It is really necessary to consider two things before concluding that one or more of the gospels (or some or all of the New Testament) was composed originally in Hebrew (or in Aramaic). First it is necessary to ask what kind of evidence exists that might point in that direction. Second, it is necessary to ask what evidence would be needed to make that conclusion the most plausible. If nothing else, Carmignac's book helps us answer the first question. He lays before his reader the evidence that exists of Semitic origins behind the synoptic gospels.
(On a side note, it must be observed that the decision as to whether these assumed original gospels were in Aramaic or in Hebrew is a separate question. First-century Greek and Latin used the same term to refer to both Aramaic and Hebrew, so contemporary references in Greek and Latin sources are no help. Beyond that, the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic are cognate languages makes it almost impossible to choose between the two.)
The evidence that would be necessary to show that the gospels originated as Semitic documents seem to me to be as follows. First, there would have to be contemporary or near-contemporary references to gospels in a Semitic language. This evidence we have, after a fashion, for Matthew, which I have discussed in an earlier column. However, there is no evidence of this sort for Mark, Luke, or John. Nor is there any contemporary suggestion that any of the remainder of the New Testament originated in Semitic form.
Second, there would have to be early textual or manuscript evidence of Semitic texts that could be identified as part of the New Testament, specifically gospel texts. This evidence we do not have. The earliest textual fragments that we have of the New Testament date back to the early second century, and are all Greek. The earliest Semitic manuscripts date three to four centuries later. They are Syriac texts, and by all accounts are pretty clearly translations into Syriac from the Greek.
Now it can be argued that there were gospels written in Aramaic and that the evidence has simply vanished, for a number of reasons. First, such Aramaic (or perhaps Hebrew) gospels would have been limited in their circulation to Palestinian Jewish Christian circles. By the end of the first century, the Christian church was primarily Gentile, and primarily Greek-speaking. Thus not nearly as many manuscripts in Semitic form would have been created as were done in Greek. In addition, those Palestinian Jewish Christians would probably have been driven out of Palestine along with the Jewish population during the upheavals of the late first and early second centuries. Thus the population would have been scattered and the manuscripts more easily lost.
But this last observation can also be interpreted in another way. A small, oppressed group would have more tenaciously held onto the texts precious to them, would have taken greater care to preserve them. Hence, it might be more likely, rather than less likely, that Semitic manuscripts were preserved.
(We will continue our reflections next week.)
Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html 2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.