Was Matthew originally written in Hebrew?

[gilgal]

Semitic Origins of the NT Part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egmOcOVahg0
Semitic Origins of the NT Part 2 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0gtqyFhfLY
Semitic Origins of the NT Part 3 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJ4bvJ-5s0
Semitic Origins of the NT Part 4 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbIOU2rZPA
Semitic Origins of the NT Part 5 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96nDiT7PL4
Semitic Origins of the NT Part 6 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAhWz08cKQ

ancienthebreworg is claiming that the New Testament, especially the gospel of Matthew is primarily written in Hebrew which his original manuscript must have been lost.

This is a challenging statement. Most of us have believed that the New Testament was written in Greek. If you watch this 6-part video you'll find the following:

• Unlike the other synoptic gospels, Matthew's parables begin with Kingdom of heaven but Mark and Luke begin with Kingdom of God. The reason is that Matthew is addressing to a Jewish audience. Jews don't mention God. They often mention Hashem/The Name
• Matthew Shem Tov, although is a controversial copy of the gospel of Matthew, however corrects some mistranslations of certain passages:
  

  1. Numbers 30:2
     If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth

     Matthew 5
     33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
     34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
     35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

     Did Jesus change the Law? Or did he fulfill it? In this case the Pharisees claimed that if they swore on anything else than the name of God then they don't have to perform it. But Jesus says that whatever they swear they have to perform it no matter what they swear upon.
     
  2. 
     

     Matthew 23
     1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
     2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
     3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

     Observe what? Their teachings? No! Moses' teachings.

Papias 150-170CE:

Information on Gospel of Matthew
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Origen and Jerome agree with Papias.
The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of 1947, is in Greek. But does this mean that it was first written in Greek? No! Because it must have been originally written in Hebrew.

Was Hebrew outdated? Paul spoke in Hebrew:

Acts 22
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Another evidence is that a Simon Barkochba (135AD) letter fragment was found written in Hebrew.

A question comes to my mind: what about the study of Gemetria? Even if the original New Testament was written in Hebrew is the Greek still considered inspired to search for the sum of words and phrases?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

ancienthebreworg is claiming that the New Testament, especially the gospel of Matthew is primarily written in Hebrew which his original manuscript must have been lost.

The thread title is a little off since you are asking about the entire NT, not just Matthew.

There is early testimony that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (don't recall which). But there is no manuscript evidence until the 13th century IIRC, so the claim is not well substantiated. And as for the rest of the NT, there is no evidence that I know of. (See below).

This is a challenging statement. Most of us have believed that the New Testament was written in Greek. If you watch this 6-part video you'll find the following:

• Unlike the other synoptic gospels, Matthew's parables begin with Kingdom of heaven but Mark and Luke begin with Kingdom of God. The reason is that Matthew is addressing to a Jewish audience. Jews don't mention God. They often mention Hashem/The Name
• Matthew Shem Tov, although is a controversial copy of the gospel of Matthew, however corrects some mistranslations of certain passages:
  
  1. 
     Did Jesus change the Law? Or did he fulfill it? In this case the Pharisees claimed that if they swore on anything else than the name of God then they don't have to perform it. But Jesus says that whatever they swear they have to perform it no matter what they swear upon.
  2. 
     Observe what? Their teachings? No! Moses' teachings.
  
  

The idea that Matthew was written for the Jews is derived from many little "clues" - such as his replacement of "Kingdom of God" with "Kingdom of Heaven." This does not prove that it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Many scholars, and especially critics who have rejected the Bible, think that Matthew's statement that Christ did not abolish the law directly contradicts Paul's writings, and that this indicates there were competing versions of Christianity in the first century.

Folks are free to "harmonize" the apparent contradictions any way they like, and that's the most likely explanation of the "corrections" introduced in Shem Tov's version of Matthew. If you are going to make up a new version, might as well fix some of the obvious errors while you're at it!

Papias 150-170CE:

Origen and Jerome agree with Papias.
The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of 1947, is in Greek. But does this mean that it was first written in Greek? No! Because it must have been originally written in Hebrew.

Yes, but ... the quotes in the Greek NT are most frequently from the Greek LXX which implies the originals were Greek too.

Was Hebrew outdated? Paul spoke in Hebrew:

It was outdated amongst the populace. Paul spoke it because he was educated in the Jews religion. It's just like the Catholic Church. The educated folks know Latin, the language of the early western Church. The common folks do not.

Another evidence is that a Simon Barkochba (135AD) letter fragment was found written in Hebrew.

That's interesting. I'd like to learn more about that.

A question comes to my mind: what about the study of Gemetria? Even if the original New Testament was written in Hebrew is the Greek still considered inspired to search for the sum of words and phrases?

This is extremely strong evidence for folks who accept Gematria. For example, the alphanumeric structure of the Greek of John 1:1-5 is profoundly integrated with the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-5, as discussed in the Creation Holograph articles. And the Logos Holograph is a large integrated structure that gives plenty of evidence for those who accept such things.

The primary reason to reject the idea that the entire NT was originally written in Hebrew is the near TOTAL lack of manuscript evidence, internal or external. Consider the Greek of Luke - it is extremely well composed. It does not show signs of being a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.

And from a "Big Picture" point of view, it makes a lot of sense that the NT would be written in Greek, the language of the "Gentiles" to whom the Gospel was designed to go. To the Jew [Hebrew OT] first, and then to the Greek [NT].

Richard

[gilgal]

The thread title is a little off since you are asking about the entire NT, not just Matthew.

There is early testimony that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (don't recall which). But there is no manuscript evidence until the 13th century IIRC, so the claim is not well substantiated. And as for the rest of the NT, there is no evidence that I know of. (See below).


The idea that Matthew was written for the Jews is derived from many little "clues" - such as his replacement of "Kingdom of God" with "Kingdom of Heaven." This does not prove that it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Many scholars, and especially critics who have rejected the Bible, think that Matthew's statement that Christ did not abolish the law directly contradicts Paul's writings, and that this indicates there were competing versions of Christianity in the first century.

Folks are free to "harmonize" the apparent contradictions any way they like, and that's the most likely explanation of the "corrections" introduced in Shem Tov's version of Matthew. If you are going to make up a new version, might as well fix some of the obvious errors while you're at it!


Yes, but ... the quotes in the Greek NT are most frequently from the Greek LXX which implies the originals were Greek too.



It was outdated amongst the populace. Paul spoke it because he was educated in the Jews religion. It's just like the Catholic Church. The educated folks know Latin, the language of the early western Church. The common folks do not.


That's interesting. I'd like to learn more about that.


This is extremely strong evidence for folks who accept Gematria. For example, the alphanumeric structure of the Greek of John 1:1-5 is profoundly integrated with the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-5, as discussed in the Creation Holograph articles. And the Logos Holograph is a large integrated structure that gives plenty of evidence for those who accept such things.

The primary reason to reject the idea that the entire NT was originally written in Hebrew is the near TOTAL lack of manuscript evidence, internal or external. Consider the Greek of Luke - it is extremely well composed. It does not show signs of being a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.

And from a "Big Picture" point of view, it makes a lot of sense that the NT would be written in Greek, the language of the "Gentiles" to whom the Gospel was designed to go. To the Jew [Hebrew OT] first, and then to the Greek [NT].

Richard

Ok I wrote the videos in note form for the first 3 videos. I personally doubt that every NT book is written in Hebrew. I only suspect Matthew and Hebrews. Maybe Revelation too but that's my guess since the book has 22 chapters like the 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet but not the Greek Alphabet. But I don't have any evidence.

Ok Paul was religious. It is said that Hebrew is preserved within the religious texts. But the video also stated that there were cooking recipes found in Hebrew as well. Maybe the fact that Paul knew Hebrew showed that he was Hebrew speaking which meant that he was a Pharisee, religious, which made the crowd silent to hear what he had to say. But still the people must have understood Hebrew.

The inscription on the cross had 3 languages written: Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I'm guessing that Aramaic was spoken in Galilee. It would make sense since Galilee is closer to Syria whereas Jerusalem and Judea was Hebrew.

I'm going to jot down the rest of the notes God-willing today or tomorrow.

[gilgal]

Ok. Continuing the Semitic Origins of the New Testament.
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbIOU2rZPA

The Hebrew form of poetry
In English we avoid using similar or derived words within the same phrase, such as The artist painted on the canvas. But in Hebrew it's normal to say the painter painted the painting.

(I'm summarizing what the video said but my thought on this is that not only do the people speak in Hebrew but the authors use the Hebrew poetic form as well. If Greek was the first written form the Hebrew poetic form would have been lost)

Notice the closeness of the certain words:

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones (ebenim - אֲבָנִים h68) to raise up children (benim - בָנִים h1121) unto Abraham.

Matthew 15
35 And he commanded the multitude to sit (yashav - ישב h3427) down on the ground (grass or herb - esev עשב h6212).
36 And he took the seven (sheva - שבע h7651) loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake (examined - shavar) them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
37 And they did all eat, and were filled (satisfied - seva): and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven (sheva - שבע h7651) baskets full (sheva - שבע h7651?).

Mark 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man (adam - אדם h120) should cast (scatter zara - זרה h2219) seed (zera - זרע h2233) into the ground (adamah - אדמה h127);

(Kingdom of God - prophecy teachers/ televangelists fail to mention this. The kingdom belongs to God. This needs a study of its' own. I think there are two kingdoms - two races: physical kingdom and spiritual. And they're struggling against each other as Jacob was struggling with Esau in their mother's womb.)

Parallelism is used throughout the New Testament. Parallelism is saying one thing in two or more different ways or phrases:

Psalm 119:105 NUN Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

He mentions the following as a parallel example but doesn't explain it:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[gilgal]

Semitic Origins of the NT Part 5 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96nDiT7PL4

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

The speaker claims (which I disagree) that the word Syria in Hebrew is Aram and probably an error and ought to be am meaning people. But I don't think that Jesus fame stayed in Israel alone because there was a Canaanite woman begging to heal his sick daughter:

Matthew 15
21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Mark 7
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

But the King James is strange when it says the following:

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor ( ptōchos πτωχός g4434 but the Hebrew: עָנִי aniy -עָנָה [H6031] which also means humble) in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

What does it mean poor in spirit? Rich in the flesh? It should be rich in the spirit.or humble in spirit.

So would this prove that the original was written in Hebrew?
Let me add a website from which I quote:

First, what about all the Hellenized (Greek) names found in the New Testament? Examples, Hezekiah is “Ezekias” in Mat. 1:9, and Judah (more correctly Yahudah, as “Judas,” Mat. 1:2. Isaiah is “Esias,” Elijah is “Elias” in Matthew 11:14; Yahchanan is “John,” Jacob is “James,” and so on.

Second, why are there untranslated Hebrew/Aramaic words in the New Testament? That seems to be a dead give away all by itself. Here are a few. Most are Hebrew, some are Aramaic. Abba (Father), Rabbi (teacher), hosanna (Oh Save! An exclamation of adoration), Amen (Surely, or so be it), Talitha Cumi (Maid arise), ephphatha (be opened), corban (a dedicated gift), Sabbath, Satan, Mammon, raca, cumin, maranatha, Emmanuel, Eli lama sabachthani, and many others.

Third, even more convincing evidence for a Hebrew New Testament is the plain, clear Hebrew word order found throughout the New Testament. Many sentences have the verb-noun reversal that is common in the Hebrew and other Semitic languages, but not in Greek or English. Scholars have long understood that the grammar of the New Testament is not good Greek, but is excellent Hebrew grammar.

Fourth, in addition to all these, and the main focus of this article, are the many, many Hebrew expressions and idioms we find scattered throughout the New Testament. If the originals had been Greek, then they would have been written with Greek form and expression. But they were not, and translated word for word into Greek, they make no sense at all.
From Hebrew New Testament?

More:

1) Mat. 5:3, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven . They say that “theirs” is a classic mistranslation from the Greek, and is retained din all modern English versions. It should be translated “of these” or “of such as these.” We cannot possess the Kingdom. It does not belong to us. Rather, Yahshua is describing the kind of people who make up that Kingdom. It is the “poor in Spirit,” those who have no righteousness of their own, the meek, those who have overcome their pride and vanity.

2) Luke 23:31, For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? Makes no sense whatever in Greek or English, but makes perfect sense when retranslated into Hebrew.

Yahshua is referring to the “green tree” and the “dry tree” from Ezekiel’s prophecy against Jerusalem and the Temple (Eze. 20:45 to 21:7). The green tree is the righteous and the dry tree is the wicked. All will be burned up because of the intensity of the fire He will kindle.

So Yahshua is saying, If you knew what is coming, you would not mourn for me, you would mourn for yourselves. If they do this to Me (the righteous), what will they do to you (the wicked)? The “in” should be “do to.” This was a reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem , and the suffering and killing of many people, which took place in 69-70 CE.

3) Mat. 11:12, From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Have you ever wondered about this seeming contradiction? Why would the meek, the passive, the “poor in spirit,” resort to violence to take the Kingdom, and why would YHWH allow it? This Scripture as written, as we have it, does not agree with the rest of Yahshua’s teachings, does it?

So what is the key to understand this puzzle? Yahshua is making a reference to a well-known rabbinic interpretation of Micah 2:12-13, that reads like this:

vs12 I will gather all of you, Jacob; I will collect the remnant of Israel . I will put them all together like sheep in a fold, like a flock inside its pen. It will be noisy and crowded with people. 13. The breach-maker (“breaker” in the KJV, poretz in Hebrew) goes through before them. Then they break out, passing through the gate, they leave by it. Their king passes through before them, YHWH at their head.

This is a picture of a shepherd out in the field, penning his sheep up for the night. He makes a sheepfold for them by throwing up a makeshift rock fence against the side of a hill. The next morning, he lets the sheep out by making a “breach” in the fence, and the sheep are eager and impatient to get out after being penned up all night. So they shove and push a bit to get out into the green pasture.

So now we see what Yahshua is saying – the Kingdom of Heaven is breaking forth, NOT suffering violence, and every person in it is breaking forth or breaking out INTO it, NOT “the violent take it by force.”

Let’s compare Luke 16:16, the parallel verse (Luke 16:16 KJV) “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of YHWH is preached, and every man presseth into it.”

The authors say: “Two tremendous things are happening at the same time: the Kingdom is bursting forth into the world like water from a broken dam, and individuals within the Kingdom are finding liberty and freedom.”

4) Luke 12:49-50, “I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am straitened till it be accomplished!”

Many Christians think this refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. John the Baptist prophesied that the One to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mat. 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire”:).

They think this happened on Pentecost, that the “tongues like as of fire” fulfilled this prophecy. But John clarified what he meant in the very next verse (Mat 3:12, “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”) Malachi 4:1-3 will fulfill this prophecy when it comes to pass, at the end of the age.

And what did Yahshua mean by “…how I am straitened till it be accomplished!”? These verses in Luke are an example of Hebrew poetry, and He meant, “how distressed I am till it is over,” referring to the destruction of the “chaff” by fire. The chaff are those who refuse to repent.

5) Matthew 16:19, Whatsoever thou shalt bind (or loose) on earth shall be bound (or loosed) in heaven. In rabbinic literature, these two words in Hebrew, by Yahshua’s time, had come to mean “forbid” and “permit.” The rabbis were called upon often to interpret Scriptural commands. For example, the Law forbids work on Sabbaths, but does not define “work.” So they were called upon to define what they could or could not do. They “bound” or prohibited certain activities, and “loosed” or allowed other activities. Yahshua was transferring this authority to Peter and His other disciples, to make decisions or judgments about how to keep the law more perfectly, NOT to make laws, or change laws. We find a good example of this being done in Acts 15, where the disciples bound (forbade) certain things, and loosed (permitted) others.

6) Matthew 5:20, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The Hebrew word for “righteousness” is “tsedakah” and by Yahshua’s time had come to have a secondary meaning, “almsgiving,” or charity. Help to the poor. So Yahshua was saying that if your concern for the poor is not greater than that of the Pharisees, you will not be a disciple of His. Many think this verse belongs just before Mat. 6:1, where Yahshua is talking about giving alms, helping the poor.



7) Matthew 5:17-18, Destroy and fulfill are rabbinic argumentation methods. When one rabbi interpreted a Scripture and another disagreed, he would say, “You are destroying the Law!” Fulfilling the Law was simply interpreting it correctly. Someone had apparently accused Yahshua of misinterpreting a certain Scripture, and He was responding as a rabbi would. No one thought He had come to actually destroy the Law!

8) Luke 6:22, “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast your name out as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.” This is a Hebrew idiom that means “defame you” or malign you, or slander you. It is translated in the NRSV as “defame you.”

9) Luke 9:44, “Lay these sayings in your ears” is a Hebrew idiom that means “Listen carefully and remember well, for this is very important.”

10) Luke 9:51, “He set his face to go,” is a Hebrew idiom found in scores of idioms using “face,” such as “Hagar fled from the face of Sarai,” Jacob from the face of Esau, Moses from the face of Pharaoh, Moses hid his face in fear, Yahweh sometimes hides His face in anger, Yahweh sets His face against idolators, and He can make His face to shine upon us. It simply means to turn in the direction of, or turn away from, take notice of, etc. In the verse cited above, it means “He prepared to leave.”

11) Mat. 6:22-23, Good eye, bad eye – “The light of the body is the eye: therefore if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”

This is a Hebrew idiom that has confused all the translators. It simply means that if you have a “single” or good eye, you are generous; whereas if you have an evil eye, or bad eye, you are stingy.

Notice that several of these idioms that Yahshua used in His teaching, involves giving: alms, charity, helping the less blessed among us. Many say, “Well, with government aid, we don’t need to help – we pay our taxes and that is our charity, our alms.” We had better get over that. YHWH hates stingy people, who have the ability to help others and won’t.

So, to sum up, when all factors are considered, the evidence seems overwhelming in favor of the New Testament having been first written in Hebrew/Aramaic, and later translated into Greek, in a word-for-word format. This method of translation would make it extremely difficult to ascertain the correct meaning intended by the speaker or writer. Obviously, later on, the originals were lost, as were the original Greek translations. So all that is left are copies of copies. However, there are at least two Hebrew versions of Matthew’s Gospel, the Shem Tob and the Du Tillet.

This subject is in the process of on-going discovery, and more confirmation may be forthcoming in the future. In the meantime, be very skeptical of claims for an “inspired Greek New Testament.” (By Frank Brown) ~

Words Searched For:

1. dry +
2. tree +
3. green

Spoke 20 innerwheel link:
Ezekiel 20
47 And say to the forest of the south, Hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein.

Luke 23
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

to be continued...

[gilgal]

Semitic Origins of the NT Part 6 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAhWz08cKQ

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The Gentiles and maybe even Messianic Jews interpret this as:

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to destroy.

James 2
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Then we come to the conclusion, then why try to keep the law?

If you destroy one's life you destroy a universe. Why? because if he were to live then he would have multiplied and become many.

So the point of the first two passages is that we can't pick what laws to obey or not. It's a package deal.
Hebrew language From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Displacement

While there is no doubt that at a certain point, Hebrew was displaced as the everyday spoken language of most Jews, and that its chief successor in the Middle East was the closely related Aramaic language,[9][23] scholarly opinions on the exact dating of that shift have changed very much.[24] In the early half of the 20th century, most scholars followed Geiger and Dalman in thinking that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel as early as by the start of Israel's Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BCE, and that as a corollary Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. Segal, Klausner, and Ben Yehuda are notable exceptions to this view. During the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archaeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has disproven that view. The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in 1946-1948 near Qumran revealed ancient Jewish texts overwhelmingly in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Qumran scrolls indicate that Hebrew texts were readily understandable to the average Israelite, and that the language had evolved since Biblical times as spoken languages do.[25] Recent scholarship recognizes that reports of Jews speaking in Aramaic indicates a multi-lingual society, not necessarily the primary language spoken. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew co-existed within Israel as a spoken language.[26] Most scholars now date the demise of Hebrew as a spoken language to the end of the Roman Period, or about 200 CE.[27] It continued on as a literary language down through Byzantine Period from the 4th century CE. Many Hebrew linguists even postulate the survival of Hebrew as a spoken language until the Byzantine Period[who?], but some historians do not accept this.[who?]

The exact roles of Aramaic and Hebrew remain hotly debated. A trilingual scenario has been proposed for the land of Israel. Hebrew functioned as the local mother tongue with powerful ties to Israel's history, origins, and golden age and as the language of Israel's religion; Aramaic functioned as the international language with the rest of the Mideast; and eventually Greek functioned as another international language with the eastern areas of the Roman Empire.[citation needed] Communities of Jews (and non-Jews) are known, who immigrated to Judea from these other lands and continued to speak Aramaic or Greek. According to another summary, Greek was the language of government, Hebrew the language of prayer, study and religious texts, and Aramaic was the language of legal contracts and trade.[28] There was also geographic pattern: by the beginning of the Common Era, "Judeo-Aramaic was mainly used in Galilee in the north, Greek was concentrated in the former colonies and around governmental centres, and Hebrew monolingualism continued mainly in the southern villages of Judea."[9] In other words, "in terms of dialect geography, at the time of the tannaim Palestine could be divided into the Aramaic-speaking regions of Galilee and Samaria and a smaller area, Judaea, in which Rabbinic Hebrew was used among the descendants of returning exiles."[10][11] In addition, it has been surmised that Koine Greek was the primary vehicle of communication in coastal cities and among the upper class of Jerusalem, and Aramaic was prevalent in the lower class of Jerusalem, but not in the surrounding countryside.[28] After the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Judaeans were forced to disperse and many relocated to Galilee, so most remaining native speakers of Hebrew at that last stage would have been found in the north.[28]

The Christian New Testament contains some clearly Aramaic place names and quotes.[29] Although the language of such Semitic glosses (and in general the language spoken by Jews in scenes from the New Testament) is usually referred to as "Hebrew"/"Jewish" in the text,[30] this term often seems to refer to Aramaic instead[31][32] and is rendered accordingly in recent translations.[33] Nonetheless, many glosses can be interpreted as Hebrew as well; and it has been argued that Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, lay behind the composition of the Gospel of Matthew.[34] See Aramaic of Jesus for more details on Hebrew and Aramaic in the gospels.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which once said, in 1958 in its first edition, that Hebrew "ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BCE", now says, in its 1997 (third) edition, that Hebrew "continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period".
From Wiki: Hebrew language

Conclusion
If you have debates it's ok. Everyone's opinions should be heard for a better understanding of scriptures.