Many of the individuals whose conversations are documented in the New Testament would have probably, or almost certainly, spoken Aramaic or Hebrew with each other. Based on the places, times, and situations of their discourse, Greek would have been unlikely.
The relevance of Hebrew and Aramaic is historically obvious. Greek and Latin, although widespread and in frequent use for business, travel, government, and military, were still foreign languages, and not the native languages of the region. Even the Roman governor ordered that signs be posted in Semitic languages (cf. John 19:20).
Greek and Latin would have had politically distasteful connotations to residents of the area.
Jesus and His earliest followers used their native Semitic speech in certain contexts (cf. Acts 21:40, 22:2, and 26:14).
The New Testament contains Semiticisms - Hebrew or Aramaic idioms rendered literally, too literally, into Greek. These phrase are unnatural and awkward in Greek, and in literal English translations of the text.
For example, instead of “he looked,” the text offers “he lifted up his eyes and saw” (Luke 6:20; Matthew 17:8; John 4:35, 6:5).
To “find favor with someone” is a typically Semitic formulation (cf. Luke 1:30), and a variant to Old Testament phrase, “to find favor in the eyes of someone” (cf. Genesis 6:8, 50:4; Deuteronomy 24:1; Ruth 2:10, 2:13; and many other citations).
Circumlocutions like “the fashion of his countenance was altered” or “the appearance of his face was altered” seem needlessly cumbersome in English, Greek or German. Why not simply write, “his face was altered”? But what sounds needlessly wordy in English is natural and idiomatic in Hebrew (cf. Luke 9:29).
The of the verb “to know” as a euphemism for a sexual relationship will be familiar to the reader; but it hints at a deeper connection between the mere physical activity of sex and the spiritual connection between a wife and her husband. The New Testament doesn’t use this terminology to refer to sexual activity, but it does make extensive use of the marriage metaphor to describe God’s relation to the corporate whole of His followers on earth, and it also makes use of the verb “to know” as transcending mere intellectual information (I Corinthians 13:12).
Likewise, the phrase “he set his face to go to Jerusalem” is an overly-literal translation of a Hebrew idiom into Greek (Luke 9:51).
To name a child, the semitic phrase is “to call his name” (cf. Matthew 1:21, 1:23, 1:25; Luke 1:13, 1:31, 2:21; Revelation 19:13).
On the basis of these examples, some scholars have conjectured that parts of the New Testament may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek.
To be sure, some of the discourse recorded in the Gospels would not have taken place in Greek. But it is a different claim entirely to say that it was written first in a Semitic language and then translated into Greek.
Historically, certain contexts dictate that a given conversation would have been conducted in Hebrew or Aramaic, e.g., Jesus speaking with Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30).
When the authors of the New Testament recorded those conversations, however, did they record them in Greek?
Eusebius, writing around 324 A.D., cites a famous passage by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who wrote around 100 A.D., stating that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and others later translated it into Greek.
Jerome, writing around 400 A.D., likewise reports that he saw one or more Hebrew copies of Matthew’s Gospel.
It is plausible and even persuasive, although not conclusive, to argue that some parts of the New Testament were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is more speculative, and less plausible, to assert that the entire New Testament was originally composed in a Semitic language. Certain aspects of John’s and Peter’s epistles, and Luke’s writings, bear the markings of Greek composition.
In any case, however, an understanding of Semitic idioms aids in the interpretation of the New Testament.
Jesus makes a statement about eyes (Matthew 6:22) which has mystified some commentators. If the reader knows a Hebrew idiom (Proverbs 22:9, 28:22) which identifies the eyes with either stinginess or generosity, then the passage in Matthew becomes more clear. This is confirmed by the preceding passage (Matthew 6:19) about charitable activity.
