Which Language(s) Was the New Covenant Writings First Penned In?

 

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Bible has been miraculously preserved for us today nearly 2,000 years after the death and resurrection of our Messiah and has been translated into over 1,000 languages worldwide - either whole or in part.  Its preservation is far better than any other lengthy ancient text in existence.

A big question is: Which language/languages were the original autographs of the New Covenant texts written in?

The majority of western Bible scholars will tell you that the New Testament was originally written in Greek while many eastern Christians, Messianic Jews, and the so-called "church-fathers" suggest that the New Testament (or at least some of it) was originally written in a semitic language --- Hebrew and/or Aramaic.  The New Covenant Writings were most definitely most widespread in the Greek language, as it was a widely spoken language and many of our oldest manuscripts are in Greek.  Does that necessarily mean that the original New Covenant autographs were originally written in Greek?  The simple answer is "no" but that also doesn't necessarily guarantee that it wasn't either.  Let's look at this a little deeper and honestly consider some important things related to this topic rather than merely parroting what most seminary schools and websites teach today.

What is the best evidence for each respective language?

Greek - has many of the oldest discovered manuscripts, was a widespread and common language in the first century, is widely supported by the majority of modern Christian scholars, and is the basis for most of our modern translations.

Aramaic - has a deep rooted tradition in the church of the east, 22 out of the 27 books of Christian canon were claimed to be hand delivered by an apostle to the church of the east, at least one manuscript claims to be a copy of a first century text, and early church fathers claimed at least some of the New Covenant Writings were written in a semitic language (Hebrew and Aramaic can be easily confused by a predominantly Greek speaker).

Hebrew - Some of the early "church fathers" claimed at least some of the New Covenant texts were originally written in Hebrew, some Hebrew and linguistic scholars claim some of the newly examined Hebrew manuscripts were copied from a first century source based on 2nd temple Hebrew, and Hebrew was/is considered the "holy tongue" of the Jewish people.  IF the original text was not in Hebrew, accurate copies in Hebrew would have most definitely circulated at the same time as the original autographs. 

Commonality: They all claim to have existed in the first century and the textual traditions have very little variation between them.  Each manuscript-tradition claims to have been penned by the original author(s) of the New Covenant texts.

What is the best evidence against each respective language?

Greek - the Greek text loses idioms, poetry, chiastic structures, and flow that is found in the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the New Covenant texts.

Aramaic - only the minority of scholars believe Aramaic to be the original text, it is not as widespread as the Greek text, the last five books of the New Covenant Writings were claimed to have been translated from Greek because Aramaic copies were not handed with the rest of the text - although some scholars suggest an Aramaic Peshitta text of the book of Revelation has been found which was not translated from the Greek. 

Hebrew - there is only a small amount of manuscript evidence of a Hebrew original, one of the more likely manuscript-contenders for a Hebrew original is primarily translated and presented by a Sacred Name cult member that often misrepresents information, the other contenders for a possible Hebrew original are currently not widely known or translated and have debatable origin.

Commonality: Each manuscript-tradition have claims to have been penned by the original author(s) of the New Covenant texts.

What do early congregations and "church fathers" claim about the language(s) of the text?

Many of the early "church fathers" make a claim that the New Covenant writings [either in part or in full] were originally written either in Hebrew or Aramaic (Aramaic would have been their native tongue) and then translated either by the original author or somebody else early on into the Greek language.

Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
~Papias (150-170 AD)

In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he (Clement of Alexandria) has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures… the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.
~Clement of Alexandria (150 – 212 AD)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
~Ireneus (170 AD)

The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Jesus the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
~Origen (210 AD)

Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. Pantaenus… penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.
~Eusebius (315 AD)

For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle.
~Eusebius (315 AD)

They (the Nazarenes) have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
~Epiphanius (370 AD)

“Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist… makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew.”
“Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord Jesus the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him.”
~Jerome (382 AD)

His (Matthew’s) book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew…
~Isho’dad (850 AD)

“He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
~Jerome (382 AD)

Which languages did Yeshua and the apostles speak?

Yeshua and all or most of his disciples would have likely spoken at least 3 languages as was common in first century Judea.  Hebrew was the language read aloud in the synagogues, Aramaic was the common tongue spoken during daily life, and Greek was the trade language.

How were the prevalent manuscripts copied/preserved in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

Greek - copied numerous times by both scribes and common people in many regions, widespread. 

Aramaic - primarily copied by professional scribes and preserved through the church of the east

Hebrew - there are too few manuscripts to determine, however, some were copied by rabbinic authorities preserving some rabbinic scribal traditions within the Hebrew texts we have today

How old are the oldest manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

Greek - we have manuscripts and fragments that date to the first century AD

Aramaic - we have at least 1 manuscript that claims to be a copy from a first century AD Peshitta source as well as church tradition suggesting a first century original manuscript

Hebrew - we only have late manuscripts, but linguists suggest some of them were copied from a first century source based on second-temple Hebrew linguistics

Conclusion: Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew traditions of the New Covenant Writings existed in the first century AD simultaneously.

How different are the manuscripts in the different languages?

The manuscripts in the different languages are all very similar, the Aramaic Peshitta text reflects the same Byzantine Majority text as the Greek, while the Hebrew manuscripts we have often closely align to the Aramaic Peshitta text in language, flow, content, and structure.  Many of the variations have to do with maintaining clarity when transitioning from one language into another.  When translating from Greek to English for example, you may have to reword things slightly to preserve the message being portrayed to the culture it is being portrayed to.  The Hebrew versions we have retain a lot of Hebraisms not retained in a Greek translation.

Conclusion: Regardless of language, all manuscripts share the same gospel message and overall content with little to no variation in concepts.

What is a possible conclusion that makes sense with all of this evidence?

I'm going to answer this question by asking another question.  What if all of the above languages is the answer?  Who is to say the apostles did not write the New Covenant texts in all three languages: Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?  Even the "church fathers" seem to imply the texts existed in multiple languages early on, and each of these 3 languages hold a strong tradition that serve as witnesses to the New Covenant writings in 3 separate languages.  It doesn't need to be a competition or debate over which one was first; all 3 languages share the same gospel in their respective texts and carry a tradition behind them.

One thing I can hope we all can agree upon is the original autographs of the Bible were not written in King James English.