual work.

Lets just assume what you're setting as the "standard" is true. It isn't... but lets just say it is.

1. They were written at different times. Some decades apart.
2. They were written by different authors. Some authors had more appeal than others.
3. You have absolutely NO Syriac council that defined what books were included when. You're taking the clearly definable integrity of the Greek NT history and "PIGGYBACK" your nonsense along with it.

Clear define the canonical process of the Syriac text and when each book in your canon was accepted thereby gaining extended distribution.

Your assumptions here are extraordinarily rudimentary. They are leading you to conclusion that are not there.

Your text of choice went into the "desert" to die in comparison to the Greek pedigree.

 

[Diserner]

Where is the existence of the Aramaic originals in the first century?

Or copies, any fragments whatsoever, in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries.

Why only the 5th century does it show up?!

This is the single biggest objection.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Or copies, any fragments whatsoever, in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries.

Why only the 5th century does it show up?!

This is the single biggest objection.

This "fact" is only tangential to this topic. It's a red herring. It's a dodge from the actual point of the topic.

You think that if you can somehow discredit any other manuscript language other than Greek, that will somehow prove that the texts were originally written in Greek? Really? That's not how scientific evidence works (usually).

Currently, there is (as I keep pointing out) evidence that a Greek scrap of John's Gospel existed around 150 AD. What's preventing someone from claiming that the Greek text was first written in 149 AD, for example?

 

[Diserner]

Currently, there is (as I keep pointing out) evidence that a Greek scrap of John's Gospel existed around 150 AD. What's preventing someone from claiming that the Greek text was first written in 149 AD, for example?

The fact that there is no other NT manuscript whatsoever found that old.

The original manuscript will be the source of all subsequent copies and the most venerated, so we should expect more fragments left behind.

One can formulate any number of conspiracy theories that are literally possible, one could just claim it was originally written in Latin and formulate a whole theory behind it.

The lack of early Latin manuscripts is the most direct evidence against the claim.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This "fact" is only tangential to this topic. It's a red herring. It's a dodge from the actual point of the topic.

You think that if you can somehow discredit any other manuscript language other than Greek, that will somehow prove that the texts were originally written in Greek? Really? That's not how scientific evidence works (usually).

Currently, there is (as I keep pointing out) evidence that a Greek scrap of John's Gospel existed around 150 AD. What's preventing someone from claiming that the Greek text was first written in 149 AD, for example?

150 AD is a general estimate. Most consider within a range of 125 to 175 AD. The fact you're appealing to "149" says "what" about your argument.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The fact that there is no other NT manuscript whatsoever found that old.

The original manuscript will be the source of all subsequent copies and the most venerated, so we should expect more fragments left behind.

One can formulate any number of conspiracy theories that are literally possible, one could just claim it was originally written in Latin and formulate a whole theory behind it.

The lack of early Latin manuscripts is the most direct evidence against the claim.

Not true. That is no evidence at all of Greek being the original language. There is only evidence that it existed mid 2nd century. No earlier.

"conspiracy theory"? Here we go. More attempts at discrediting anything other than Greek primacy because there is no actual evidence for Greek being the original language.

There's a very good reason based on scribal practices of the time as to why there are no Aramaic manuscripts found of that early period. It's the same as to why there are no Hebrew manuscripts of that period either. The Jewish scribal tradition held the manuscripts in such high regard, they were almost "living" things. The texts had the tetragrammaton - the name of Yahweh - contained within. Yes, the Aramaic New Testament text contains the tetragrammaton many times. The Greek text not a single time. When the scrolls/codices wore out and could no longer be used, they had already been copied multiple times. The worn out ones weren't just put on a shelf or stored away. They were completely destroyed. The respect for the written name of Yahweh was so great that this "living" text was removed from this world so that it could not have the chance of being defiled.

The Greek scribes had no such respect for the text. That was completely foreign to their religious tradition. In fact, it is well known that in later centuries, because vellum was so valuable, sometimes scribes would scrape off existing manuscripts and use it again to write a completely different text.

So it keeps coming back to the search for the hard proof, the unassailable facts behind why there's such a dogmatic stance for Greek primacy.

 

[synergy]

There's a very good reason based on scribal practices of the time as to why there are no Aramaic manuscripts found of that early period. It's the same as to why there are no Hebrew manuscripts of that period either. The Jewish scribal tradition held the manuscripts in such high regard, they were almost "living" things. The texts had the tetragrammaton - the name of Yahweh - contained within. Yes, the Aramaic New Testament text contains the tetragrammaton many times. The Greek text not a single time. When the scrolls/codices wore out and could no longer be used, they had already been copied multiple times. But they weren't just put on a shelf or stored away. They were completely destroyed. The respect for the written name of Yahweh was so great that this "living" text was removed from this world so that it could not have the chance of being defiled.

What happened to the "copied" ones? Were they also burned a la Nazi style? Dang, Book burning Nihilists were left with no books to burn because of your cohorts.

The Greek scribes had no such respect for the text. That was completely foreign to their religious tradition. In fact, it is well known that in later centuries, because vellum was so valuable, sometimes scribes would scrape off existing manuscripts and use it again to write a completely different text.

Are you a JW? You sound like one.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

What happened to the "copied" ones? Were they also burned a la Nazi style? Dang, Book burning Nihilists were left with no books to burn because of your cohorts.

Are you a JW? You sound like one.

I truly and honestly have no idea what you are saying. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[synergy]

I truly and honestly have no idea what you are saying. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Because you disregard history and the vital role that the Greek OT (LXX) played with its κυριον naming of God then of course it doesn't make sense to you. Carry on with your JW view of history.