Hebrew/Aramaic Origin of the Brit Chadash
(sn- New Testament)
is evidence which clearly points towards the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) being originally written in Hebrew and not Greek.Churchianity (Christianity) itself is tainted with Greek thinking,
Hellenized creeds, and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Greek-translated Brit Chadash (sn-
New Testament). Scholarship is increasingly validating
the case for a Hebrew original Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament). We include some of their documentation in this short study.
Examining all the evidence, we conclude that
the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek. The testimony
to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews. At the end of this article is a list of scholars and their writings supporting
an original Hebrew Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament). This list is by no means comprehensive. Other enlightened experts have
come to the same realization that the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) was originally a collection of Hebrew works. The Scriptures's
Hebrew writers were led by the Set-Apart Spirit (sn- Holy Spirit) to write in their native Hebrew language, just as Paul (sn-
Paul) was spoken to from On High in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14.
Chadash (sn- New Testament) Based on Old
Scriptures student soon realizes that the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking.
This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) believer. If the
Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture
and are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth. Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek Brit Chadash
(sn- New Testament) bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly
Hebrew work? Is the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new
truth flavored with Hellenistic (Greek) thought, practice, and understanding? Not according to the Apostle Shaul (sn- Paul). He wrote that the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament)
is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20. Yahusha ha Mashiach (Messiah)
the Messiah gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," Yahuchanon (sn- John) 5:39. The only "scriptures"
existant at that time were those of the Old Testament. The Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) writings were not yet finished
and compiled. In His parable of Lazarus, Yahusha
ha Mashiach (Messiah) again advised the unknowing to listen to "(sn- Moshah) and the prophets," meaning
the Old Testament, Lukah (sn- Luke) 16:29. It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans"
used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Shaul (sn- Paul) told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Aside from approaching truth from the right scriptural
foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the Brit Chadash (sn- New
Testament). One of the arguments advanced against
the verity of the set-apart (sn- sacred) Names is that the Names would appear as "God" (Theos) and "Jesus"
in the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) Greek text. The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the "original"
texts, then who are we to change them to something else? The issue though is that these names weren’t in the “original
texts!Apart from this argument's erroneous premise
("God" is not the same word as the Greek Theos: "Jesus" is only partly a Greek term), we must
ask, is it legitimate to change someone's name simply because you are writing about him in some other language? Names are
transliterated, not translated. Names don’t change pronounciation.If a book about the president of the United States were written in or translated into Russian,
would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for "Barack Obama?" Of course not. His name would
still appear as Barack Obama. By the same token,
the Father and Son’s Name are the same in every language. Therefore we must call on them by their name revealed through
the Hebrew tongue. There is no more a Russian equivalent name for "Barack Obama" than there is a Greek or English
equivalent of the Hebrew "YAHUAH" and "YAHUAH ha Mashiach." "God", "Lord", and "Jesus"
are not equivalents, they are REPLACEMENTS.
Hebrew Words Out of Place?
discrepancy within the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) is this: if the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) were originally composed
in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew
terms in their Greek writings? The only valid
explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew
text and translated into Greek. These Hebrew
survivals attest to a Hebrew original - and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the
Hebrew. The following HEBREW words are included
in the King James Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), as taken from the Greek translation (some are Aramaic). Abba ("dearest father"); Messiah ("Anointed one");
Rabbi ("my teacher"); hosanna ("Save! We beseech");
Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); talitha cumi ("maid arise"); ephphatha
("be opened"); corban ("a dedicated gift"); Sabbath
("repose", "desist" from exertion); Satan ("adversary");
mammon ("riches"); raca ("to spit in one's face");
cummin (herb); Maranatha ("Master, I pray you overthrow"); Passover
("pass over"); Emmanuel (title meaning "El with us"); Eli lama
Sabachthani ("my El, why have you forsaken me?") Even more compelling evidence for a Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) originally composed in Hebrew
is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament). Many sentences contain the verb-noun
reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages. Scholars
also have long recognized that the grammar of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) does not befit good Greek, but does reflect
excellent Hebrew grammar. In addition, many Hebraic
idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament). Had the original been composed in Greek,
these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression. For example, what did YAHUAH ha Mashiach (Messiah) and others mean by statements that don't make good
sense in Greek (Or English) but are powerful in the Hebrew? Such expressions include: "If your eye is evil"
(Matt. 6:23); "let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22); "for if they do these things in a green
tree, what shall be done in the dry" (Lukah (sn- Luke) 23:31), and "thou shalt heap coals of fire on his
head" Shaul (sn- Paul) in Rom. 12:20). Numerous
examples of Semitic poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Hebrew of these books. Hebrew
is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts. For example, a beautiful expression in classical Hebrew is found in Lukah (sn- Luke) 16:23: "...he
lift up his eyes...and saw..." Other sayings peculiar to Hebrew and found in the Evangels include: "Lay
these sayings in your years," "Cast out your name as evil," "He set his face to go," and "The
appearance of his countenance was altered." Whole
sentences or paragraphs in the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) can be retranslated word for word back into the Hebrew. Lukah
(sn- Luke) 10:5-6 is just one example: "And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And
if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again." This passage is
a synthesis of vivid Hebrew idioms unknown in the Greek.
Greek Unpopular in Yahshrael (sn- Israel, Judea)Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels,
the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein). Early "church
fathers" validate that the Book of Mattthyahu (sn- Matthew) was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion
20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).
Hebrew was the language of Yahudah (sn- Judah)
and Galilee in the first century. Its sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of commerce.
Yahudite (sn-Jew) in this area were not Greek-speaking. Their revulsion to the Greeks and the Greek language derives from
the fact that the Maccabees had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine.
The eminent first century Yahudite (sn-Jew) historian,
priest, and scholar Josephus admitted that he could not speak Greek fluently and that the Yahudite (sn-Jew) frowned on any
Yahudite (sn-Jew) who did. "I have also
taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although
I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our
nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations" (Antiquities, 20:11:2).
If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak
Greek sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Greek? From what we've learned, why would they
even want to do so?
A Hebrew Writing to HebrewsThe common perception is that Shaul (sn- Paul) was a Hellenist Yahudite (sn-Jew) from Tarsus who wrote his
letters to Greek-speaking assemblies in Asia Minor, Rome and Greece. Shaul (sn- Paul) was first and foremost a Pharisee - a Yahudite (sn-Jew) sect opposed to Hellenization
(Greek way of life). He was of the tribe of Benyahmiyn (sn- Benjamin) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews," Philippians
3:5. A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression "Hebrew of Hebrews" means "in language, attitudes
and life-style." Shaul (sn- Paul) was educated
at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor of Hebrew law, Acts 22:3. Although he was born in Tarsus (a city speaking mainly Aramaic),
Shaul (sn- Paul) grew up in Yahrushaliym (Jerusalem), the center of Pharisaic Judaism, Acts 22:3. The epistles Shaul (sn- Paul) wrote were to various assemblies of the Dispersion.
Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Yahudite (sn-Jew) and supplementary collections of gentiles (read about the
Thessalonia Assembly, Acts 17:1-4, as well as the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10:1-2). The converted Yahudite (sn-Jew) in these assemblies
would receive Shaul (sn- Paul’s) letters and then teach the gentiles among them. It wasn't the gentiles who were converting
Yahudite (sn-Jew) to a Grecian-Roman faith with a Greek Savior and doctrines of mystery worship! Typically Shaul (sn- Paul) went first to the synagogue when he traveled to contact
these and other assemblies (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8). The language of the second Temple and synagogues at
this time was Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek. His
letters in Hebrew to these Yahudite (sn-Jew) and gentiles of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the
Good News to "the Yahudite (sn-Jew) first and then to the Greek," Romans 1:16. As an example, Shaul (sn- Paul) specifically addressed Yahudite (sn-Jew) of
the Corinthian assembly: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto (sn- Moshah) in the cloud and in the sea"
(1 Cor. 10:1-2).
Truth from Greek or Hebrew?
Understanding basic truth is to know that YAHUAH chose the
Hebrew peoples with whom to make a Covenant and through whom to bring the truth. How much of a gentile should the True Worshiper be who is bathing in Scriptures first delivered
to Hebrew patriarchs, Hebrew prophets, and Hebrew apostles and lived by a Savior from the human lineage of King Du’ud
(sn- David)? Shaul (sn- Paul) was no champion of the gentile cause. He was the champion of a Hebrew Messiah and scriptures
given in a Hebrew Old Testament. These were what he taught in his epistles. Note: "But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship
I the Eloah of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). "Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament
Scriptures. Which culture, world-view, and mentality
should prevail among True Worshipers today? A Greek-gentile heritage? Or the birthright of those grafted into the promised
of Yahshrael (sn- Israel) established by the Heavenly Father YAHUAH Himself? Shaul (sn- Paul) wrote to the assembly at Rome, "Who are Yahshraelites (Israelites); to whom
pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Eloah, and the promises"
(Romans 9:4). If Christianity were honest with
itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Hebrew and not Greco-Roman Scriptures. That its salvation
comes from a Savior who came as a Hebrew not to establish a new religion but to build on what went before. YAHUAH ha Mashiach
(Messiah) and the Scriptures are Hebrew. If this
one pivotal truth were taught today, real understanding of the Scriptures would break out everywhere, and the Scriptures would
at last be revealed.
Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament)
is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the Brit Chadash
(sn- New Testament): ● Matthew Black, An
Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety. ● D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus,
entirety. ● E. W. Bullinger, The
Companion Scriptures, Appendix 95. ●
Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29. ● Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel,
entirety. ● Epiphanius, Panarion
29:9:4 on Matthew. ● Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4. ● Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes
on p. 185. ● Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman
Hellenism and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), p. 14. ● Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament)
in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
entirety. ● Dr. George Lamsa, The
Holy Scriptures from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII. ● Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and
The Origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), pp. 66, 68. ● Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal
of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156. ● Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92. ● Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's
Gospel, (1927) p. 7. ●
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275. ● R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse,
entirety. ● Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents
of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety. ● Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the Brit Chadash
(sn- New Testament), entirety. ●
Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety. ● F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.