Bible Was Written By Jews!

Who? Name them.

 

And where is the evidence that the New Testament was written in Hebrew?

 

It wasn't. Rant is mistaken. Portions of the NT may have been written in Aramaic, but were inspired in Greek. The one book most often said to have been originally written in Aramaic is Matthew, but a close, critical examination of Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation" according to Geoffrey W, Bromiley, editor, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia published by Wm B Eerdmans Co., page 571. Dr. Bromiley was Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary from 1958 until his retirement in 1987.

 

I doubt that is true at all. Anyone who has done even a cursory study knows it is not true. It may be that many Christians don't know a lick about the original languages, but I doubt they think some Aryan in the 16th century wrote the Bible.

Not entirely. Chunks of Daniel and Ezra apparently were written in Aramaic. Close to Hebrew, but not the same. And there is precious little evidence that the New Testament is anything but Greek.

Hard to prove that. Aramaic was the common language of Palestine, but it was a very diverse place linguistically. Hebrew was a liturgical language, not the language of everyday speech. Many Jews could read it and understand it in synagogue, but it's an open question as to how many could speak it fluently.

No evidence for this, and it flies in the face of reason. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, whose common language was Greek. He appears to have been a Hellenized Jew from a "Greek" city who was conversant in several languages and wrote to Gentile believers in a language they could understand.

I don't think a belief that Jesus spoke Greek is commonplace. However, it would not be surprising if he did. The Galilee was a fairly Hellenized place in some spots. Sepphoris was a Greek city an hour's walk from Nazareth; if Jesus were a tekton, or builder, he likely would have commuted to Sepphoris for work since it's unlikely tiny Nazareth could supply enough work to keep him busy.

Koine was not an "inferior" kind of Greek. Yes, it was not Classical or Homeric Greek and was simpler than its predecessors, but it was not "pidgin" Greek. It had its own rules of grammar and vocabulary It was suited to its purpose: to disseminate information as widely as possible.

To claim that Koine was "inferior" is to claim that Spanish or Italian or French are "inferior" to Classical Latin or that contemporary English is "inferior" to Elizabethan English or American English is "inferior" to British English.

Now, I don't think contemporary English can produce the poetry of the Elizabethan-Jacobean age, but I'm pretty sure it's better at telling you how to set up a computer or get from London to Boston or bake a cake.

If you doubt that, read an English essay from a contemporary journal and one from 300 years ago, or even a newspaper story from 100 years ago. Contemporary English is, in the hands of a decent writer, sparser, more to the point and more helpful than it was earlier.

In fact, some believe that if the New Testament were to be written today, it would be in English, and probably American English.

Depends on what you mean by "early." Certainly the vast majority of the first believers were Jewish, but if you read Acts and Paul's letters you will see that the Gentiles were becoming an increasingly important part of Christianity.

Paul repeats an ethnic slur against the Cretans and visits the Areopagus. The first demonstrates his familiarity with Greek culture; the second shows that he is not bound by traditional Jewish norms. Can you imagine an observant Pharisee or Sadducee strolling through the heart of Greek paganism and not rending his garments and wailing?

There is nothing logical about your complaint. On the day of Pentecost the Gospel was preached in languages that were not Hebrew or Aramaic.