Support for Aramaic primacy

We tend to think of the Dead Sea Scrolls as having been left behind by the Qumran community, which was disbanded about 70 CE. However, some letters discovered in these caves date from around 135 CE, the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. With two exceptions, these were all written in Aramaic. Since they were letters, and not religious documents, this should tell us that the language of everyday use was Aramaic, not Hebrew and certainly not Greek. The two exceptions were written in Greek. One explains, “The letter is written in Greek as we have no one who knows Hebrew [or Aramaic].” In other words, these exceptions existed because the only literate persons with Bar Kokhba at that time were diaspora Jews or non-Jews.

As for the earlier texts, they seem to have included documents gathered from outside the Qumran area, and the LXX does seem to have been influential on the community's thinking. I think that this influence suggests that this community does not reflect the broader Palestinian Jewish use of Greek. The presence among the scrolls of religious documents in Hebrew is not informative, any more than the presence of religious documents in a Catholic church would suggest everyday use of Latin.

It has been convincingly demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, and contains many passages written in the same, or almost the same, words in the Greek language. It was therefore not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This and the fact that the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously, support the scholarly view that all the gospels were written outside Palestine and are therefore not guides to the primacy, or otherwise, of Aramaic. I could go through each of the non-Pauline epistles and explain why they were not written by the apostles to whom they were attributed, and therefore show that there is no reason to attribute multilingual abilities or even literacy to any of the disciples.

Support for Aramaic primacy

We tend to think of the Dead Sea Scrolls as having been left behind by the Qumran community, which was disbanded about 70 CE. However, some letters discovered in these caves date from around 135 CE, the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. With two exceptions, these were all written in Aramaic. Since they were letters, and not religious documents, this should tell us that the language of everyday use was Aramaic, not Hebrew and certainly not Greek. The two exceptions were written in Greek. One explains, “The letter is written in Greek as we have no one who knows Hebrew [or Aramaic].” In other words, these exceptions existed because the only literate persons with Bar Kokhba at that time were diaspora Jews or non-Jews.

As for the earlier texts, they seem to have included documents gathered from outside the Qumran area, and the LXX does seem to have been influential on the community's thinking. I think that this influence suggests that this community does not reflect the broader Palestinian Jewish use of Greek. The presence among the scrolls of religious documents in Hebrew is not informative, any more than the presence of religious documents in a Catholic church would suggest everyday use of Latin. There are also some Hebrew secular documents among the scrolls, but this need not overturn the view on Aramaic primacy in the broader community, as the Dead Sea community was a highly reactionary sect and therefore might have sought a return to Hebrew usage.

It has been convincingly demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, and contains many passages written in the same, or almost the same, words in the Greek language. It was therefore not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This and the fact that the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously, support the scholarly view that all the gospels were written outside Palestine and are therefore not guides to the primacy, or otherwise, of Aramaic. I could go through each of the non-Pauline epistles and explain why they were not written by the apostles to whom they were attributed, and therefore show that there is no reason to attribute multilingual abilities or even literacy to any of the disciples.

We tend to think of the Dead Sea Scrolls as having been left behind by the Qumran community, which was disbanded about 70 CE. However, some letters discovered in these caves date from around 135 CE, the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. With two exceptions, these were all written in Aramaic. Since they were letters, and not religious documents, this should tell us that the language of everyday use was Aramaic, not Hebrew and certainly not Greek.

The two exceptions were written in Greek. One explains, “The letter is written in Greek as we have no one who knows Hebrew [or Aramaic].” In other words, these exceptions existed because the only literate persons with Bar Kokhba at that time were diaspora Jews or non-Jews.

As for the earlier texts, they seem to have included documents gathered from outside the Qumran area, and the LXX does seem to have been influential on the community's thinking. I think that this influence suggests that this community does not reflect the broader Palestinian Jewish use of Greek. The presence among the scrolls of religious documents in Hebrew is not informative, any more than the presence of religious documents in a Catholic church would suggest everyday use of Latin.

It has been convincingly demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, and contains many passages written in the same, or almost the same, words in the Greek language. It was therefore not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic

Support for Aramaic primacy

We tend to think of the Dead Sea Scrolls as having been left behind by the Qumran community, which was disbanded about 70 CE. However, some letters discovered in these caves date from around 135 CE, the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. With two exceptions, these were all written in Aramaic. Since they were letters, and not religious documents, this should tell us that the language of everyday use was Aramaic, not Hebrew and certainly not Greek. The two exceptions were written in Greek. One explains, “The letter is written in Greek as we have no one who knows Hebrew [or Aramaic].” In other words, these exceptions existed because the only literate persons with Bar Kokhba at that time were diaspora Jews or non-Jews.

As for the earlier texts, they seem to have included documents gathered from outside the Qumran area, and the LXX does seem to have been influential on the community's thinking. I think that this influence suggests that this community does not reflect the broader Palestinian Jewish use of Greek. The presence among the scrolls of religious documents in Hebrew is not informative, any more than the presence of religious documents in a Catholic church would suggest everyday use of Latin.

It has been convincingly demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, and contains many passages written in the same, or almost the same, words in the Greek language. It was therefore not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This and the fact that the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously, support the scholarly view that all the gospels were written outside Palestine and are therefore not guides to the primacy, or otherwise, of Aramaic. I could go through each of the non-Pauline epistles and explain why they were not written by the apostles to whom they were attributed, and therefore show that there is no reason to attribute multilingual abilities or even literacy to any of the disciples.