Hebrew New Testament?


We in our local Assemblies accept and believe both the Old and New Testaments of the Scriptures. Actually the Bible is all one cohesive book, but man divided it into two sections. Christians in general have largely ignored the Old Testament, claiming that it is “done away,” while on the other hand, the Judaizers ignore the New Testament as uninspired, saying that Yahshua was a false prophet.

The Jews reject the Messiah; the Christians reject the Law. Yet we read in Rev. 12:17 and 14:12 that belief in both is necessary for salvation. Since we believe that, then we are neither Christians nor Jews. The Apostle John wrote in I John 3:4 that sin is the breaking of the Law. If the Law has been “done away,” as they suppose, then there would be no law to break, hence, no sin.

Why such confusion? Could it be because the New Testament is so hard to understand? And if that is so, why should it be so hard to understand? I have come to believe that it is because the New Testament was originally written in the Hebrew tongue, just as the rest of the Scriptures were.

We have all heard the expression, “The original, inspired Greek New Testament.” and we have more or less accepted this, since it emanated from so-called “authorities” and scholars. But we must remember that these are the same authorities and scholars who preach that the law is done away; the same ones who changed the Sabbath to Sunday; the ones who gave us Easter and Christmas and Hallowe’en and other pagan holidays instead of the annual Holy Days that the Creator instituted in the beginning and reiterated in Leviticus 23 and other places.

There are other scholars who have researched the origin of the New Testament, and I want to share some of that information with you. It will show you why I think the idea of an “original, inspired Greek New Testament is a huge mistake that has caused millions of people, including most of us, to misunderstand much of the New Testament, to our hurt. Much evidence has come to light within the past 20 years or so that points convincingly in that direction. I would like to share some of this information with you.

YHWH said that in the latter days knowledge would increase. And it has, hasn’t it? We know far more about early-day conditions and customs now than our predecessors did. Remember that the Greeks were pagans and the Jews considered the Greek language an abomination. The Jewish authorities declared that it was worse to learn the Greek language than to eat swine’s flesh! And they forbad the teaching of it.

It is also a difficult language Even Josephus, an educated Jewish historian of that era, wrote in his commentary that the Greek language was so difficult that he never gained much proficiency in it. So why would Yahweh choose a pagan, foreign tongue to reveal His New Testament plan? Especially to His own people, only a smattering of whom knew or understood the Greek language, and most of them hated it.

Consider, too His disciples. They didn’t have much education, remember. They had been mostly simple fishermen from Galilee before Yahshua called them to be disciples. The priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, and other Yahudi officials considered them “ignorant and uneducated men,” Acts 4:13. The King James Bible says “unlearned and ignorant men.”

So why would Yahweh inspire them to write His Son’s biography of the greatest life ever lived, and the greatest event since Creation, in a language that the Jews hated, and that the apostles could not have known? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

Well, truth is, He didn’t. So let’s take a look at the evidence that is available. When we do, I believe that you will conclude, as I have, that the New Testament was first written in the Hebrew and/or Aramaic language(s) and later translated into Greek, and then into other languages.

Even E. W. Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, Appendix 94, makes the statement that “while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew.” Apostle Paul stated that the New Testament Believers “....are built  upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Yahshua the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Eph. 2:20 KJV).

Yahshua told His listeners to search the Scriptures in John 5:39, and the only scriptures to search at that time were the Hebrew Old Testament writings. He also said to listen to Moses and the prophets, Luke 16:29. Again this is the Old Testament. And what did the “noble Bereans” use to determine truth? (Acts 17:11). Old Testament, of course, the very same ones that Paul told Timothy would make one perfect. (2 Tim. 3:16-17); all written in Hebrew.

So let’s look into the New Testament and ask some pointed questions:

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.

We understand hundreds of American idioms, but when translated into other tongues, they make no sense at all, and would be unintelligible to them.

Let’s take a few examples of Hebrew idioms that the Savior used, that are impossible to understand when translated from Hebrew to Greek, then to English, but make perfect sense when translated back to Hebrew, then directly to English:

These are from a very good book on this subject, called, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, New Insights From a Hebrew Perspective,” by David Bivin and Roy Blissard, Jr.

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:

12. 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) ~



Assembly of Yahweh

“Search the Scriptures” Ministry

PO Box 32

Clarksville , AR 72830-0032 USA

Hebrew/Aramaic Origin

of the New Testament

Textual analysis and scholarship supporting an original Hebrew New Testament

We of Yahweh's New Covenant Assembly accept both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and generally follow the King James translation because many reference works are based upon that version.

We do not accept, however, the substituted names and common titles of our heavenly Father and His Son.  We also object to the Hellenized names give to the Hebrew worthies in the New Testament, such as Hezekiah appearing as "Ezekias" (Mat. 1:9), and Judah (Yahudah) as "Judas" (Mat. 1:2).

Beyond just names, churchianity itself is tainted with Greek thinking, Hellenized creeds, and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Greek-translated New Testament.

Scholarship is increasingly validating the case for a Hebrew original New Testament.  We include some of their documentation in this short study.

Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the New Testament was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek.  The testimony to this is voluminous and logical.  One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews, and "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew" (Companion Bible, appendix 94).

Beginning on page 5 is a list of scholars and their treatises supporting an original Hebrew New Testament.  This list is by no means comprehensive.  Other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the New Testament was originally a collection of Hebrew works.  The Bible's Hebrew writers were led by the Holy Spirit to write in their native Hebrew language, just as Paul (Shaul) was spoken to from On High in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14.

New Testament Based on Old

The inquiring Bible student soon realizes that the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking.  This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the New Testament believer.  If the New Testament is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth.

Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek New Testament bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly Hebrew work?  Is the New Testament a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new truth flavored with Hellenistic thought, practice, and understanding?

Not according to the Apostle Paul.  He wrote that the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20.  Yahshua the Messiah gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," John 5:39.  The only "scriptures" extant at that time were those of the Old Testament.  The New Testament writings were not yet finished and compiled.

In His parable of Lazarus, Yahshua again advised the unknowing to listen to "Moses and the prophets," meaning the Old Testament, Luke 16:29.  It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans" used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Paul told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Aside from approaching truth from the right scriptural foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the New Testament.

One of the arguments advanced against the verity of the sacred Names is that the Names would appear as "God" (Theos) and "Jesus" in the New Testament Greek text.  The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the "original" text, then who are we to change them to something else?

Apart from this argument's erroneous premise ("God" is not the same word as the Greek Theos: "Jesus" is only partly a Greek term), we must ask, is it legitimate to change someone's name simply because you are writing about him in some other language?  Names are transliterated, not translated.

If a book about the president of the United States were written in or translated into Russian, would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for "George W. Bush"?  Of course not.  His name would still appear as George W. Bush.

By the same token, the Father's and Son's Names are the same in every language.  Therefore we must call on them by their names revealed through the Hebrew tongue.  There is no more a Russian equivalent name for "Bill Clinton" than there is a Greek or English equivalent of the Hebrew "Yahweh" and "Yahshua."  "God", "Lord", and "Jesus" are not equivalents, they are replacements.

Hebrew Words Out of Place?

A peculiar discrepancy within the New Testament is this:  if the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words?  Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew terms in their Greek writings?

The only valid explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew text and translated into Greek.

These Hebrew survivals attest to a Hebrew original - and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Hebrew.

The following HEBREW words are included in the King James New Testament, as taken from the Greek translation (some are Aramaic).

Abba ("dearest father"); Messiah ("Anointed one"); Rabbi ("my teacher"); hosanna ("Save! We beseech"); Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); talitha cumi ("maid arise"); ephphatha ("be opened"); corban ("a dedicated gift"); Sabbath ("repose", "desist" from exertion); Satan ("adversary"); mammon ("riches"); raca ("to spit in one's face"); cummin (herb); Maranatha ("Master, I pray you overthrow"); Passover ("pass over"); Emmanuel (title meaning "El with us"); Eli lama Sabachthani ("my El, why have you forsaken me?")

Even more compelling evidence for a New Testament originally composed in Hebrew is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the New Testament.  Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages.

Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the New Testament does not befit good Greek, but does reflect excellent Hebrew grammar.

In addition, many Hebraic idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the New Testament.  Had the original been composed in Greek, these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression.

For example, what did Yahshua and others mean by statements that don't make good sense in Greek (Or English) but are powerful in the Hebrew?  Such expressions include: "If your eye is evil" (Matt. 6:23); "let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22); "for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry" (Luke 23:31), and "thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Paul in Rom. 12:20).

Numerous examples of Semitic poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Hebrew of these books.  Hebrew is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts.

For example, a beautiful expression in classical Hebrew is found in Luke 16:23:  "...he lift up his eyes...and saw..."  Other sayings peculiar to Hebrew and found in the Evangels include:  "Lay these sayings in your ears," "Cast out your name as evil," "He set his face to go," and "The appearance of his countenance was altered."

Whole sentences or paragraphs in the New Testament can be retranslated word for word back into the Hebrew.  Luke 10:5-6 is just one example:  "And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house.  And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it:  if not, it shall turn to you again."  This passage is a synthesis of vivid Hebrew idioms unknown in the Greek.

Greek Unpopular in Palestine

Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein).  Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).

Hebrew was the language of Judah and Galilee in the first century.  Its sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of commerce.  Jews in this area were not Greek-speaking.  Their revulsion to the Greeks and the Greek language derives from the fact that the Maccabees had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine .

The eminent first century Jewish historian, priest, and scholar Josephus admitted that he could not speak Greek fluently and that the Jews frowned on any Jew who did.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness:  for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations" (Antiquities, 20:11:2).

If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak Greek sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Greek?  From what we've learned, why would they even want to do so?

A Hebrew Writing to Hebrews

The common perception is that Paul was a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus who wrote his letters to Greek-speaking assemblies in Asia minor, Rome and Greece .

Paul (Heb. "Shaul") was first and foremost a Pharisee - a Jewish sect opposed to Hellenization.  He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a "Hebrew of Hebrews," Philippians 3:5.   A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression "Hebrew of Hebrews" means "in language, attitudes and life-style."

Paul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor of Hebrew law, Acts 22:3.  Although he was born in Tarsus (a city speaking mainly Aramaic), Paul grew up in Jerusalem , the center of Pharisaic Judaism, Acts 22:3.

The epistles Paul wrote were to various assemblies of the Dispersion.  Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Jews and supplementary collections of gentiles (read about the Thessalonian Assembly, Acts 17:1-4, as well as the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10:1-2).  The converted Jews in these assemblies would receive Paul's letters and then teach the gentiles among them.  It wasn't the gentiles who were converting Jews to a Grecian-Roman faith with a Greek Savior and doctrines of mystery worship!

Typically Paul went first to the synagogue when he traveled to contact these and other assemblies (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8).  The language of the second Temple and synagogues at this time was Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.

His letters in Hebrew to these Jews (and gentiles) of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the Good News to "the Jew first and then to the Greek," Romans 1:16.

As an example, Paul specifically addressed Jews of the Corinthian assembly:  "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2).

Truth from Greek or Hebrew?

Understanding basic truth is to know that Yahweh chose the Hebrew peoples with whom to make a Covenant and through whom to bring the truth.

How much of a gentile should the True Worshiper be who is bathing in Scriptures first delivered to Hebrew patriarchs, Hebrew prophets, Hebrew apostles and lived by a Savior from the human lineage of King David?  Paul was no champion of the gentile cause.  He was the champion of a Hebrew Messiah and scriptures given in a Hebrew Old Testament.  These were what he taught in his epistles.  Note:

"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14).  "Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today?  A Greek-gentile heritage?  Or the birthright of those grafted into the promised of Israel established by the Heavenly Father Yahweh Himself?

Paul wrote to the assembly at Rome , "Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Elohim, and the promises" (Romans 9:4).

If Christianity were honest with itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Hebrew and not Greco-Roman Scriptures.  That its salvation comes from a Savior who came as a Hebrew not to establish a new religion but to build on what went before.  Yahshua and the Scriptures are Hebrew.

If this one pivotal truth were taught today, real understanding of the Scriptures would break out everywhere, and the Bible would at last be revealed.

Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original New Testament

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:

Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.

D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.

E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.

Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.

Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.

Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.

Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.

Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.

Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83.  Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.

Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.

Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.

Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.

Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.

Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.

R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.

Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety.  Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.

Dr. James Scott Trimm, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.

Max Woolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.

F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

© 1996 Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly