Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language????

[byrnesey]

This is a planned addition to the Misc section of the book:


23. Must the Scriptures be written in a ???global language???? ??? 2Timothy 3:16 / Acts 17:10-11

One often hears claims that the New Testament must have been written in Greek because Greek was the ???lingua franca??? of the time. Much evidence in this book and in many other sources show this claim to be much exaggerated, as Greek was in many places somewhat of an ???elitist language???. This is a fact accepted by many Greek primacist scholars today, such as the renowned Dr. Matthew Black, in his book, ???An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts???, which despite the name, promotes Greek primacy:

???Four languages were to be found in first-century Palestine: Greek was the speech of the educated ???hellenized??? classes... Aramaic was the language of the people of the land and, together with Hebrew, provided the chief literary medium of the Palestinian Jew of the first century??? ??? Dr. Matthew Black

There are many other cases where we see that Greek was an elitist language such as in Acts 21:37 where the commander seemed very surprised that Paul could speak Greek, as he thought that Paul was just an uneducated Egyptian terrorist.

However!

Even if it were true that Greek was spoken more often than not in the Biblical lands, there is no basis to assume that it must have been the language of the New Testament.

What I just said may sound odd, but the proof lies in the Bible itself:

2Timothy 3:16
All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

Acts 17:10-11
Then the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to the city of Berea; and when they arrived there, they entered into the synagogue of the Jews. For the Jews there were more liberal than the Jews who were in Thessalonica, in that they gladly heard the word daily and searched the scriptures to find out if these things were so.

Of course these references must refer to the Old Testament (OT), because the NT Scriptures were not yet completed. What language was the OT written in? Hebrew. Not Aramaic, not Greek, not Ancient Egyptian, but Hebrew. Was Hebrew ever the lingua franca of the world or, say, the Middle East? No. Now if we were given the Hebrew Scriptures for our benefit, when most of us cannot speak or read Hebrew, why is it seen as improbable that Aramaic-speakers were given an Aramaic original, even though the rest of the world spoke other languages? Why should we assume that the New Testament had to have been written in a ???global language???, when the Old Testament was not? That???s the problem with Greek primacy. It is based on assumption, not fact.

Furthermore, how many people today speak Hebrew, compared to those who speak English, or even German, French, Hindu and Chinese? Very few. Yet Christians are still to use the OT Scriptures. Basically, we have the situation that the Old Testament was written originally in a language that most people at the time, and in the present time, could/can not speak, yet Christians are still to make use of these Scriptures.

So even if Greek was the lingua franca in Yeshua???s day, is it such a stretch of the imagination that the New Testament, like the Old, would be written in a language that was (supposedly) not as wide-spread?

---

Regards,

Chris