The arguments from what might have happened with Semitic gospel materials are indecisive, because one plausible explanation can account for the current lack of evidence. However, consider the possibility that New Testament materials were composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Given the preservation of New Testament materials in Greek, it seems likely that had these materials originated in a Semitic language, and recognizing their canonical, or at least holy, status, they would have been tenaciously preserved, especially because they would have been originals. The complete lack of any early Semitic New Testament textual materials is strong evidence in my view that no such original materials ever existed.
But what then can account for the strongly Semitic flavor of the New Testament text, especially with respect to the gospels? At this point, current views of the origins of the gospel materials must come under review. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many scholars were convinced that the New Testament documents had originated late in the first century, some even originating in the early second century. Due in part to the shifting tides of academic fashion, and to the finding of many early New Testament manuscript fragments—widely dispersed and dating to the early second century, most scholars no longer hold to such an origin of the New Testament text. However, it is still commonly held that the New Testament texts (especially of the gospels) originated as simply written copies of orally transmitted collections of sayings, some traceable to Jesus, some only to the various circles of the early church. It is then the work of scholars to determine which of these sayings indeed trace back to Jesus and which reflect only an early church setting. This is the work that the infamous Jesus Seminar has set for itself.
But let us suppose that this whole picture is wrong. Let us suppose that the early church did not simply mentally preserve and orally transmit collections of sayings that they, either rightly or mistakenly, attributed to Jesus. Let us suppose instead that the apostles and their cohorts saw early on the need for written records of what had transpired in the earthly ministry of Jesus. In that case, two things might be expected to happen. First, the written accounts might be greatly similar in a number of ways. After all, though Jesus often spoke to immense crowds, the group of "insiders" was necessarily small. To them Jesus would have explained more fully what he said to the crowds. In addition, the memory of many witnesses would have been combined in making more certain what in fact Jesus had said.
The first of these two considerations would account for the synoptic gospels, while also explaining John's gospel as written more from an insider's point of view. In addition, the memories of many witnesses and the fact that the apostles themselves were Semites would have preserved for us the naturally Semitic character of what Jesus said on both his public and private teaching. These things adequately explain the two-fold character of the gospel texts: many similarities from diverse writers, and many sayings of a clearly Semitic character. This is the explanation that Carmignac and others who hold similar views tend to overlook.
In sum, the gospels originated as Greek texts, because they were intended to reach beyond the parochial bounds of a Semitic church. Second, they are strongly Semitic in character (and even in language) because Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic, and perhaps also in Hebrew.
In the next few weeks, I intend to look at several gospel passages that illustrate these things, and perhaps also explain certain texts that are notoriously problematic.
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.