{"id":4307,"date":"2020-01-07T21:40:30","date_gmt":"2020-01-08T04:40:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/?p=4307"},"modified":"2022-09-10T17:51:35","modified_gmt":"2022-09-10T23:51:35","slug":"new-testament-written-in-greek","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/integritysyndicate.com\/new-testament-written-in-greek\/","title":{"rendered":"New Testament Written in Greek"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\u00a0The preponderance of the evidence is that the New Testament manuscripts were originated in Greek with only the possible exceptions of Matthew and Hebrews.\u00a0<\/p>
“The language most appropriate for the propagation of this message would naturally be one that was most widely known throughout all the nations, and this language lay ready to hand. It was the Greek language, which, at the time when the gospel began to be proclaimed among all the nations, was a thoroughly international language, spoken not only around the Aegean shores but all over the Eastern Mediterranean and in other areas too. Greek was no strange tongue to the apostolic church even in the days when it was confined to Jerusalem, for the membership of the primitive Jerusalem church included Greek-speaking Jews as well as Aramaic-speaking Jews. These Greek-speaking Jewish Christians (or Hellenists) are mentioned in Acts 6:1, where we read that they complained of the unequal attention paid to the widows of their group by contrast with those of the Hebrews or Aramaic-speaking Jews. To remedy this situation seven men were appointed to take charge of it, and it is noteworthy that (to judge by their names) all seven were Greek-speaking” (p.49).<\/p>
~<\/p>
“Paul, we may say, comes roughly half-way between the vernacular and more literary styles. The Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of Peter are true literary works, and much of their vocabulary is to be understood by the aid of a classical lexicon rather than one which draws upon non-literary sources. The Gospels contain more really vernacular Greek, as we might expect, since they report so much conversation by ordinary people. This is true even of Luke’s Gospel. Luke himself was master of a fine literary literary style, as appears from the first four verses of his Gospel, but in both Gospel and Acts he adapts his style to the characters and scenes that he portrays” (p.55-56).<\/p><\/blockquote>
New Bible Dictionary<\/b><\/h4>
“The language in which the New Testament documents have been preserved is the ‘common Greek’ (koine), which was the lingua franca of the Near Eastern and Mediterranean lands in Roman times” (p.713)<\/p>
~<\/p>
“Having thus summarized the general characteristics of New Testament Greek, we may give a brief characterization of each individual author. Mark is written in the Greek of the common man. . . . Matthew and Luke each utilize the Markan text, but each corrects his solecisims, and prunes his style . . . Matthew’s own style is less distinguished than that of Luke — he writes a grammatical Greek, sober but cultivated, yet with some marked Septuagintalisms; Luke is capable of achieving momentarily great heights of style in the Attic tradition, but lacks the power to sustain these; he lapses at length back to the style of his sources or to a very humble koine.<\/p>
~<\/p>
“Paul writes a forceful Greek, with noticeable developments in style between his earliest and his latest Epistles . . . . James and I Peter both show close acquaintance with classical style, although in the former some very ‘Jewish’ Greek may also be seen. The Johannine Epistles are closely similar to the Gospels in language. . . Jude and II Peter both display a highly tortuous an involved Greek. . . The Apocalypse, as we have indicated, is sui generis in language and style: its vigour, power, and success, though a tour de force, cannot be denied” (p.715-716).<\/p>
~<\/p>
“In summary, we may state that the Greek of the New Testament is known to us today as a language ‘understanded of the people,’ and that it was used with varying degrees of stylistic attainment, but with one impetus and vigour, to express in these documents a message which at any rate for its preachers was continuous with that of the Old Testament Scriptures — a message of a living God, concerned for man’s right relation with Himself, providing of Himself the means of reconciliation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLuke-Acts was written in Greek in Alexandria<\/h2>
Greek texts affirm Luke was written in Alexandria (a Greek speaking region)<\/h3>
Colophons in Greek unical K and minuscules 5, 9, 13, 29, 124 and 346 date his Gospel to the 15th year after the Ascension, have been written at Alexandria.<\/div>Early versions of the Syriac (Aramaic Peshitta) attest that Luke and acts were written in Greek at Alexandria<\/h3>
At least ten manuscripts of the Peshitta have colophons affirming that Luke had written his Gospel at Alexandria in Greek; similar colophons can be found in the Boharic manuscripts C1 <\/sup>and E1+2 <\/sup>which date it to the 11th or 12th year of Claudis: 51-52 A.D.[1]<\/a> [2]<\/a> [3]<\/a><\/p>
[1]<\/a> Henry Frowde,\u00a0Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect<\/em>,\u00a0 Vol. 1, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898), liii, lxxxix<\/p>