Sacred Names, The Greek Influence, What is God's Name?

Appendix 9: The Greek Influence

Excerpts from:
SACRED NAMES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
OF C. J. KOSTER'S COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE
by Charles M. Knight

(Source: http://www.mindspring.com/~icga/sn1.htm)

(1) There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the
Italian band, (2) A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. (3) He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. (4) And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: (6) He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. (7) And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; (8) And when he had declared all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa. (KJV)[Acts 10:1-8]

In what language did the angel speak to Cornelius? Since Cornelius was a member of the Italian Band, we might guess, "Latin." Is there any reason to think that it might have been Hebrew? If God wanted to communicate with someone, wouldn't He, or His angel, speak to that person in the language that he would best understand; that is, in his own native language? God spoke to the Hebrews at Sinai in Hebrew. Why would He not speak to the gentile, Cornelius, in his own language? Recall what happened on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit fell upon the church. (Acts, the second chapter).

Further evidence of just how extant the Greek language was within the Roman Empire of that era, specifically among the Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora, may be found among their ancient burial sites within the city of Rome itself.

"Of the inscriptions found in the Jewish catacombs in Rome, fewer than 2 percent were in Hebrew or Aramaic, while 74 percent were in Greek and the remainder in Latin . . . "
(Rodney Stark, THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY, p 58, 1997).

" . . . 300 of 350 citations from the OT in the NT are quoted according to the LXX" (John L. McKenzie, DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, `Septuagint,' p. 787, 1990).

"The Septuagint was the primary form of the Bible for the Hellenized Jewish communities and thus was that used by most early Christians. When the Bible is quoted in the New Testament, it is almost always from the Septuagint version, which elevated its status for Christian theologians" (Bruce M. Metzger, ed., THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE, p. 687, 1993).

"Non Jewish influence on Paul is plausible: He came from Tarsus; he wrote and spoke Greek, and he used some Greek oratorical devices in his letters. The speech that Acts attributes to Paul in the Athens Areopagus is addressed to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (17:17-31) and is phrased in terms that reflect a popular knowledge of Pagan religion and philosophy; but the context indicates that Paul was adapting himself to the Athenian milieu for the sake of proselytizing, and so the speech does not provide evidence of major influence on his thought" (Raymond E. Brown, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, p. 84, 1997).

Ellis points out that the apostle Paul, as well as the other writers of the New Testament, used the LXX as the primary source for their quotations from the Old Testament. He states,

"The priority of the LXX in Pauline quotations has long been recognized . . .by any test, the LXX `is the principal source from which the writers of the New Testament derived their Old Testament quotations' . . . Affinities with the LXX are not only evident in Paul's quotations but extend to his general style and vocabulary as well. It was inevitable that, after the translation of the Hebrew Bible, words in the Greek version would acquire `something of the value of the Hebrew words they represent'. It was only natural that Paul, retaining in his mind Hebrew concepts and thought-forms, should frame his Greek on the analogy of the existing theological vocabulary of the LXX. Even where the apostle quite evidently sees in a citation the underlying connotations of the Hebrew, the Alexandrian [Greek] version remains his mode of expression. `The careful student of the Gospels and St. Paul . . . is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament' (E. Earle Ellis, PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, pp. 12-13, 1957).

"The close connection between the Old and the New Testament makes the study of the Septuagint most valuable, and indeed indispensable, to the theological student. It was manifestly the chief storehouse from which the apostles drew their proofs and precepts" (William Smith, SMITH'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, p. 605).

"The LXX became the O. T. of the Christians, who used it in their controversies with the Jews . . .The quotations from the O. T. in the N. T. are usually from the LXX, either verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes . . . The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the LXX (Acts 8:30-33)" (THE NEW WESTMINISTER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p. 972, 1970).

"There was, however, one thing on which all the synagogues of the Roman world were united. This was in their use of the Greek language. As one generation succeeded another it was not long before the vast majority of the Jews in the Mediterranean world could speak no other language, and so it became important that the ancient Jewish scriptures (Old Testament), originally written in Hebrew, should be translated into the language that most Jews now spoke and understood best" (John Drane, INTRODUCING THE NEW TESTAMENT, p.26, 1986).

"Alexandria is renowned as a leading centre of learning, with the most famous library in the ancient world. It is also the place where the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (usually abbreviated to `LXX') was produced. Such a translation became necessary as, away from their homeland, many Jews forgot the Hebrew in which the scriptures were written and the Aramaic which was spoken in Palestine. In fact, by the time of Jesus, Hebrew had more or less disappeared as a living language and even though the official language of the empire was Latin, everyone spoke Greek. The production of the Septuagint had the added benefit of opening up the Scriptures to their Greek-speaking neighbours, many of whom, as we have seen, decided to follow the Jewish way of life" (David Stone, THE NEW TESTAMENT, p.78, 1996).

"About the same subject, another writer stated, The LXX (Septuagint) became the Bible not only of Greek- speaking Jews but also of the early Greek-speaking Christians. However, due to the controversies between church and synagogue and the emergence of a standardized Hebrew text about A. D. 100, the LXX lost its popularity in the Jewish community. The preservation of the LXX must then be credited to the Christian church . . . No version of the OT (Old Testament) has been so significant in the history of Bible translation as the LXX. Also, it was the text from which the NT (New Testament) writers, who wrote in Greek, quoted most often. Moreover, the translation of Hebrew words into Greek resulted in Greek words taking on Hebraic meanings, a fact of great significance for the interpretation of the New Testament" (Paul J. Ectomere, ed., HARPER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, `Texts, Versions, Manuscripts, Editions,' pp. 1040-1041, 1985).

"The priority of the LXX in Pauline quotations has long been recognized . . .by any test, the LXX `is the principal source from which the writers of the New Testament derived their Old Testament quotations' . . . Affinities with the LXX are not only evident in Paul's quotations but extend to his general style and vocabulary as well. It was inevitable that, after the translation of the Hebrew Bible, words in the Greek version would acquire `something of the value of the Hebrew words they represent'. It was only natural that Paul, retaining in his mind Hebrew concepts and thought-forms, should frame his Greek on the analogy of the existing theological vocabulary of the LXX. Even where the apostle quite evidently sees in a citation the underlying connotations of the Hebrew, the Alexandrian [Greek] version remains his mode of expression. `The careful student of the Gospels and St. Paul . . . is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament'" (E. Earls Ellis, PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, pp. 12-13, 1957).

"The close connection between the Old and the New Testament makes the study of the Septuagint most valuable, and indeed indispensable, to the theological student. It was manifestly the chief storehouse from which the apostles drew their proofs and precepts" (William Smith, SMITH'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, p. 605).

"The LXX became the O. T. of the Christians, who used it in their controversies with the Jews . . .The quotations from the O. T. in the N. T. are usually from the LXX, either verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes . . . The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the LXX (Acts 8:30-33)" (THE NEW WESTMINISTER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p. 972, 1970).

"The very reason for using the Septuagint was rooted in the missionary outreach of the evangelists and apostles of the early church. The Septuagint had already found its way into every city of the Roman Empire to which the Jews of the Dispersion had gone. This was virtually the only form of the Old Testament the Jewish believers outside Palestine had, and it was certainly the only form available to Gentile converts to the Jewish faith or to Christianity. The apostles were propagating a gospel that presented Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the messianic promises of the Old Testament. Their audiences throughout the Near East and the Mediterranean world were told to consult the Old Testament to verify the truth of the apostolic claims, that Jesus in His person and work had fulfilled the promises of God. Had the New Testament authors quoted these promises in any form other than the wording of the Septuagint, they would have engendered uncertainty and doubt in the minds of their hearers . . .they would have been ill-advised to substitute their own . . . rendering for that form of the Old Testament that was already in the hands of their public. They really had little choice but to keep largely to the Septuagint in . . . their quotations of the Old Testament . . . All of us employ translations
of the Bible in our teaching and preaching, even those of us who are thoroughly conversant with the Greek and Hebrew originals . . . We use these standard translations to teach our readers in terms they can verify from the Bibles they have" (Glisson L. Archer, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES, pp. 307-308, 1982).

What about the authors of the rest of the New Testament?

There is some disagreement about who wrote the book of Hebrews. Whether it was Paul, or Apollos, or someone else, "Along with Luke-Acts, this document displays the best Greek style in the New Testament; its author must have had sophisticated rhetorical training and literary skills" (Craig S. Keener, THE IAP BIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTARY, p. 647, 1993).

Concerning the Old Testament quotations, " . . . the author of Hebrews used only the Greek Septuagint" (THE NELSON STUDY BIBLE, ` The Epistle to the Hebrews', p. 2074, 1997).

The writer of Hebrews " . . .uses the LXX. His occasional differences from the LXX form known to us exemplifies a lack of uniformity among 1st-century AD Greek versions. Most likely it does not show that the author cited the Hebrew Scriptures" (Brown, p. 691, footnote 23).

In Luke-Acts, mentioned above, "Luke varies between Greek literary prose style and a Jewish style of Greek heavily influenced by the Septuagint" (Keener, p. 320). "Of the four Evangelists he had the best control of Greek and facilely uses several styles. In Acts he exhibits a knowledge of the rhetorical conventions of Greek historians and some knowledge of Greek literature and thought. It is not clear that he knew either Hebrew or Aramaic; but he certainly knew the LXX, as seen not only in his citations of scripture but also in his heavy use of Septuagintal style in appropriate parts of his work" (Brown, p. 268).

"The careful and thorough analysis by Gert J. Stein of the use of the LXX in Acts leads him to
conclude that this is by far the major source of Old Testament quotations in Luke-Acts, as opposed to those who have proposed that testimonies or florilegia were used by the author. He observes that all the explicit quotations in Acts are found in the speeches . . . As scholars have long recognized, both the style and the content of the unique Lukan stories of the preparations for the birth of Jesus, of his birth, infancy, and childhood, reflect the influence of the Septuagint . . . In Acts 2:16-21, Peter's explanation of the outpouring of the Spirit consists of the extended quotation from the LXX version of Joel (2:28-32). Documentation for Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:24-28) is offered by Peter from the LXX of Ps.16:8-11. Other full quotations from the LXX occur when the new community must deal with official hostility (Acts 4:25-26; from Psalm 2:1-2), when Philip explains to the Ethiopian eunuch the death of Jesus (8:32-33; from Isaiah 53), when the inclusion of the Gentiles is confirmed (15:15-18; from Jer. 12:15; Amos 9:11; Isa. 45:21), and the final statement about the official disbelief of Israel (28: 26-27; from Isa. 6:9-10). Thus the astonishing skill of the author of Luke-Acts is evident in the combination of elements from two cultural traditions which are accomplished in this work: the style and content of the Jewish biblical tradition as preserved in the LXX, and the adroit adaptation of the literary and conceptual modes of the wider Greco-Roman tradition which are utilized in the narrative and speech sections of Acts" (Howard Clark Kee, TO EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN: THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, pp.18-20, 1997).

"James, the brother of Jesus, wrote his letter to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1, NKJV). Since he was writing to Israelites beyond Palestine, and relying upon the sources cited above, we may assert that he wrote his epistle in the international language of the day which was the "koine," or common, Greek. This is more than plausible, although the following author sees four places (2:7; 3:12; 4:13-15; 5:17) where there may be some influence of a Hebrew or Aramaic idiomatic style in the book of James, he acknowledges that it was written in Greek."

"It is written in very good Greek, in an elegant style that shows some acquaintance with Greek literature. But would this be likely if it was the work of a Galilean countryman? This argument once carried considerable weight, because it was believed that Palestine was not so heavily influenced by Greek culture as other parts of the Roman Empire. But we now know that this was not the case, and in an area such as Galilee with a large non-Jewish population a person like James could easily have learned a good deal about the Greek language" (Drane, NEW TESTAMENT, p.417).

That James did in fact write in the Greek language is shown by his use of the Greek Old Testament in his quotations. "The Greek employed in James is fluent, even eloquent, and shows polished style; there is little chance that it has been translated from Hebrew/Aramaic . . . The scripture employed is the LXX, not the Hebrew Bible" (Raymond E. Brown, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, p. 741, 1997).

There are, however, many difficulties against the hypothesis that Mt was written in Aramaic. It does not show the signs of a translation; in particular, it is difficult to retranslate Mt into an Aramaic original. There are some word plays (6:16; 21:41; 24:30) which are possible only in Greek. The citations from the OT number 41, of which 21 are common to Mt-Mk-Lk; these 21 are all given according to the LXX, which makes an Aramaic original unlikely and also weighs heavily against any common Aramaic source for all three. In the 20 citations peculiar to Mt the Hb text is followed more closely, but there are affinities to the LXX here also; the variations are not always easy to define, but it is clear that the author is not using the Hb OT, as one would expect an Aramaic writer to do . . . It is therefore possible to maintain an Aramaic original of Mt only if one understands that the Gk Mt is a thorough and substantial revision . . . and not a mere translation (McKenzie, p. 554).

Although Matthew uses the Septuagint the least among the writers of the Gospels, McKenzie shows that most of the Old Testament quotations still come from the Greek Old Testament. The following author cites other reasons for the belief that Matthew was originally written in "Hebrew," but recognizes that the possibility is remote. Concerning the books of the New Testament, he says, "Not one of the books was written in Hebrew. It has been suggested that St. Matthew, who was at first a tax collector in Palestine and then one of the apostles of Jesus, wrote his gospel in Hebrew and that another turned it into the Greek text we now have. The ground for this idea is that of the four gospels about the life of Jesus, Matthew's is the most Jewish in its insight into the Christian way. But it is now almost certain that this idea of a lost Hebrew text is not true, and that all of the books of the New Testament were written in Greek" (Owen Chadwick, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, pp. 13-14, 1995).

It is not the point here to deny the influence of the Hebrew and the Aramaic languages or their respective cultural influences. That would be foolish. But it is equally foolish to deny the Greek influence and the overwhelming evidence that the New Testament was indeed written in the koine Greek language.

Secondly, concerning the Greek rendering of Hebrew expressions: "Hebraisms are mainly of the Septuagintal origin. The Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible text chiefly known and used in the period of the formation of the NT" (Douglas, p. 679).

Thirdly, concerning the inscriptional evidence showing how extant was the koine Greek language during that time in history, it can be shown that even at the temple in Jerusalem the Greek was used, as well as the Latin, to warn Gentiles not to go beyond the "middle wall of partition" (Ephesians 2:14-18): "Anyone could enter the outer court of the Temple in Jerusalem; but Gentiles were to enter the inner courts on pain of death. Inscriptions in Greek . . . and Latin warned of this penalty" (Drane, NT, p.331).

A wall about 1.5 metres (4 feet six inches) high called `the Wall of Partition' surrounded the Sanctuary, and beyond this wall none but a Jew could pass, on pain of death. A notice to this effect was discovered in Jerusalem in 1871 engraved on a block of limestone . . .It reads: `No stranger is to enter within the balustrade around the temple and enclosure: whoever is caught will be responsible to himself for his death, which will ensue' (see Acts 21:26ff; Ephesians 2:14-18) [Robert Backhouse, Tim Dowley, ed.], THE KREGEL PICTORIAL GUIDE TO THE TEMPLE, p.12, 1996). In both of the above sources, there is a picture of the limestone block on which this ordinance, written in Greek, is inscribed.

There is another example of an ancient inscription which we know about from the Scriptures, and that is Pilate's trilingual sign (John 19:19-22). Pilate had written the expression "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" in three languages: In Hebrew, the local language; in Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire; and in Greek, the international language of that day. Virtually anyone who was in Jerusalem at that time, whether Jew or Gentile, could understand what Pilate had written. The locals would understand the Hebrew; the Romans, the Latin; and the Greek would cover just about everyone else, including many of those who also spoke Hebrew or Latin. That more than one language was used should be evident from these ancient inscriptions.

Finally, we may ask the question, "Did Jesus speak Greek?" Consider the following quotation: The Gospel tells us that when Jesus was crucified an inscription was put on the cross in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek . . . It was an everyday matter to put notices in Palestine in three languages, the language of the province (Hebrew . . .), the official language of the Roman Empire (Latin), and the common lingua franca of the Mediterranean world (Greek) . . ." (D. F. Hudson, NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, `Introduction', p. xi, 1960). Therefore it is very likely that the disciples, and Jesus himself, who were inhabitants of Galilee, would be equally at home when speaking in Greek as in Aramaic, and probably knew enough of Latin to get along with official business. There are many things in the New Testament which are more easily understood if it is realized that the events it describes and the words spoken, come from an area in which people were accustomed to speak more than one language, and which the most common language for communication between people of different races was the language which is found in the New Testament (Hudson, p. xiv).

The language of the New Testament was the koine, or common, Greek. When Jesus spoke to Pilate, the brief conversation (interrogation) was probably carried on in this language. It is also important to understand that both Jews and Greek-speaking Gentiles followed Jesus. Among the Jewish followers were "Hellenists," Greek-speaking Jews. About this time comes Jesus, a wise man, if it is indeed proper to call him a man. For he was a worker of incredible deeds, a teacher of those who accept the truth with pleasure, and he attracted many Jews as well as many of the Greek [way]. This man was Christ. And when in view of [his] denunciation by the leading men of us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, those who loved him at the beginning did not cease [to do so]. He appeared to them on the third day alive again, for the divine prophets had announced these and countless other marvels concerning him. And even now the tribe `of Christians'--named after him--has not yet disappeared (Ant. 18:63-64, author's translation) (Steve Mason, JOSEPHUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, p.164-165, 1992).

The Bible says, at Acts 6:1, "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution" (NIV). In the NEW KING JAMES VERSION, the word "Hellenists" is used where "Grecian Jews" appears. In the NELSON STUDY BIBLE, the footnote states:
The Hellenists were those of Jewish descent who grew up outside the land of Israel. They spoke Greek, were raised in the Hellenistic culture, and used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (2:5). The Hebrews were Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic and used the Hebrew Old Testament (NELSON STUDY BIBLE, 1997).

Bullinger's note on this passage refers to the "Grecians" in this manner: "Grecians=Greek-speaking Jews." (THE COMPANION BIBLE: KING JAMES VERSION, p. 1589, 1990). A note from the QUEST STUDY BIBLE (NIV), concerning the resolution of the problem states, "The church, led by the Hebrews, wisely bridged the gap by appointing Greek-speaking leaders to minister to the Greek-speaking believers (v. 3)." The "Twelve" (apostles) say in verse 3, "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them" (NIV). The note in the NELSON STUDY BIBLE on Acts 6:5 states, They " . . . chose Stephen . . . Nicolas: All these names are Greek. The selection of the Hellenists was a wise and gracious gesture to the people who had initially raised the complaint concerning the widows." It should be noted that when they communicated their decision to the Hellenists, it is more likely that the "Twelve" spoke to them in Greek, rather than Hebrew, or Aramaic; Greek was the cross-cultural language.

All this illustrates further how pervasive the Greek language was at that time in history. Although the Hebraic Jews would have read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in their synagogues, perhaps followed by an Aramaic oral rendering, "Greek would be used . . . in the Hellenistic synagogues of Palestine, such as the Jerusalem synagogue of the Freedman from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia where Stephen debated with his opponents (Acts 6:9); indeed, the fact that Greek was the language of these synagogues may have been the principle reason for their members being designated Hellenists" (F. F. Bruce, NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY, p. 144, 1969--emphasis added).

Names Index / Next