WHY WAS THE OT WRITTEN IN HEBREW & THE NT IN GREEK?

[Open7]

How can it be that all the ot writers wrote their books in Hebrew and all the nt writers wrote their letters in Greek? Did all ot writers just happen to live in the Hebrew region and all nt writers lived in the Greek speaking region?

Thanks

[AdHoc]

35 minutes ago, Open7 said:

How can it be that all the ot writers wrote their books in Hebrew and all the nt writers wrote their letters in Greek? Did all ot writers just happen to live in the Hebrew region and all nt writers lived in the Greek speaking region?

Thanks

The Old Testament was basically only written to Israel. God had no relations with any other nation.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Dt 7:6)

And it was to this nation that God delivered His Words.

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Ro 3:1–2).

So the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.

But we find two exceptions. Daniel Chapter 2 to 7 and one verse in Jeremiah, 10:11, are written in Aramaic - the language that the nations used. And we discover why. In these Chapters and verses God was addressing the Nations or the Gentiles.

The Jews refused Jesus Christ and the gospel is then sent to the Nations. The official language of the world was Greek, so the New Testament is written in this language. And this trend by God is confirmed on Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2. Obviously God wants every man to hear the gospel in his own language. It is significant that when the Bible was translated the Reformation followed.

In 1st Corinthians 14, when Paul regulates the use of the gifts and the gifted ones on the Church, he restricts an unknown tongue to maximum three utterances per meeting. The reason given is that He wants men to hear that which they can understand.

Edited June 16, 2022 by AdHoc
Format

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, Open7 said:

How can it be that all the ot writers wrote their books in Hebrew and all the nt writers wrote their letters in Greek? Did all ot writers just happen to live in the Hebrew region and all nt writers lived in the Greek speaking region?

Thanks

From  the time that Moses wrote down the Pentetuach [in the days of Deuteronomy] to the writings of Malachi the prophet was about - oh, give or take - 1100 years.  Everything written by inspirationwas from Hebrew people TO Hebrew people.  The Hebrew language was stable served it's purpose.

After Malachi, there was 400 years of no prophets, no inspired writings.  By that time Alexander the Great was in charge of the known world and Koine Greek spread like wildfire.  People kept their own language but also spoke Koine Greek.

In fact, before Jesus was ever even BORN, the entire Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek.

The writers of the New Testament wanted to spread the gospel to ALL.  Not all spoke Hebrew or even Aramaic.  But close enough TO all spoke - at least to get by - Koine Greek.

Besides, after the Romans demolished Israel in 70 AD, Hebrew died out and became a dead language.  It revived however, in a modern version in the 19th century.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Jayne

[Billiards Ball]

15 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The Old Testament was basically only written to Israel. God had no relations with any other nation.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Dt 7:6)

And it was to this nation that God delivered His Words.

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Ro 3:1–2).

So the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.

But we find two exceptions. Daniel Chapter 2 to 7 and one verse in Jeremiah, 10:11, are written in Aramaic - the language that the nations used. And we discover why. In these Chapters and verses God was addressing the Nations or the Gentiles.

The Jews refused Jesus Christ and the gospel is then sent to the Nations. The official language of the world was Greek, so the New Testament is written in this language. And this trend by God is confirmed on Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2. Obviously God wants every man to hear the gospel in his own language. It is significant that when the Bible was translated the Reformation followed.

In 1st Corinthians 14, when Paul regulates the use of the gifts and the gifted ones on the Church, he restricts an unknown tongue to maximum three utterances per meeting. The reason given is that He wants men to hear that which they can understand.

A very nice post but I've not read 1 Cor 14 as "three utterances". In the synagogue, you can have a rabbi speak and a separate cantor and a man from the congregation and a Bar Mitzvah . . . in the NT a traveler could also speak--that's five people in one service, for example.

[AdHoc]

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

A very nice post but I've not read 1 Cor 14 as "three utterances". In the synagogue, you can have a rabbi speak and a separate cantor and a man from the congregation and a Bar Mitzvah . . . in the NT a traveler could also speak--that's five people in one service, for example.

Thanks for your reply and query. I most probably did not make myself clear. My apologies. In a normal meeting it is my understanding that there is no limit on speaking, except those speaking in an unknown language. I understand the following passage to say;

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29  Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Co 14:26–33)

In Chapter 12 it is remarkable that every gift (or inspired one) is a speaking gift. The gift of miracles may not entail speaking, but it causes speaking (Act.9:40-42). In regulating the use of these speaking gifts, Paul says in verse 26 that all should be prepared to speak. I judge that this corresponds with the males of Israel appearing thrice a year with their tithes to share at Jerusalem. That is, verse 26 does not say that all have to speak. It says that all must be ready to speak.

Verse 27 then singles out the gift of an unknown tongue. Corinth was the major trading port of the Mediterranean and men of many nations would be trading there. So the gift of tongues would more in evidence than say Smyrna. The Lord might want to reach a Spaniard and so an utterance is given to a man of Corinth in Spanish. Paul restricts such an utterance to maximum three in any one meeting. He also restricts any utterance in an unknown tongue if no interpreter is in the meeting. This, indicates to me that God wanted the meeting to run in the local language as far as possible, but reserves the right to reach a foreigner in his language. But, this should not be the rule, but the exception. And God was so sure that He wanted the local meeting in its local language that if a known interpreter was not  present, no utterance in a foreign tongue was allowed.

If we go back to verse 15 we have a strong proof that the Lord wants the meeting in the local language. He quotes from Moses (the Law) on Deuteronomy 28:49 that if God's people are surrounded by unknown tongues it is a sign that they are being chastised and are under foreign government.

I hope I've cleared that up. Here's is a summary

• All are expected to be ready to speak an edifying word - even if it is just reading a Psalm
• All may speak but a man who speaks should be inspired
• Tongues are encouraged but are limited to three utterances and only if a known interpreter is present
• God wants the local Assembly to share in their own language as far as possible
• An Assembly that has many babbling in tongues show lack of faith and is under another government

[BK1110]

It makes sense when you remember that the books of the Bible were written by different people, across many centuries, in different countries and cultures, and to different audiences. Writing a book of Israeli history for a Jewish audience? It's going to be in Hebrew. A book written by a Hebrew who was captured by Babylon as a boy and has lived his whole life in that culture? You'll get some of the language of that culture, Aramaic. Writing a letter hundreds of years later to a small church in a Greek city? Yep, Greek.

[Open7]

15 hours ago, BK1110 said:

It makes sense when you remember that the books of the Bible were written by different people, across many centuries, in different countries and cultures, and to different audiences. Writing a book of Israeli history for a Jewish audience? It's going to be in Hebrew. A book written by a Hebrew who was captured by Babylon as a boy and has lived his whole life in that culture? You'll get some of the language of that culture, Aramaic. Writing a letter hundreds of years later to a small church in a Greek city? Yep, Greek.

Thanks for this @BK1110 this is very helpful. But I’m confused regarding Greek, how could the whole nt all be in Greek, what about books like Matthew, written to the Jews? Would they not speak Hebrew? Or all the other gospels, or all the letters, how could it all be for Greeks?

[BK1110]

2 minutes ago, Open7 said:

Thanks for this @BK1110 this is very helpful. But I’m confused regarding Greek, how could the whole nt all be in Greek, what about books like Matthew, written to the Jews? Would they not speak Hebrew? Or all the other gospels, or all the letters, how could it all be for Greeks?

Most people in that region spoke common Greek at that time, because Alexander the Great's conquests had spread it throughout much of the Mediterranean region (Israel was ruled as a territory of the Roman Empire, in which Greek was commonly spoken).

A lot of what we have of the OT is even technically from Greek, as the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT from around 300 BC, is what most modern OT translations are heavily based on. The OT wasn't originally Greek though of course.

[Open7]

3 minutes ago, BK1110 said:

Most people in that region spoke common Greek at that time, because Alexander the Great's conquests had spread it throughout much of the Mediterranean region (Israel was ruled as a territory of the Roman Empire, in which Greek was commonly spoken).

A lot of what we have of the OT is even technically from Greek, as the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT from around 300 BC, is what most modern OT translations are heavily based on. The OT wasn't originally Greek though of course.

Ah interesting. So would I be right to say that there was a large shifting in languages over Israel during the 400 years before Jesus came? Giving time for Greek to be the norm?

[BK1110]

7 hours ago, Open7 said:

Ah interesting. So would I be right to say that there was a large shifting in languages over Israel during the 400 years before Jesus came? Giving time for Greek to be the norm?

Yes. By the time of Jesus' birth Israel had long been a part of the Roman empire and common Greek was widely spoken there. Interestingly though it seems that Aramaic, not Greek or Hebrew, was actually the language most commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea during Jesus' time, and it's likely that's the language he spoke in. Some scholars think Jesus may have spoken all three, though Aramaic was the most common. It should be noted that a lot of people in the region who spoke Aramaic probably couldn't read and write it, so writing the Bible in Aramaic might not have been as helpful as Greek even if it was to an Aramaic-speaking audience. There seems to be some belief that Matthew possibly was written in Aramaic originally, though there isn't a consensus on it.