Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek?

[EclipseEventSigns]

Which ones do you think came after the gospel accounts?

Paul’s letters were written sometime between AD 48 to AD 64. They almost certainly predate the Gospels and Acts and so are the earliest existing writings that we have concerning Jesus’ teachings and the doctrinal and organizational development of the early Church.

The majority of scholars hold to a late-dating of the Gospels, placing them in the range of AD 70-100. Since Paul died by AD 67 under the reign of Emperor Nero, we can date his letters from AD 48-67. Therefore, Paul’s writings existed decades before the Gospels existed.

As I said, Paul quotes the very words that Jesus spoke during the Last Supper (I Corinthians 11). So he is using some then available source. The Gospels and the various letters can very easily have occurred within the same time frame.

Appealing to the "majority of scholars" doesn't actually hold as much weight as you might think. Scholars are wrong about a great many things. Those scholars you are referring to are usually not Christians at all. The reason why they think the Gospels were written between 70-100AD is because they have to have them after 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. No one could possibly have predicted events in the future - is what they think so it must be after the fact. When actually the Gospels were all written BEFORE 70 AD and very likely well before. The first one probably within 10 years of Messiah's death in 31 AD. And Paul most likely wrote Hebrews anonymously within 15 years (he could not sign his name because it took a while for his past reputation to be forgiven).

 

[Mr E]

As I said, Paul quotes the very words that Jesus spoke during the Last Supper (I Corinthians 11). So he is using some then available source. The Gospels and the various letters can very easily have occurred within the same time frame.

Appealing to the "majority of scholars" doesn't actually hold as much weight as you might think. Scholars are wrong about a great many things. Those scholars you are referring to are usually not Christians at all. The reason why they think the Gospels were written between 70-100AD is because they have to have them after 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. No one could possibly have predicted events in the future - is what they think so it must be after the fact. When actually the Gospels were all written BEFORE 70 AD and very likely well before. The first one probably within 10 years of Messiah's death in 31 AD. And Paul most likely wrote Hebrews anonymously within 15 years (he could not sign his name because it took a while for his past reputation to be forgiven).

Paul himself cites his source (in that 1 Cor 11 passage)>>>

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...

I do agree with you regarding "scholars" who often share opinions as fact and who super-impose things that "must be" because of those facts they base upon their opinions. I don't think many opinions aside from my own, count for much.

But if the gospels had already been written and were in some form of circulation-- wouldn't Paul refer to them often? Wouldn't Paul repeatedly cite them when writing to all these clusters (churches) of believers, agreeing with those gospels when he did, and correcting the writers of them when he didn't?

Paul claims to have met the Lord in spirit, to have conversed with him and to have been instructed directly by him.

 

[MatthewG]

Yes, there is much evidence the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic as well). And there is much evidence that Hebrew was replaced with Aramaic in the era of the Jewish exile into Assyria and Babylon. When some of ALL the 12 tribes came back to their homeland, they brought with them a new language. Something that Ezra and Nehemiah had to deal with and what they wrote about. But it was a very similar language.

There is always the possibility, its interesting, there bibles that mention alot about different written text. Pretty cool stuff. You know its a wonder why people enjoy studying the different langauges and ancient text.

I remember that even in Genesis, the serpent which is normally regarded as snake can actually be seem as something like “observer”, perhaps it was never a snake, but maybe an orangutang ; that eats the bugs on the ground.

But i digress, people will be choose and say whatever about these things.

Writings are interesting and defintions have a different meaning than just english.

Thank you for commenting and talking with me.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Paul himself cites his source (in that 1 Cor 11 passage)>>>

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...

I do agree with you regarding "scholars" who often share opinions as fact and who super-impose things that "must be" because of those facts they base upon their opinions. I don't think many opinions aside from my own, count for much.

But if the gospels had already been written and were in some form of circulation-- wouldn't Paul refer to them often? Wouldn't Paul repeatedly cite them when writing to all these clusters (churches) of believers, agreeing with those gospels when he did, and correcting the writers of them when he didn't?

Paul claims to have met the Lord in spirit, to have conversed with him and to have been instructed directly by him.

"Paul himself cites his source". Really? I've never come across anyone who claims that Paul got this quote from a vision of Messiah.
You have to read the entire chapter to get the context of his thought progression. He is quoting a source for the words of Messiah as a reminder of exactly what the Supper was for. He received from the Lord the proper observation of the Supper. Something the Corinthians were abusing. They were disrespecting each other and not examining their motives for observing the Supper. It follows after his discussion about authority during fellowship meetings. How women needed to be under authority of men (now there is a can of worms).

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

But if the gospels had already been written and were in some form of circulation-- wouldn't Paul refer to them often? Wouldn't Paul repeatedly cite them when writing to all these clusters (churches) of believers, agreeing with those gospels when he did, and correcting the writers of them when he didn't?

Why on earth would Paul disagree with the Gospels?
One of Paul's main goals was to the explain the mystery of the Church. The Gospels are just the very beginnings of this new revelation. And as you pointed out, Paul was visited by the Messiah Himself and then went to Mount Sinai for a long period of personal Scripture study. He used the Old Testament to explain the mystery that he revealed.

 

[Mr E]

"Paul himself cites his source". Really? I've never come across anyone who claims that Paul got this quote from a vision of Messiah.
You have to read the entire chapter to get the context of his thought progression. He is quoting a source for the words of Messiah as a reminder of exactly what the Supper was for. He received from the Lord the proper observation of the Supper. Something the Corinthians were abusing. They were disrespecting each other and not examining their motives for observing the Supper. It follows after his discussion about authority during fellowship meetings. How women needed to be under authority of men (now there is a can of worms).

It's right there in the passage you cite? Paul makes the claim himself-- "I received from the Lord what I also passed onto you that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread....." and on.

I'm glad I'm able to show you something you've never seen before.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It's right there in the passage you cite? Paul makes the claim himself-- "I received from the Lord what I also passed onto you that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread....." and on.

I'm glad I'm able to show you something you've never seen before.

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the passage in context. That is the key to proper bible study. Glad to teach you something new too.

Examine the verb tense of "passed". Past tense. Already passed on to them previously.

 

[Mr E]

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Read the passage in context. That is the key to proper bible study. Glad to teach you something new too.

Examine the verb tense of "passed". Past tense. Already passed on to them previously.

Nice try. It doesn't mean what it says? Paul said it. He meant it.

He met and spoke with 'the Lord' in the past tense. On the road to Damascus-

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Are you now suggesting that Paul was mistaken? Lying? Confused? --when he said he received from the Lord....? The text isn't ambiguous on this point at all. Why be obtuse about it? He didn't hear it from a friend, or read about it in a book- he received it from the Lord directly.

 

[Grailhunter]

Nice try. It doesn't mean what it says? Paul said it. He meant it.

He met and spoke with 'the Lord' in the past tense. On the road to Damascus-

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Are you now suggesting that Paul was mistaken? Lying? Confused? --when he said he received from the Lord....?

I tried to help you with this but you want to cling to @EclipseEventSigns preachings.
I have never seen him say anything that was correct and whatever scriptures he quotes he want to twist to his satisfaction. So good luck!

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Nice try. It doesn't mean what it says? Paul said it. He meant it.

He met and spoke with 'the Lord' in the past tense. On the road to Damascus-

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Are you now suggesting that Paul was mistaken? Lying? Confused? --when he said he received from the Lord....? The text isn't ambiguous on this point at all. Why be obtuse about it? He didn't hear it from a friend, or read about it in a book- he received it from the Lord directly.

Here. Let me explain it very simply. You misrepresent what I said.
Of course Paul means what he says. You have misapplied what he said. You seem to think he got the words that Messiah said during the Last Supper directly from a vision of Messiah. That is not what Paul was referring to when he says "he received from the Lord". He is referring to the entire subject matter that Paul has been addressing - the observation and proper mind set for the meal. This the subject he taught them in the past - that they were now abusing and doing in disorder. The very subject that he addressed at the beginning of the passage - that there was a certain inherent order to things - God -> Messiah -> males -> females. And the supper must also be done in order and proper mind set.

Context. Context. Context.

Paul is specifically referring back to verse 2
[1Co 11:2 LSB] 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

But I assume you can't accept any of this because it goes against your assumption that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. It's something you have to come to terms with and shape your views to Scripture. Not Scripture to your views.

 

[Mr E]

I tried to help you with this but you want to cling to @EclipseEventSigns preachings.
I have never seen him say anything that was correct and whatever scriptures he quotes he want to twist to his satisfaction. So good luck!

I don't cling to anything but the truth. It's called having a conversation with him. You should try it sometime.

 

[Mr E]

Here. Let me explain it very simply. You misrepresent what I said.
Of course Paul means what he says. You have misapplied what he said. You seem to think he got the words that Messiah said during the Last Supper directly from a vision of Messiah. That is not what Paul was referring to when he says "he received from the Lord". He is referring to the entire subject matter that Paul has been addressing - the observation and proper mind set for the meal. This the subject he taught them in the past - that they were now abusing and doing in disorder. The very subject that he addressed at the beginning of the passage - that there was a certain inherent order to things - God -> males -> females. And the supper must also be done in order and proper mind set.

Context. Context. Context.

But I assume you can't accept any of this because it goes against your assumption that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. It's something you have to come to terms with and shape your views to Scripture. Not Scripture to your views.

First of all-- I personally don't think that the gospels were written after 70 AD It remains an open question.

Secondly-- He states it. You are doing nothing but offering your opinion on what he clearly states. You apparently reject what he says directly and instead impose something you surmise...

In Acts 9, Paul quotes word for word what the Lord said to him. Do you superimpose your view on those statements Paul makes there also--? That he doesn't actually hear from the Lord, rather he is addressing some broader subject matter? No. You wouldn't do that there, because Paul states, and the text records that the Lord spoke to him.... yet here in 1 Cor 11 you demand that Paul didn't receive anything with respect to the Lord's Supper from the Lord and insist that it comes from some unmentioned, unknown source. That's on one hand rejecting the text entirely and replacing it with your own supposition. Good luck defending it.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

First of all-- I personally don't think that the gospels were written after 70 AD It remains an open question.

Secondly-- He states it. You are doing nothing but offering your opinion on what he clearly states. You apparently reject what he says directly and instead impose something you surmise...

In Acts 9, Paul quotes word for word what the Lord said to him. Do you superimpose your view on those statements Paul makes there also--? That he doesn't actually hear from the Lord, rather he is addressing some broader subject matter? No. You wouldn't do that there, because Paul states, and the text records that the Lord spoke to him.... yet here in 1 Cor 11 you demand that Paul didn't receive anything with respect to the Lord's Supper from the Lord and insist that it comes from some unmentioned, unknown source. That's on one hand rejecting the text entirely and replacing it with your own supposition. Good luck defending it.

I think you must be pretending. You obviously know that Paul was not in the same room when the Last Supper happened so it's not at all the same as when Messiah spoke to him personally at his conversion. I think you are trying to be very silly here.

I've explained the context of the entire passage. You kept focusing on a phrase that doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Grailhunter]

Independent sources….

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, written about a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus (ca. 30 CE).

When were the Gospels written and in what order?
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four were anonymous.

Anonymous meaning they were not originally titled or bore the names or signatures of the Apostles. The Gospels are attributed to certain Apostles and of the four Gospels only two were attributed to those that were among the twelve originally chosen by Christ.....Matthew and John.

Not all agree exactly when the Gospels were written but the general consensus is that Paul’s ministry occurred before they were written. And copies are another topic and distribution to the congregations are another matter.

But….but

Who is to say that someone did not jot down some of the information regarding Christ’s ministry long before the writing of the Gospels.

Scholars suggest a source they call Q that may have seen limited distribution, which included a list of the sayings of Christ and other information that may have been used in the formation of the Gospels.

Either way the Apostles that wrote in the New Testament were aware of the events of Christ’s ministry and I am confident that Paul knew a lot of what went on during Christ’s ministry. But trying to place Paul’s writing before the writings, copying, and distribution of the Gospels is certainly an effort to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't cling to anything but the truth. It's called having a conversation with him. You should try it sometime.

Oh I have tried to have a conversation with him LOL All I get is crazy stuff.
Good luck

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Independent sources….

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, written about a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus (ca. 30 CE).

When were the Gospels written and in what order?
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four were anonymous.

Anonymous meaning they were not originally titled or bore the names or signatures of the Apostles. The Gospels are attributed to certain Apostles and of the four Gospels only two were attributed to those that were among the twelve originally chosen by Christ.....Matthew and John.

Not all agree exactly when the Gospels were written but the general conscience is that Paul’s ministry occurred before they were written. And copies are another topic and distribution to the congregations are another matter.

But….but

Who is to say that someone did not jot down some of the information regarding Christ’s ministry long before the writing of the Gospels.

Scholars suggest a source they call Q that may have seen limited distribution, which included a list of the sayings of Christ and other information that may have been used in the formation of the Gospels.

Either way the Apostles that wrote in the New Testament were aware of the events of Christ’s ministry and I am confident that Paul knew a lot of what went on during Christ’s ministry. But trying to place Paul’s writing before the writing, copying, and distribution of the Gospels is certainly an effort to put the cart before the horse.

Please stop posting. You have shown you are a false talker and harasser.

 

[Grailhunter]

Please stop posting. You have shown you are a false talker and harasser.

Is false talker and harasser name calling.....should I whine to the mods.....LOL

My ministry is the Johnny Appleseed of Truth so I oppose falsehoods.

So no I will not stop posting.

 

[Mr E]

Independent sources….

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, written about a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus (ca. 30 CE).

When were the Gospels written and in what order?
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four were anonymous.

Anonymous meaning they were not originally titled or bore the names or signatures of the Apostles. The Gospels are attributed to certain Apostles and of the four Gospels only two were attributed to those that were among the twelve originally chosen by Christ.....Matthew and John.

Not all agree exactly when the Gospels were written but the general consensus is that Paul’s ministry occurred before they were written. And copies are another topic and distribution to the congregations are another matter.

But….but

Who is to say that someone did not jot down some of the information regarding Christ’s ministry long before the writing of the Gospels.

Scholars suggest a source they call Q that may have seen limited distribution, which included a list of the sayings of Christ and other information that may have been used in the formation of the Gospels.

Either way the Apostles that wrote in the New Testament were aware of the events of Christ’s ministry and I am confident that Paul knew a lot of what went on during Christ’s ministry. But trying to place Paul’s writing before the writing, copying, and distribution of the Gospels is certainly an effort to put the cart before the horse.

This is good. This is what you should focus on… contributing to the conversation and offering ideas. Much better than trading insults with one another.

He doesn’t like correction— does anyone?

 

[Grailhunter]

This is good. This is what you should focus on… contributing to the conversation and offering ideas. Much better than trading insults with one another.

He doesn’t like correction— does anyone?

I have a policy you might say, I stay away from "sternness" until the person I am talking to gets rude. So at the risk of sounding 6th graderish, I will say he started it some time ago. He got rude with me and bit off more that he can chew. He has a belief that he want to superimpose on the scriptures. Keep talking to him and you will see.

 

[Mr E]

I have a policy you might say, I stay away from "sternness" until the person I am talking to gets rude. So at the risk of sounding 6th graderish, I will say he started it some time ago. He got rude with me and bit off more that he can chew. He has a belief that he want to superimpose on the scriptures. Keep talking to him and you will see.

I have my own policy. You might trade yours for mine.

If he does (as you say he will) I'll quit talking to him.