POSTED 07 FEBRUARY, 2008

The Hebrew New Testament Misunderstanding

by J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net

In our post-modern society, the veracity and authority of the Holy Scriptures have come under substantial attack and criticism from those supposedly inside the realm of Biblical faith. Many of those who claim a belief in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and believe in His Son, Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), question whether or not these writings are a Divinely inspired work, or are instead only a collection of texts compiled over the centuries prone to human error. The result of those who question the Creator God, and do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is that they view the Bible as being only a human work, and subject to extreme human error. The view of higher criticism is that the Bible is a product of man, has been edited by man, and has not been preserved accurately at all.

Some in the Messianic community, whether they realize it or not, have adopted similar views. Whereas the Messianic movement is supposed to be the logical extension of conservative Christian Biblical doctrine and practice, whereby the entire Scriptures—both the Tanach and Apostolic Writings (Old and New Testaments)—are viewed as being Divinely inspired, with the foundation of the Bible being the Torah or Law of Moses and the other writings building on that foundation; instead the veracity of the Scriptures is being challenged. The veracity of the Scriptures is challenged by Messianic Believers claiming that the New Testament is perhaps only “mere commentary” on the Torah, and thus may not be considered as authoritative on spiritual matters as the Tanach is. This is because many in the Messianic movement, including rabbis, pastors, teachers, and laymen, believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew. These people believe that the extant Greek New Testament is but a translation, and sometimes a bad or faulty translation at that. They tell us that we cannot understand the “true meaning” of the Apostolic Scriptures because they are in Greek.

The claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is something that must be substantiated by those who believe it with historical references, textual support, and most of all extant manuscripts in Hebrew. These references must be credible, the textual claims must be supported within a framework of conservative theology, and the manuscripts must be verified as authentic by organizations such as United Bible Societies or the American Bible Society. Thus far, no one in the Messianic community has been able to prove a written Hebrew origin for the entirety of the New Testament on the basis of these factors. If those who advocate a written Hebrew New Testament that predates and is superior to the Greek New Testament, have done anything, it is that they have discredited the Messianic movement to Christian theologians, pastors, and informed laymen who are sincerely interested in their Hebraic Roots, but are not interested in challenging the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, those who are opposed to the Messianic movement, the Hebraic Roots of the faith, and the message of Torah validity, use this as a legitimate claim against us—because it cannot be supported.

One Christian writer comments, “One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in ‘Hebrew.’ This may seem benign at first, but it is not. It is an attack on the reliability of the text of your Bible. If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted by Greeks, as is charged by some, there is no longer a standard of truth. The Protestant cry of ‘Sola Scriptura’ is meaningless unless we have a historically stable and reliable text. Once the New Testament itself is discredited, the rope typing your boat to the dock has been severed, and you are bound to be ‘carried about by every wind of doctrine.’”[1]

This quotation well-summarizes the beliefs of many Christians who encounter Messianics who advocate that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew, and the problem that we have today. Christians see this as a direct assault on their faith, and a direct attack against the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They see this as an attack on the gospel message of salvation, because as of today there are no extant texts of the New Testament written in Hebrew. The concern is that if these Hebrew New Testament manuscripts do not exist, as is believed by some Messianics, then these people will be responsible for leading others away from the Messiah Yeshua—because they advocate that the God of the Universe will only inspire His Divine message in the Hebrew language.

This is a very serious concern that exists for us in the Messianic movement, especially those of us who wish this movement to be one that is theologically credible. Part of being theologically credible is being able to make a viable case concerning what you believe using conservative, scholastic sources, and emphasizing the final authority of Scripture. As a Messianic apologetics ministry, we have defended many areas of our doctrine and lifestyle practice, and we have been able to do so quite adequately and well from the Greek New Testament, coupled with an understanding of ancient history, background data, and employing proper hermeneutics. We have certainly received a substantial amount of inquiry from Christian pastors and laymen who have had to think about what we have said and defended. We also have been taken seriously by such people as well, who have influence over large numbers. Those who advocate an original Hebrew New Testament that cannot be proven to have existed do not hold any influence over these sorts of people.

We have discovered through careful research, examination of Hebrew and Greek linguistic tools, and an objective view of Biblical history, that there is no substantial evidence in favor of the Apostolic Scriptures originally being written in Hebrew. We have discovered that at most, this is an opinion advocated by those who have ideological problems with the Lord inspiring His Word in other languages, and this opinion is then repeated by Messianic lay people whose ability to adequately interpret or understand the Scriptures is often lacking. These people are often uninformed regarding the transmission of the Scriptures, Greek or Hebrew, and are likewise often uninformed regarding the historical setting of the Scriptures, which leads to misinterpretation, if not some gross misinterpretation, on their behalf.

In this report, we will be examining the Hebrew New Testament misunderstanding. We will be addressing the fact that as students of the Bible, who believe in the final authority of Scripture, we have to be well-informed regarding the Hebrew language, the Tanach, the Greek language, the Apostolic Scriptures, ancient Biblical history, textual criticism, and above all consider the theology and spiritual fruit of many of those who claim that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures are uninspired. We must consider the theological credibility of the Messianic movement, and how we can impact those who are in positions of authority in Christendom who are opening up to the restoration message that God is proclaiming in this hour. Most of all, we must understand that God is bigger than all of us, and He is not limited to one language or culture that we may force upon Him. Rather, His Word is the progressive revelation that He has given to His chosen people, and how they are to function in the world testifying to all nations of who He is.

A Lack of Objectivity in the Messianic Movement

As it pertains to the subject of the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures, and whether or not they were written in Hebrew, there is a strong lack of objectivity among many proponents who claim that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek New Testament at best is a translation. In approaching any subject such as the inspiration of, and thus the authority of, the writings of the Apostles, we have to be objective and cannot subjugate the facts into our opinions. We have to look at the available evidence that has been delivered down to us through history, textual criticism of the Bible, and theology, drawing logical and reasonable conclusions. Sadly, very few people, if any, have examined this debate from the pro-Hebrew side without some strong subjective bias. It has even gotten so bad that some advocating a Hebrew New Testament that supersedes our Greek text have accused Christian pastors and laymen as being anti-Semitic and propagators of replacement theology.

One proponent of a Hebrew New Testament says, “As a young Christian man I was taught that Yahshua haMashiach (‘Jesus the Messiah’) came to do away with the Torah of Moshe (Moses), and that He did away with the Jews and Israel as YHWH’s chosen people. I was told that YHWH’s people are now the Greek-speaking gentiles, and that one of the most telling indications of this was that the ‘New Testament’ was originally inspired in Greek, and not in Hebrew. Yet today we know that this is not true.”[2]

What this individual is basically saying is that he believes that the Apostolic Scriptures can only be inspired in Hebrew, because his past experience of believing that they were originally inspired in Greek was rooted in replacement theology. But is this claim justified? Perhaps there are some Christians who advocate that the New Testament was written in Greek because of replacement theology. But not all Christians believe in replacement theology. Many Christians do indeed believe that God’s promises to Israel are still in force, and that He will be faithful to them.

In response to these statements, a Christian theologian and translator of the NET Bible, remarks, “Notice that this fellow’s conclusions are reached without evidence (there are no Hebrew manuscripts of New Testament books, only Greek manuscripts). He uses phrases like, ‘I started thinking about it…something didn’t add up’ and ‘I began to wonder…’ and so on, indicating that all of his theories originated in his own mind…I did not see him quote any respected scholarship.”[3]

This Christian theologian rejects the belief of an originally written Hebrew New Testament not on any basis of replacement theology or anti-Semitism, but on the basis that the individual claiming that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew has no legitimate proof to substantiate his opinion. Our ministry has stated candidly for quite some time that the issue of the inspiration of the Greek New Testament is one of theological credibility for the Messianic movement.[4] Surmising why the individual quoted may be advocating an original Hebrew New Testament, the Christian theologian responds with, “The New Testament gives us many warnings about the Judaisers—those who wish to bring us back under the law, rather than under grace.”[5] This Christian theologian would clearly dismiss the idea that the Torah is still to be followed, especially if this idea is to be found in a theoretical Hebrew New Testament that cannot be proven to exist—even more so if this Hebrew New Testament exists only in a person’s fantasies!

As a Messianic apologetics ministry, we do believe that the Torah is to be followed. But we believe that it is to be followed on the basis of (1) the final authority of Yeshua’s words which tell us that the Torah will not pass away (Matthew 5:17-19), (2) the fact that the Torah tells us that God’s people are to be set-apart and holy by observing His commandments (Deuteronomy 28:9), and (3) that most English translations of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament are translated from some theological presupposition that the Law was done away with. I document in my book The New Testament Validates Torah quite thoroughly that the Greek source text is not the problem—the problem is often with the translation of the Greek into English. Most Messianic teachers who advocate an original Hebrew New Testament have not been trained in the Greek language to be able to prove these things.

But beyond these opinions that some Messianics have thrown before our Christian brethren, who in turn say that these opinions cannot be substantiated with evidence, is the fact that our Christian brothers and sisters can be treated with malice—if not outright hatred—when it comes to the inspiration of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. For some in the Messianic community, the fact that the Greek New Testament exists is viewed as a damning affront to Hebrew or anything Hebraic or Jewish. Some have even insinuated that only Jews would, or could, be used by God to preserve the Scriptures, and only in Hebrew, and that the Almighty would never transmit Scripture using non-Jews.

No born again Believer, even in mainstream Christianity, is going to say that the Jewish people have preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanach or Old Testament, without meticulous detail. No one is going to say that they have not done a good job in preserving these Scriptures. Famed textual critic Caspar René Gregory writes that “If…any one should be inclined…to find fault with the Jews, we must remember that they not only were in the work of ‘canonising’ and of guarding their sacred books in those early times far superior to all other known peoples, but that they at a later date and up to the present have proved themselves to be unsurpassed, unequalled preservers of tradition written and unwritten. The Christian Church owes them in this respect a great debt.”[6] These words, by a Christian theologian, are not anti-Semitic comments in the least.

But as a support for a Hebrew New Testament, to assert that only Jews are those whom God thinks are acceptable in the preservation of the Scriptures, and the Christian Church is incapable of this, is a statement of pride. The Word of God has been given to the whole House of Israel, including those scattered into the nations. The Word of God was written by Jews to be given to those Jews scattered into the nations, who did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic, as well as to the Jews in the Holy Land. The Word of God has been given to those who are truly of the nations, who want to be a part of the Kingdom of God. The Word of God is a gift that our Heavenly Father has given to all of humanity.

Do attitudes like these represent an objective viewpoint when it comes to the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures? Are they representative of a viewpoint that is not tainted by some kind of an agenda? Even more importantly, can these attitudes truly be justified by reputable, scholarly sources that carry any weight in the academic world? These are pertinent questions which loom over this entire debate, that often go unanswered by proponents of a Hebrew New Testament.

But do evangelical Christians hate all things “Hebrew,” as is insinuated by many Hebrew New Testament proponents? Because these Christians believe that the God of Israel inspired the written good news of His Son in the Greek language, is this belief birthed out of a hatred for Judaism and the Jewish people? Some in the Messianic community would actually say yes. One proponent of a Hebrew New Testament comments that his evidence “shows us that ‘Aramaic’ and ‘Greek’ theories were not isolated mistakes or misconceptions, but part of a worldwide, centuries old dejudaization campaign by anti-semites within the Church to make it judenrein, despite the fact that we worship a Jewish God of Israel and the promised Messiah of Israel.”[7]

These thoughts, sadly, summarize a good portion of the Messianic community among those who believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew. Their case is not rooted in an objective, historical quest to search for the “original Scriptures,” but rather in prejudice toward Christianity—a reverse sin in response to Christian anti-Semitism. These types of attitudes, aside from being unacceptable in the Body of Messiah among born again Believers who should be operating in God’s love and compassion, do not prove anything.

Evangelical Christians who are born again, even though they may not be Messianic and see things the way that we see them regarding Torah observance, are not anti-Semitic Hebraicphobes, as may be falsely believed by some. They fully believe that the Hebrew Tanach is the inspired Word of God and that the Jewish people have done an admirable job preserving it. But, they also believe that when Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) came to Earth to die for the sins of all humanity, that when the gospel message was finally written down, it was written down in the language in which the most people could hear it, which in the First Century happened to be Greek. Consider the following quotation from author David L. Thompson in his book Bible Study That Works, relating to the transmission of the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, and then Greek:

“The inspired change from Hebrew to Aramaic and then to Greek in the Bible is similar. The earlier Old Testament books were penned in Hebrew. But as Aramaic became the common language of diplomacy and commerce and finally of daily speech in the Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamian lands (in the period of the exile), biblical books began to appear in Hebrew heavily influenced by Aramaic, with portions actually in Aramaic, the official language of the Persian empire. The books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles especially reflect this adaptation of God to the changing language of the people.

“Finally, by the New Testament era, Greek had become the most widely used tongue of the Biblical world. Given God’s demonstrated commitment to communicate his Word in written form intelligible to the next generation at hand, the result was predictable. No matter that God had inspired ‘holy men of old’ to write in Hebrew and Aramaic—the Word of God would appear in Greek. And not only in Greek, but in koine—the ‘common’ Greek of the marketplace, of legal documents, of personal and business correspondence, and even of the world’s graffiti. Why? So people could read God’s Word in the language of their own day and understand it as readily as any other contemporary documents” (emphasis mine).[8]

The fact, as Thompson notes, that the gospel message when finally written down was written in Greek is not rooted in anti-Semitism, but in the fact that God has always had a plan to spread His Word out to as many people as possible. When Messiah Yeshua came and was crucified and resurrected, the time had arrived for the message of salvation to be spread to the whole world, and in being spread to the whole world this message of spiritual restoration and deliverance needed to be communicated in languages other than Hebrew. It just so happens that historically Greek was the dominant language. Daniel B. Wallace notes, “By the first century CE, Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean region and beyond…the majority of Greek speakers learned it as a second language.”[9] The Apostolic Scriptures being written in Greek reflect this fact, and reflect the ability of God to communicate to the most amount of people as possible as the Apostles went on their missionary journeys throughout the Mediterranean basin. Thankfully, Greek was a standardized language in the Diaspora so the Apostles did not have to learn the many local languages in their missionary journeys. To say that the God of Israel cannot communicate His message in languages other than Hebrew is tantamount to saying that He is not interested in the salvation of the nations. But this is not what the Tanach says.

Isaiah 2:2 attests to the fact that “it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it.” This, and other Scriptures, were used by the Pharisees to justify going outside of the Land of Israel and planting synagogues. The Pharisees, holding to an apocalyptic hope of resurrection and the restoration of Israel, knew that the regathering of all Israel, Judah and the scattered exiles of the Northern Kingdom, and those of all the nations, was required for the Kingdom of God to be established on Earth. These synagogues would be planted in foreign lands to present pagans with the message of the God of Israel. The Pharisees had great success in Greek-speaking areas. The planting of synagogues in these areas and the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek helped pave the way for the spread of the gospel.[10]

Simply because the good news of Yeshua and the accounts of His early followers are in Greek, does not mean that Christians over the centuries have not valued the study of the Hebrew language and Scriptures. On the contrary, many Believers over the centuries have highly valued and encouraged Hebrew language studies. Author Marvin Wilson describes in his book Our Father Abraham that many of the early settlers of colonial America valued Hebraic studies:

“Early American educators are [an] influential segment that placed a strong emphasis upon Old Testament and Hebrew studies. These people were strongly connected to the ‘olive root’ and insisted—in keeping with their Puritan heritage—that Hebrew be center stage in the realm of higher education. A study of the beginnings and curricula of many of the Ivy League colleges in the East is a case in point. Hebrew inscriptions, for example, are found on the insignias or seals of such schools as Columbia and Dartmouth.”[11]

The claim that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew is rooted in rhetoric that cannot be objectively supported. Contrary to belief in parts of today’s Messianic movement, the transcription of the gospel message in Greek has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or disrespect of the Jewish people. It has everything to do with God’s Divine will that as many people as possible in the First Century could hear the good news of His Son and thus come to salvation. There have been statements made against our Christian brethren by some in the Messianic movement that are unacceptable, and shameful for those who are supposed to be mature followers of the Lord. A balanced perspective reveals that there are many Christians who respect and encourage Hebraic studies, and it is most certainly from that perspective that we must objectively analyze the facts as to whether or not the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

What is the “B’rit Chadashah”?

Before we delve into some of the analysis of the Scriptures, and the languages that they were compiled in, it is important for us to address the concept of what the “B’rit Chadashah” actually is. Anyone who has been in the Messianic movement for any period of time will notice that many terms of Hebraic origin are used by Messianic Believers. Most notably, this is apparent with the widescale usage of Yeshua instead of Jesus for the name of the Messiah, and the preference of using the term Torah instead of Law. This may also extend to some character and place names in the Bible that are of Hebrew origin such as using Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), Shlomo (Solomon), Miriam (Mary), and names of New Testament characters such as Mattityahu (Matthew) or Yochanan (John).[12]

One term that is not a proper name, that is quite commonplace to hear in the Messianic movement, is B’rit Chadashah.[13] It is used innocently by most people in the Messianic community, congregational leaders and lay people alike, who simply want to sound “Hebrew” in the terms that they use. Indeed, the glossary of the book Torah Rediscovered for its entry under “Brit Hadasha” simply states, “Literally, ‘New Covenant.’ For use in this book, it refers to the New Testament.”[14]

In the early days of the Messianic movement, its Jewish pioneers wanted to use many terms that would be inoffensive to Jewish people who would be turned off to traditional Christian evangelism. Using terms like Jesus Christ, the Law of Moses, and even the New Testament would not be received well by a Jewish community that had a long-standing history of hostility with the Christian community. Thankfully, in the past several decades, we have seen increasing amounts of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and many hundreds of years of hostility have been put to rest among many Jews and Christians. The term “B’rit Chadashah,” which is so commonplace in today’s Messianic movement, was birthed along with many other terms which are used today as well. However, as it pertains to the subject of the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures, in hindsight the early Messianics made a serious faux paux, which we now have the job of correcting. What do we mean by a faux paux?

One of the first things anyone who enters into the Messianic movement quickly learns is that there is no difference between the Old and New Testaments. Technically speaking, what is commonly called the “Old Testament” is the Tanach ($nt), a composite Hebrew term for Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Messianic Believers prefer the term Tanach (or Tanakh) rather than using the term “Old Testament,” because the term “Old Testament” often brings with it thoughts of these Scriptures being old and outdated. If anything, when the term “Old Testament” is used in writing or speaking, it is only done so for the familiarity of others who are unfamiliar with the term Tanach.

In a similar way, there are many people in the Messianic movement who do not prefer to use the term “New Testament,” because it again implies that the “Old Testament” may be old and outdated. But rather than using a neutral term like Tanach to refer to these writings, many Messianics use the term “B’rit Chadashah,” which in Hebrew simply means “New Covenant” or “New Testament,” and the English term “New Testament” is used for those who are unfamiliar with any other term. In actuality, however, the term “B’rit Chadashah” does not really solve our problem of getting beyond the belief of many Christians that these Scriptures replace, or are vastly superior to, the Tanach. In fact, it creates an even new problem that many Messianics are probably not even aware of.

Biblically speaking, it is a misnomer to refer to the Gospels, General Epsitles, Pauline Epistles, and other writings as the “B’rit Chadashah,” because the prophesied b’rit chadashah is not supposed to be any portion of new Scripture, but rather is the promise that the Lord will write His Torah onto the hearts of His people:

“‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people’” (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

The Biblical promise of the b’rit chadashah (hvdx tyrB) is that our Heavenly Father is going to make a covenant with the whole House of Israel, and as a result of that covenant write His Torah onto the hearts of His people via His Spirit so that they might be able to keep it. The author of Hebrews speaks of this covenant or diathēkēn kainēn (diaqhkhn kainhn):

“For finding fault with them, He says, ‘Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Hebrews 8:8-10).

The true b’rit chadashah is the promise that God will write His Torah or Law onto the hearts of His people. When we talk about the b’rit chadashah, this is what we should be referring to, because this is what it is in its correct theological sense.

What we often consider the “New Testament” comprises the Spirit-inspired writings of the First Century Apostles, given by them to testify of the life of Yeshua the Messiah, His teachings and miracles, the acts of the First Century assembly of faith, and specific instructions and admonitions given to the early congregations that were formed in the First Century. These things do not make up a “new covenant” or b’rit chadashah, so to speak. Author Tim Hegg repeats these same thoughts, stating,

“It does no better to call the Apostolic Scriptures the ‘Renewed Covenant’ or ‘B’rit Chadashah’ (hXdx tyrb), as is so common in Messianic circles. The Apostolic Scriptures do not constitute a covenant in any sense. They are the divinely inspired words of Yeshua and His apostles, giving us the ongoing progressive revelation of God to His people. They are the application of Torah to the people of God in the last days as inaugurated by the coming of Messiah, and they constitute the divine halachah for the congregation of Jew and Gentile as envisioned in the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant. They in no way constitute a ‘new’ or ‘different’ or even ‘renewed’ covenant. They are simply the progressive revelation of the covenants which were given to the Fathers.”[15]

Hegg’s comments in this regard, and his writings which are respected in the conservative Messianic community, have influenced many, including myself, to use appropriate neutral terms such as Apostolic Scriptures, Apostolic Writings, Messianic Scriptures, or Messianic Writings, to refer to what most call the “New Testament.”

How does this relate to the subject matter at hand, and what language in which these writings were originally composed?

Many people on the side of believing that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew will ask the question: “Was the B’rit Chadashah originally written in Hebrew?” This is a manipulative question for unsuspecting audiences. It is a manipulative question because (1) the true b’rit chadashah is the promise of a New Covenant given by God to His people, that He will write the Torah onto their hearts, and (2) to call the Apostolic Scriptures the “B’rit Chadashah” to an uninformed audience is to presuppose that there is a Hebrew original, thus proving that one is not completely objective. Be cautious of anyone who asks this question, because he is relying on his audience’s ignorance of Biblical history and of transmission of the Scriptures to get you to think that the Apostolic Writings were originally written in Hebrew, which as you will see in our analysis, cannot be proven at all.

I do not believe that it was with any malicious intent that the early Messianic movement wanted to use the term “B’rit Chadashah” for the Apostolic Scriptures. They simply wanted a viable, alternative Hebrew term to use instead of “New Testament,” and often did not want to bring the inspiration of the Greek Scriptures into dispute. However, in many circles this is exactly what has happened, and that is why in this analysis, or in any of our ministry materials, you will not see us use the term “B’rit Chadashah” to refer to the Messianic Scriptures.

Can God inspire His Word in other languages?

One of the severe claims that is often made against the inspiration of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures is that our Heavenly Father is simply incapable of inspiring His message in any language but Hebrew. Proponents of a Hebrew New Testament often say that the God of Israel would only inspire the good news of His Son in Hebrew, and thus any Greek text at best is a translation, and at worst is a product of those who hate the Jewish people. But this is not the message of the Bible. Israel was chosen by the Lord to be His special nation who would proclaim who He was as the Creator God to the entire world. Israel would keep God’s Torah or His Law and be blessed by Him, and the nations were to see their being blessed so that they might inquire after Israel’s God. The Psalmist declares, “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord's and He rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:27-28). The God of Israel has always had a worldwide agenda of saving mankind—not one that is exclusively limited to Israel. By necessity, going out into the world and testifying of who He is requires that one speak languages other than Hebrew.

If we look at the world from God’s perspective, it is absolutely true that the Lord chose Israel to be His set-apart people. The people of Ancient Israel spoke Hebrew as their native tongue, and God communicated His message to them in Hebrew. Two-thirds of the entire Bible, the Tanach, was written in Hebrew (with parts in Aramaic) because these Scriptures were compiled for Ancient Israel as a nation. Hebrew is a wonderful, beautiful, intimate language that brought Ancient Israel close to God through prayers, hymns, and songs. However, the God of the Universe is not constrained to any preference or demand of human men who would say that He can only communicate to His people, of all nations, in Hebrew. In Genesis 11:7, it is God Himself who confounds the languages of men:

“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech.”

Genesis 11:6 explains why God confused the languages of humanity: “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.” God was concerned about the united front against Him because everyone spoke the same language. He confused everyone and scattered everyone so that mankind could not make a concentrated effort against Him.

Even though Hebrew is the written language of almost two-thirds of our Bible, and God certainly inspired the message of the Tanach in Hebrew, our Heavenly Father as Sovereign Creator is the One who confused the languages, and is thus the Originator of them as well. God created the language of the Apostolic Scriptures, Greek, every bit as much as He created Hebrew. God created the English language and other modern languages of today, every bit as much as He created Hebrew. Does God have a linguistic preference? Or is God more concerned about the salvation of human beings of all nations? Have men—in their personal biases and prejudices—taught that God can only inspire His message in Hebrew?

To say that the God of Creation can only inspire His message in Hebrew is to say that God is monolingual and cannot communicate to us in other languages. What it does more than anything else is that it reflects on the fallen nature of man and our trying to make God into what we want Him to be, as opposed to letting God be God and recognizing that He is all-powerful and His might supersedes human language and even culture. Can God in His infinite power inspire the good news of salvation in a language other than Hebrew? That is the ideological question that has to be answered by many in the Messianic community today. Too many, unfortunately, will answer it incorrectly.

The idea that Hebrew has a place in the economy of God that is superior to all other languages is often based on Zephaniah 3:9: “For then I will give to the peoples purified lips, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him shoulder to shoulder.” This text appears in an apocalyptic narrative describing God’s judgment over Cush and the fact that He will give the nations “a pure language” (ATS) or safah beruah (hrWrb hpf) with which to praise Him. A typical Orthodox Jewish interpretation of this passage is that what is being spoken of here is the Hebrew language. The ArtScroll Tanach commentary reflects this, noting, “They will no longer speak of idols (Radak). Alternatively, they will speak Hebrew, the pure and holy tongue (Ibn Ezra).”[16] This viewpoint is partially rooted in the Talmud:

“It was stated: If they are written in Targum or in any [other] language,—R. Huna said: They must not be saved from a fire; while R. Hisda ruled: They may be saved from a fire. On the view that it is permissible to read them, all agree that they must be saved. They differ only according to the view that they may not be read. R. Huna says: We may not save [them], since they may not be read. R. Hisda says: We must save [them], because of the disgrace to Holy Writings. We learnt: ALL SACRED WRITINGS MAY BE SAVED FROM THE FIRE, WHETHER WE READ THEM OR NOT, and even if they are written in any language. Surely WHETHER WE READ THEM refers to the Prophets, whilst OR NOT refers to the Writings, AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, though they may not be read [publicly], yet he [the Tanna] teaches that they MAY BE SAVED, which refutes R. Huna?—R. Huna can answer you: Is that logical? Consider the second clause: THEY MUST BE HIDDEN: seeing that they must be saved, need hiding be mentioned? But R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view, while R. Hisda explains it according to his. R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view. WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.] the Prophets; OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings. That is only if they are written in the Holy Tongue [Hebrew], but if they are written in any [other] language, we may not save them, yet even so they must be hidden. R. Hisda explains it according to his view: WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.,] the Prophets, OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings; EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, we must still save them. And this is what he states: And [even] their worm-eaten [material] MUST BE HIDDEN” (b.Shabbat 115a).[17]

This excerpt from the canon of extra-Biblical Jewish law explains what texts were to be saved from a fire. You see the differing points of view of how some Rabbis believed that any holy texts, in whatever language, were to be spared, whereas other Rabbis believed that only texts in Hebrew should be given priority to being spared. The Jewish belief that Hebrew is the holy tongue is largely tied up in an identity of various (Orthodox) Jews of believing themselves to be God’s chosen people, and thus everything about them, including their language, has been made sacred by God. Certainly, the Jewish people as the remnant of Israel are chosen of God, but they do not make up all of the Commonwealth of Israel, which is to include all nations. Likewise, could some of Rabbis of Judaism be wrong in referring to Hebrew as the “holy tongue”? In their quest to be the leaders of the “chosen people,” could referring to Hebrew as the “holy tongue” be a sense of false pride? These are not statements that are trying to demean the Hebrew language or Hebraic studies, but has Hebrew been given a place by some Rabbis that it was never intended to have?

Biblically speaking, while Hebrew is the written language of the Tanach or Old Testament, it is not given the title of the “holy language” by God Himself. Many go to the extent of not only saying that God would only communicate to mankind in Hebrew, but that He and the angels only speak Hebrew, and in some cases that the Almighty will only answer prayers that are spoken to Him in Hebrew. This is not the example that we see in Scripture. The Apostle Paul describes his being taken up into Paradise in a vision, writing the Corinthians that he “heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (2 Corinthians 12:4). He very clearly “heard unutterable sayings” (YLT), but does he identify them being spoken in the Hebrew language, which he clearly understood and had the Messiah speak to him in (Acts 26:14)? No. The language of Heaven is far beyond human comprehension.

Of course, the problem with strongly asserting that Hebrew is the “pure language” is that all other languages are impure or “dirty.” By stating that the Creator God can only inspire His message in the Hebrew language, this means that anything written in a different language cannot be inspired by Him. For those who believe that Hebrew is the “pure language,” it means that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures cannot possibly be inspired of God. C.J. Koster, author of Come Out of Her, My People, summarizes these thoughts quite well, by stating,

“[W]e firmly believe and accept the entire message contained in the Greek text of the Messianic Scriptures (‘New Testament’), since it is the only complete reliable record we presently have of the time Messiah walked this earth and period immediately following it, the time of the apostles. We firmly believe that the Messianic Scriptures were inspired in Hebrew, at least most of them, but these documents no longer exist. The Greek text can only be a translation of these original Hebrew Messianic Scriptures.”[18]

This opinion stated is not supported by any historical evidence as to where the original “Hebrew Messianic Scriptures” went. In fact, this same author is forced to say “the original Hebrew Messianic Scriptures...were possibly destroyed in those early days by anti-Jewish gentiles, or else set aside or decayed, for they were probably written on papyrus which is a perishable substance.”[19] If this is the extent of his historical evidence, then at least half of his case has no viable basis, because not only would such texts need to be scholastically proven to have existed, the question of why God in His infinite wisdom would allow them to be destroyed likewise must be answered. Basically saying, “We are unfortunately stuck with the Greek,” is not a sufficient answer. Either God can inspire His message in the Greek language or He cannot. It is as simple as that.

Some are of the opinion that the Greek language is a pagan language, and thus our Creator is incapable of inspiring the good news of His Son in Greek, basing it on Exodus 23:13:

“Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.”

Koster argues, “The Set-apart Spirit, inspiring all Scripture, would most certainly not have transgressed the Law of Yahuweh by ‘inspiring’ the Messianic Scriptures in a language riddled with the names of Greek deities and freely using the names of these deities in the text, no way!”[20]

This value judgment is based on an interpretation of Exodus 23:13 which has several faults. The first is assuming that Exodus 23:13 is a prohibition against simply speaking the names of gods other than the Holy One of Israel. This would mean that in the Torah when God speaks the name Molech (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2, 3, 4, 5), that God Himself has broken His own Law. Following this reasoning through to its logical end, because God Himself has violated the Torah, then the Torah cannot be treated as inspired Scripture because there are names of foreign deities in the Hebrew text. Obviously, this is flawed reasoning and we are not prepared to cast aside the Torah.

Second, what are we to do about the title Elohim (~yhla), used frequently to refer to Him in the Hebrew Scriptures? El (la), the singular form of Elohim, “is a very ancient Semitic term. It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language, except Ethiopic” (TWOT).[21] Elohim as a Semitic term is used to refer to YHWH, but was also used to refer to pagan gods in pagan societies outside that of Israel. Because of this, do we suddenly throw out the Tanach because He is referred to by a title that the pagans also referred to their deities as? Not at all.

We will certainly not deny the fact that the Greek language has words in it that can also refer to Greek gods. However, when saying that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures cannot be inspired because of this, and not holding the Tanach to the same standard—looking for names of pagan gods in it as well that were used among the cultures of the Ancient Near East contemporary to Israel—reveals a definite bias and a severe lack of faith on the part of our Creator to inspire His Word in other languages. A proper interpretation of Exodus 23:13 relates to how we are not to “invoke the names of other gods” (NIV), meaning praise, worship, or pray to them. If it means that we cannot say the names of other deities, in a factual sense, then God Himself has broken His own Word because even He has said the names of pagan deities.

It is our firm position that the God of Israel, being all-powerful and omniscient, can inspire His message for mankind in whatever language He wants. Israel, being His chosen nation, does have a unique identity among the nations, but in order to be a light to the whole world, it is necessary and required to speak in other tongues. Sadly, Messianics today who advocate a Hebrew New Testament often fall into the trap of believing that only Hebrew is the accepted language of communing with God. But their god is often one who is mono-lingual, only able to speak in one language, and sadly not interested in the salvation of the world which speaks many other tongues. Their god is an impotent being and is not the God of the Scriptures.

The Transmission of the Hebrew Tanach (Old Testament)

It is imperative that before we begin our specific analysis of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures that we have some background knowledge in the beliefs and opinions regarding the transmission of the Hebrew Tanach. The reason that it is important that we do this is because it is widely believed in the Messianic movement that the Hebrew Scriptures have remained perfectly preserved for us, especially with the Torah as Moses was given it at Mount Sinai. It is widely believed that since that time to the present, the Hebrew Tanach has remained perfectly preserved and intact, while in contrast, perhaps, the Greek Scriptures are nothing more than an amalgamation of manuscripts and manuscript fragments that have not been perfectly preserved or agree with one another. Suffice it to say, to believe that the Hebrew Tanach has remained perfectly preserved and intact, while the Greek Scriptures are nothing more than a proverbial mess, is not examining this with a fair scale.

If you have been exposed to textual criticism of the Bible, which involves not only dating manuscripts, but also dating when documents were composed, who their original author or authors were, where the documents were composed, and various literary factors, then you should know that the further we go back in time, the less and less we know about the composition of a Biblical text. While it is not uncommon for those espousing a so-called “Hebrew New Testament” to criticize the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, if the truth be known we cannot conclude—at least with accuracy—some things about the composition of the Hebrew Tanach itself. We do not entirely know, for example, who compiled the prophecies of Isaiah or Ezekiel. While we accept these writings as canonical, the Prophets certainly did not sit down and write out their prophecies in the form of a narrative. We do not know who wrote Judges, although we can probably assume that Israel’s historians wrote it—but who were they? When it comes to the Torah itself, the author of Genesis never identifies himself. While the authorship is attributed to Moses via tradition, Moses does not say that He wrote it.

While this article is not intended to discuss the subject of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, it is nevertheless important that you know a few things about the composition of the Tanach. First of all, even though the Hebrew Scriptures have been eloquently observed by the Jewish scribes or soferim—it is exactly that—they have been preserved in a relatively homogenous and closed environment, whereas the Greek Scriptures have not. Secondly, to assume that the Hebrew Scriptures are without error or variance is simply not true. Emanuel Tov, textual critic at Hebrew University and author of the book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, writes that “all editions of the Hebrew Bible, which actually are editions of M, go back to different medieval manuscripts of that tradition, or combinations of such manuscripts…there does not exist any one edition which agrees in all of its details with another, except for photographically reproduced editions based on the same electronic (computer encoded) text.”[22] If we cannot understand the fact that the current Hebrew text used in the Jewish community today originates from the Middle Ages, then we are bound to make some major mistakes.

This is not to say that this is a major problem. Tov is keen to note, “It should be remembered that the number of differences between the various editions is very small. Moreover, all of them concern minimal, often minute details of the text, and most affect the meaning of the text in only a very limited way.”[23] In spite of there being some differences in the Hebrew texts of the Scriptures, most of them are minute and do not affect one’s theology in any major ways. The same is actually true of the Greek texts of Scripture as well, as most of the textual variants deal with spelling or grammar, and a scribe wanting to add words like Christos or Kurios to a text, where only Iēsous (Jesus/Yeshua) is used.[24] Where variants do crop up in the Hebrew text, it is necessary for us to consult ancient translations like the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the canonical Scriptures of Hellenistic Jewry, or the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). While most Jewish Bible versions today only employ the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) for its English translation, Christian Bibles, on the other hand, do consider the witnesses of the LXX, DSS, Latin Vulgate, and other ancient versions in their English translations.

Many in the Messianic community are unaware of the fact that the Hebrew text used for the Tanach today is largely Medieval in origin. In fact, even fewer are aware of the fact that prior to the Babylonian exile of the Southern Kingdom, the Hebrew alphabet used was nothing like the block script that was used after the exile, and consequently also today. Tov indicates, “Originally, the biblical books were written in the ‘early’ Hebrew script which developed from proto-Canaanite script in the tenth or ninth centuries B.C.E….At some stage during the Second Temple period, a gradual transition occurred from the Hebrew to the Aramaic script, from which a script developed which is exclusive to the Jews and which could thus be called the ‘Jewish script’ (thus many scholars) or the ‘square script’ (according to the form of the letters). However, in many ancient texts (e.g., b. Sanh. 21b) it is called the ‘Assyrian script’ due to the fact that its ancestor, the Aramaic script, was in use in the Assyrian Empire. According to Talmudic tradition this script was introduced by Ezra.”[25]

The Talmud attests that during the time of Ezra the Jewish people began using the present Hebrew alphabet that is generally the same that we see used in Biblical documents today:

“Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh” (b.Sanhedrin 21b).[26]

Sometime during the time of Ezra, the more “final” Hebrew text that was used during the time of Yeshua was compiled. Prior to the Babylonian exile, Hebrew texts were composed in a different script that is commonly referred to as “paleo-Hebrew” or the “Phoenician script” or the “Canaanite script.” After this time, the Assyrian script, also commonly called the “Babylonian script” or “block script,” was used. Ezra and his cohort of priests and scribes got the final “edit,” if you will, on the authorized Hebrew Scriptures after the exile.

This begs many questions that often go unaddressed in the Messianic community, but frequent discussions among conservative Jewish and Christian theologians with liberal Jewish and Christian theologians. These questions often regard the authorship of the Torah or Pentateuch, and whether or not a single author put it together, or it was composed by multiple authors over many different centuries. To give you an idea about the wide variance of beliefs among theologians, on the extreme Right there are fundamentalist ultra-Orthodox and Chassidic Jews who believe that Moses wrote every single letter, if not every “jot and tittle” of the Torah. On the extreme Left there are liberal Jews and Christians who believe that Moses would have been uneducated and incapable of writing any of the Torah—that is, if Moses even existed. In the middle are conservative theologians who believe that the bulk of the Torah is Mosaic in origin, but that there have been some authoritative additions made since Mount Sinai. This is the position that our ministry holds to. Let us briefly review the two major positions that are adhered to surrounding the Torah’s composition.

There are two points of view which are often espoused relating to the written origins of the Torah. Among fundamentalist Jews and Christians, it is believed that the written Torah that exists, Genesis-Deuteronomy, was entirely written by Moses himself, and has been preserved perfectly since the Ancient Israelites were in the wilderness. The exact opposite of this is that the Torah was compiled after the Babylonian exile, by the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources that had their own version of Israel’s religion. This theory, commonly called JEDP, advocates that Moses did not write the Torah, but rather these writings are attributed to Moses and that the Torah as it exists today is entirely a product of the post-Babylonian exile and compiling these sources together. The majority in the Messianic movement believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah, whereas most in liberal Judaism and Christianity believe that Moses did not write it.

For the most part, we believe that Moses wrote or compiled the first five books of Scripture, the Chumash or Pentateuch, himself. There are parenthetical phrases that were likely written at another date. Genesis 14:14 is a glaring example of this, however, appearing very early in the text, where Abraham pursues Lot’s kidnappers “as far as Dan.” This appears long before the Israelites enter into the Promised Land and ascribed geographical place names to where they settled. Some would say that since Moses was a prophet, he prophesied this into being. But that is doubtful given the fact that this is a place name, not an event, and is in no way given as a prophecy. This was obviously a textual addition added at a later date to clarify for readers where Abraham actually pursued. It does not subtract from the value of the text, nor the event that takes place.

Another example is Numbers 12:3, which says, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.” In the NASB and NIV translations, the text actually appears in parenthesis ( ). Truly, if Moses did live as the most humble man on the face of the Earth, at least at the time of writing this, then Moses’ being so humble would have prevented himself from ever having written this. This likewise appears to be a textual addition to the Torah at a later date. In a similar vein, the final chapter of Deuteronomy details the death of Moses and how the Lord buried him. This is something that Moses could not have written about in such detail, but it does not immediately mean that it was written centuries later as liberal critics of the Bible often claim. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics notes,

“Such scholars as R.D. Wilson, Merill Unger, Douglas Young, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and R.K. Harrison easily accept that the final chapter of Deuteronomy was likely appended by Joshua or someone else in Moses’ inner circle. This, in fact, supports the view of the continuity of the writing prophets, a theory that each successor prophet writes the last chapter of his predecessor’s book. The addition of a chapter on Moses’ funeral by another prophet is in accordance with the custom of the day in no sense takes away from the belief that Moses was the author of everything up to that final chapter.”[27]

There have been parenthetical additions to the Hebrew text of the Torah since the time of Moses. This does not subtract from the value of the text, the events that took place, and certainly not the message of the text. It also does not mean that Moses did not write or oversee the composition of the vast majority of the Torah, but it is to say that the Torah is not exclusively Mosaic in origin. This is the standard conservative theological view regarding the Torah’s authorship, as attested by ISBE:

“Very few, if any, modern conservative scholars see the Pentateuch as a composition whose every word, oral and written, came from Moses. Such a position is hardly viable based upon the inner-biblical witnesses (e.g., Genesis, post-Mosaica) or upon ancient Near Eastern concepts of authorship…The pentateuchal issues to a great extent do center upon Moses, but his ‘authorship’ activity must be correctly defined…According to what we know about ancient Near Eastern literary composition, Moses could have written much of the material himself, but just as likely could have dictated much of it to scribes or he could have supervised the compositional process as numerous hands utilized various materials.”[28]

We do not believe that Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on Earth, or about his own death. These were statements added by either someone in his inner circle, perhaps one of the seventy elders, or Joshua who succeeded him.

With all of this understood, we believe that God in His sovereignty directed the Jewish scribes or soferim to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures to the best of their ability. But to say that they have preserved it 100% accurately would be to say that human beings cannot make any mistakes. Furthermore, it is notable that one of the significant reasons why we do not see substantial variances among Hebrew texts of the Tanach, versus Greek texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, is because the scrolls of Scripture were considered to be as “living beings” to members of the Jewish community. When Biblical documents and parchments decayed, they were often given a funeral, like any person, and buried. Because of this, older Torah scrolls and Biblical texts in Hebrew are no longer extant. This is sizably different than what would happen in Christian circles, where decaying Biblical texts would simply be deposited in a library or archive and kept for posterity.

One of the significant reasons why we do not see great variance among the Jewish sources of the Tanach is because older texts were buried and placed out of circulation. That is why the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 was so significant. And, while there is much continuity between the DSS and MT, there are major differences in them as well. In our examination of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, we urge that you not to fall into the trap of believing that the Hebrew Tanach has been perfectly preserved. There are differences among Hebrew texts, and there have been changes to the Torah since the time of Moses. However, it is sad to report that while many Messianics are eager to tear apart the Greek Scriptures, most of the same are unwilling to lift a finger in at least questioning the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, when it comes to the composition of the Hebrew Tanach, there are too many questions that today’s Messianic community, at least at present, is unable or unprepared to answer.

The Importance of the Septuagint

One factor that is extremely important in our examination of the Tanach, that is often not given consideration in today’s Messianic theology, is the usage of the Greek Septuagint. What we call the Septuagint (LXX) today was the canonical Scripture of the Jewish synagogues in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. According to tradition, its seventy-two Jewish translators translated the Torah into Greek in seventy-two days. The number was later rounded off to seventy, and is often identified in theological works by the Roman numerals LXX for seventy. Shortly thereafter, other books of the Hebrew canon were translated and complete forms of the text were likely circulating before the time of the Maccabees (Second Century B.C.E.). The Septuagint quickly became the primary Scriptures of Hellenistic Judaism, and was widely responsible for presenting Greeks and Romans the message of the God of Israel. It was used immensely for creating proselytes, and formed the backbone of a Jewish style of Greek that was influenced heavily by Hebrew diction. While the written language of the LXX was Greek, the understandings of the various words and concepts were undeniably Hebraic. The Septuagint is widely acclaimed as being the first true Bible translation, and it clarifies many of the unclear or imprecise words and terms in the Hebrew Bible. The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period notes, “In the mid-first century C.E., Philo stressed its divine inspiration.”[29] Of course, whether or not it is truly “inspired” remains debated, but it nevertheless cannot be overlooked as “unimportant” as it reflects theological viewpoints and opinions present among the Judaisms of the First Century.

The importance of the Septuagint for Messianic Biblical Studies today has been clouded by much of the anti-Greek rhetoric present in the Messianic movement. Some are keen to say things along the lines of, “It is better for a Jew to eat pig than speak Greek.” While this statement may reflect some Jewish opinions of ancient times, it is sectarian and only reflective of a small part of the First Century Judaisms. In spite of what some people in the Messianic movement today would like to believe, the majority of the First Century Jewish community was not living in Israel and speaking Hebrew as their first language. Many lived in Greek-speaking lands and still maintained a high degree of Torah observance and Jewishness.

F.F. Bruce writes in his book New Testament History that there were major Jewish communities established “from the territories of the ‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites’ in the east to Rome in the west, with Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Crete, Arabia, Egypt and Cyrene receiving special mention between these limits.”[30] While some of these Jewish communities, notably in the East, had been remnants from the Babylonian Diaspora, many others were birthed out of Jewish merchants moving to these areas for economic opportunities, as well as the incessant Pharisaical drive to establish synagogues that could make proselytes out of the nations. The bulk of Diaspora Jewry that we get a glimpse of in the Apostolic Scriptures is Hellenistic Jewry, primarily constrained to the Eastern Mediterranean basin with centers in Northern Egypt, Asia Minor, Corinth, and Rome. In fact, the Roman Jewish community was quite large, as Bruce indicates,

“[T]he Jews had established diplomatic relations [with Rome] in the days of Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish colony there was greatly augmented after Pompey’s conquest of Judaea in 63 B.C., and by 59 B.C., according to Cicero, it formed an influential element in Roman society. It is estimated that by the beginning of the Christian era the Jews of Rome numbered between 40,000 and 60,000.”[31]

The Jewish position on the Greek language of this period was substantially different than the position of various Messianics today, as it was the principal language of commerce and trade, as most Jews in these lands were merchants. The Mishnah indicates that the sacred Scriptures were authorized to be written in Greek by the Rabbinical authorities:

“There is no difference between sacred scrolls and phylacteries and mezuzot except that sacred scrolls may be written in any alphabet [‘language’], while phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in square [‘Assyrian’] letters. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, ‘Also: in the case of sacred scrolls: they have been permitted to be written only in Greek’” (m.Megillah 1:8).[32]

The gemara on this in the Talmud reflects this same position:

“But is it not written, and they shall be? I must say therefore, ‘Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in Greek’. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna forbade it! What I must say therefore is, ‘Our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek’. And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’. This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master. God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him” (b.Megillah 9b).[33]

This records how the Torah was originally translated into Greek, and how the Jewish Rabbis of the Third-Second Centuries B.C.E. authorized it. Later in the same period, other texts of the Hebrew Bible were translated into Greek. The Jewish philosopher Philo attests that there was a celebration to commemorate the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and that the translation was done with honorable intentions:

“And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaens were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaen, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.

“On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh” (On the Life of Moses 2.41).[34]

When it was originally produced, the Septuagint was hailed as being a great work, blessed by God Himself. There was a day of great rejoicing and assembly held for its production, as many of the nations would now be able to hear about the God of Israel. Biblical history bears out the fact that the Septuagint was used in the Jewish synagogues of the Diaspora, and it is quoted many, many times by the Apostolic writers and certainly carried some major authority for them. This is something that is often not considered by some Messianic expositors, a few of whom have concluded that the Apostles sometimes misquote the Hebrew Scriptures. This is largely because they fail to consider the fact that the Apostles often quote from the Greek Septuagint, which is not a literal word-for-word translation of the Hebrew Bible, and includes many distinct interpretations of messianic texts, and other texts or issues, sprinkled throughout.

Some Jewish animosity toward Greek is reflected in the Talmud, but comes later in succeeding generations after the destruction of the Second Temple. The following quote reflects back on the events of the Maccabees, and how the Jewish people in Israel later began to use Greek to communicate with their neighbors around them. The following is an historical attestation regarding how Greek philosophy and language were studied by those of the Rabbinical school of Gamaliel, the same school that the Apostle Paul would have attended:

“Our Rabbis taught: When the kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another, Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within. Each day they used to let down denarii in a basket, and haul up for them [animals for] the continual offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek, saying: ‘As long as they carry on the Temple-service, they will never surrender to you’…For Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! And R. Joseph said: Why use the Syrian language in Babylon? Either use the holy tongue or Persian!—The Greek language and Greek wisdom are distinct. But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia!—It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government; for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front is of the ways of the Amorites; but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government” (b.Sotah 9b).[35]

Here, we see an historical attestation that the Rabbinical school of Gamaliel not only trained Rabbis in the Scriptures and proper hermeneutics, but also trained them in Greek language and philosophy. The reason for this was very clearly that these Rabbis often had close dealings with the Roman government and authorities, and it is not improbable to conclude that these Rabbis were also sent out on teaching missions beyond the Land of Israel. This is the school that Paul attended as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and is a strong indicator that Paul would have learned Greek as a foreign language in school, not just picking it up through interaction on the street. The Jewish position on Greek in the First Century was much different than the position of many Messianics today. The Jews used Greek as a language of business, commerce, and diplomacy.

Even the viewpoints of many Orthodox Jews today regarding the Greek language is much more progressive than that of their counterparts in the Messianic community. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, in his book America’s Real War, records a short story about how eager his father was to use the Greek that he learned as a student when traveling to Athens:

“I recall how, when as a young lad I first traveled to Greece with my father, he signed his name on the official entry permit at Athens Airport. The official became irate. It turned out that my dad was so excited to finally put to some practical use the schoolboy Greek he had studied decades earlier that he had signed his name and completed the questionnaire in the language of Homer in The Illiad and The Odyseey. This meant absolutely nothing to the mid-twentieth-century Athenian we encountered at the airport.”[36]

Both Rabbi Lapin and his father were raised in England, and were subjected as young boys to both a traditional Orthodox as well as a classical British education. Receiving a classical education, they would have been exposed to the Greek language (and likely Latin as well) and ancient literary works. For Lapin’s father, learning Greek and using it is no different than anyone today who has studied a foreign language such as Spanish, French, or German, and is eager to use a few phrases on a native speaker. The Lapins may be an exception, though, as Twenty-First Century America largely does not train its students in any of the classical works, be they Greek or Jewish, as those interested must often study them at the collegiate level. Many of the Messianics who largely criticize the Greek language and the Septuagint, have not been exposed to it, and thus cannot reflect an objective point of view when encountering it in theology.

Some teachers in today’s Messianic community are responsible for perpetuating the myth that the Greek language was not part of the Jewish culture of First Century. It was. It was just as much a part of First Century Jewish culture as Yiddish was of Central European Jewry in the Middle Ages and up until today. It is absolutely true that the Diaspora Jews did have some distinct differences from Jews living in the Land of Israel, but the same can be said today as Israeli Jews and American Jews and Jews in other countries all have major differences. Jews in English-speaking countries are more apt to use a Tanach in English as their primary Scriptures, just as Jews living in the Mediterranean Diaspora were more likely to use the Septuagint. We have to treat the First Century in a similar way to how we understand Twenty-First Century Jewry.

The Transmission of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures

Of all of the documents of antiquity, there is none is so great as the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. Over 5,000 manuscripts, codices, and manuscript fragments exist of the Greek New Testament (compared to about 600 for the works of Homer). These give an overwhelming testimony to the gospel message and the life of our Messiah Yeshua, and the fact that it was eagerly copied by men and women being spiritually transformed, and that the message was spread out. The oldest of these texts date from the mid-Second Century. Advocates of an original “Hebrew New Testament” are often not even aware of the overwhelming manuscript evidence in favor of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Greek. And when it comes to their position of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Hebrew, not a single manuscript or manuscript fragment exists from the early centuries of the faith in Hebrew. Some in the Messianic movement have claimed that God showed them visions that the “Hebrew New Testament” documents will be “discovered” in a cave in Jerusalem, but this is not proof. At the very least it is a mental manifestation of what one wants to believe, and at the most is self-delusion.

Advocates of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Hebrew will often claim that while there are many texts of the Greek Scriptures, they do not all agree, and there are many scribal errors in them when compared to the Hebrew texts of the Tanach. It is frequently argued that these can only be but translations, accounting for the many variations that exist. This point of view demonstrates a severe lack of information when it comes to the transmission of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. While Torah scrolls are often copied by one Jewish scribe or sofer copying from another text, the Greek Apostolic Scriptures were copied much differently. First of all, the Apostolic Scriptures were not copied in a closed, relatively homogeneous Jewish community like the Tanach. Some New Testament documents were clearly copied hurriedly, either because the Roman authorities were out to prosecute those who held them, or the members of the faith community wanted to get the message out quickly to others. Secondly, when we do see mass production of the Apostolic Scriptures, we often see the same techniques used that were employed to copy other ancient books, literature, important letters, and news reports. One person would read from a master text, and then several scribes—or perhaps even a room of thirty or more scribes—would write down what he heard. This inevitably led to there being variance in some documents. D.A. Carson describes how most variances in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures came into being:

“Unintentional errors are those in which the scribe had no intention of changing anything. He simply made a mistake. If he was copying a manuscript as a professional scribe, writing down what the reader read out to him and to those working with him, he might hear something incorrectly and therefore make a mistake….After the professional scribes had finished transcribing all the readers had read out, a trained corrector read over what the scribe had written and made corrections. Often, therefore, the reading of the first corrector of a manuscript (often in a different color of ink) is correct. But the corrector might miss some mistakes; and he might even introduce some new ones….Other kinds of unintentional errors are common if the scribe is copying a manuscript by himself; that is, if, instead of listening to a reader, he is using his own eyes to read the parent manuscript. Certain Greek letters in uncial form are readily confused. A very common error is caused by homoeoteleuton, a similar ending of lines or words: a scribe copies what he sees, but when his eyes return to the parent manuscript he accidentally leaves out a bit because his eyes skip down to a place where the same or a similar ending occurs. Alternatively, for an analogous error, he might unthinkingly copy out the same expression or line twice, because his eyes have skipped back up the page. Another common error involves the transposition of words or expressions. Probably this error arises when the scribe retains a whole clause or verse in his memory as he writes it down; and his memory betrays him. It may further betray him by prompting him to substitute a favored synonym for some particular word.”[37]

This, of course, is just a brief description of how many of the variants that exist in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures came into being. You have to put yourself back into ancient times and how the emerging Christian Church wanted the gospel message to go forth. The documents copied were copied meticulously, but human error inevitably crept in. Most of the variants we see among these ancient texts are in the form of spelling, words added, or clauses unnecessarily repeated, and errors that would take place by anyone copying himself, or in a room with others. The ancients did not have computers where they could easily remove letters or words or sentences with the stroke of a few keys. Papyrus or paper was at a premium, and the copyists had to make do with the means at their disposal.

The difference between the preservation of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures and the Hebrew Tanach is that the Christian Church today is readily honest about the fact that there are some manuscript differences that exist, whereas many (but certainly not all) in the (Orthodox) Synagogue believe that the Hebrew Scriptures have been “preserved perfectly” (and this errant idea has subsequently passed into much of the [fundamentalist] Messianic community). Monasteries, depositories, and libraries all throughout the Christian world have ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments from the early centuries of the faith, that are employed in determining what the original reading of a text was. The modern-day study of textual criticism came about largely because of renewed contact with the lands of the Bible and antiquity via European imperialism. The same techniques that take manuscripts and manuscript fragments of Homer, Plato, or Aristotle—of which we have considerably fewer, and much greater variance—are used in examining Biblical documents and their counterparts, in scientifically determining what the original reading of a text was.

Critical editions of the Greek New Testament have been in production ever since the King James Bible was translated in 1611.[38] The British scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort helped pioneer textual criticism in the Greek Scriptures in the late Nineteenth Century. Most of our modern English Bible versions (RSV, NASB, NEB, NIV, REB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, etc.) are translated from a critical Greek text that goes back to a Westcott and Hort edition published in the late 1800s. (I have had the privilege myself of handling an edition from 1892.) Today, the two major editions that exist are the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (1998), and the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (1979). The text of these editions is identical, but they differ in their explanatory notes, which go into the differences among variants of the Greek Scriptures and other ancient versions. A required companion with either of these two publications is Bruce M. Metzger’s work A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, which explains some of the potential theological reasons why variants among texts exist.

Suffice it to say, almost all of those who advocate an original “Hebrew New Testament” are unaquantined with how and why variants in the Greek Scriptures exist, and the modern discipline of textual criticism. They may fail to even understand the fact that textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures likewise exists, and there are critical editions of the Tanach such as the Biblia Hebraica (1939) and the updated Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1979), which are used for most modern English Bible versions, including Jewish ones like the NJPS. Jewish scholars sit on the same committees that critique the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the explanatory notes for these editions indicate where variants exist among Hebrew texts, ancient translations like the Septuagint or Vulgate, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew Scriptures have not been “preserved perfectly.” There is variance.

Suffice it to say, the study of textual criticism is very complicated and beyond the scope of most Christian pastors, and certainly beyond the scope of most (if not all) Messianic rabbis and teachers, myself included. It is, nevertheless, an important area of Biblical study. What is ironic, of course, is that some teachers, by a sensationalistic personality—or making statements that have absolutely no factual basis to them—can easily discount the composition of the Apostolic Scriptures in Greek. While it is very true that more differences exist among the Greek Apostolic Scriptures than the Hebrew Tanach, we also have a wider array of texts from which to survey. Hebrew texts of the Bible that were old or decaying were often buried. Certainly, if we had some of these texts today, we might see a greater variance among Hebrew texts of the Bible. We do, in fact, have a wider variance when we consider the witnesses of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. But perhaps God does not want it that way with the Hebrew Scriptures, because He is testing the hearts and minds of people today in the Messianic community. He wants to see what they will do with the message of His Son being composed in Greek.[39]

The Ramifications of the New Testament Being Written in Hebrew

There are some serious historical factors working against advocates of a so-called “Hebrew New Testament” that many either do not take into consideration, choose to ignore, or choose not to report to those hearing their teachings. One of the major misunderstandings circulating, as already discussed, is thinking that all Jews in the First Century lived in the Land of Israel and spoke Hebrew. This is absolutely not true. While it is true that many Jews did indeed live in Israel, and spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic as their primary language, the latter being a Semitic relative of Hebrew, we cannot separate the province of Judea from the Roman Empire it was part of. Likewise, we cannot forget the fact that many more Jews were living in the Diaspora and were Greek speaking. These Jews are often identified in the Apostolic Scriptures as being “Hellenists” (Grk. sing. Hellēnistēs, Ellhnisthß). F.F. Bruce describes them in greater detail, and how many of them became followers of Yeshua:

“This division between Hebrews and Hellenists was primarily linguistic and cultural, but probably it had theological implications too. The Hebrews were evidently Jews who habitually spoke Aramaic, whose homeland was Palestine (or any other area where Aramaic-speaking Jews lived). The Hellenists, on the other hand, were Jews who spoke Greek…Many of them would belong to the Greek-speaking Diaspora, even if they resided in Palestine for longer or shorter periods; but Palestine had its native Greek-speaking Jews. If we ask when and how so many of these Hellenists were enrolled as disciples of Jesus, we may find the answer in Luke’s narrative of the day of Pentecost, according to which Jews of the Diaspora formed a large, if not the main, part of Peter’s audience.”[40]

No honest theologian is going to argue the fact that Yeshua the Messiah spoke Hebrew and Aramaic in His daily affairs. No honest theologian is going to argue the fact that He primarily spoke these languages when He gave His teachings recorded in the Gospels. However, we cannot automatically make broad assumptions such as Yeshua only speaking Hebrew when addressing individuals, or even groups of people. It simply does not align with history and what we know about First Century Judea. There are instances in the Gospels, such as when He encounters the Roman centurion or the Syro-Phoenician woman, where He would have spoken Greek. Caspar René Gregory comments to this end,

“It is perfectly true that Jesus and His disciples without doubt commonly spoke Aramaic, an Aramaic that had come down from the North, though I consider it as possibly that He and they also understood and spoke more or less Greek, seeing that the tiny province in which the Jews prevailed was so closely surrounded by and permeated by Greeks. The words of Jesus, therefore, which the Gospels have preserved for us are, aside from a few cases, words that have been translated from the Aramaic into Greek.”[41]

These comments, as should be expected, lead many in the Messianic community to conclude that the Greek of the Gospels does not accurately reflect the “true sayings” of Yeshua. But before making hasty judgments, there are several factors that are not often considered. First of all, the Gospels were not composed during the Earthly life of Yeshua. The events were not “written down” as they occurred. Secondly, the target audiences of the Gospels were in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. And third, we have to remember that a th