> Actually, we have direct evidence concerning Paul. See Galatians 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

I mentioned this exact text in a response to someone else in this thread. I also added 1 Cor. 16.21; Col. 4.18; 2 Thes. 3.17; and Philemon 1.19.

> I would conclude Paul is writing, with the large letters, the final part of Galatians, so not likely he would write small letters for most of the text then large for the end. The practice was to repeat for emphasis, not enlarge fonts or bold text, etc.

Actually you have no evidence for this, so I understand it's your opinion. I've heard another opinion: Paul's hands had been injured so many times from his various beatings that he was unable to write well. He used a secretary, but still liked to add his own writing at the end. No one knows. The problem I have with your theory is that in the verses that follow Paul's remark, there is no emphasis of his major points.

> One needs not to overlook, many of the scribes became what was later called Christians, so someone may we’ll have been glad to write a letter for the various church leaders.

Yep. I have no problem with Paul or Peter (1 Pet. 5.12) using amenuenses.

> Even if [Luke] could write

Luke was a well-educated Gentile man. There's every reason to believe he was literate. Whether he dictated is unknowable.

> John’s criticized grammar didn’t mean he drafted the letters himself. His scribe could have accurately reproduced perhaps non-excellent Greek dictation.

John's Greek is not as poor as Mark's. Since John lived in Ephesus for many years, he may written the Gospel himself, and we get what we see as a Galilean Jew writing the best Greek he is able.

Actually, we have direct evidence concerning Paul. See Galatians 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

I would conclude Paul is writing, with the large letters, the final part of Galatians, so not likely he would write small letters for most of the text then large for the end. The practice was to repeat for emphasis, not enlarge fonts or bold text, etc.

One needs not to overlook, many of the scribes became what was later called Christians, so someone may we’ll have been glad to write a letter for the various church leaders.

I can cut down a tree with a pocket knife, but will likely use a saw or hire someone to cut one, particularly if important or large. Luke’s two books comprise a large number of the words in the New Testament. Even if he could write, he may have preferred to dictate and have a professional handle the writing. Same with the other Holy Spirit inspired writers of the New Testament. John’s criticized grammar didn’t mean he drafted the letters himself. His scribe could have accurately reproduced perhaps non-excellent Greek dictation. Perhaps the scribe(s) used by a former fisherman was less than the most skilled, whether hired or volunteer. It is still my favorite Gospel - but I read it in various modern translations, not Greek.

As far as we know, all of the NT was written in Greek. The only indication was have in any other direction is a comment by Papias (recorded by Eusebius 200 years later [[i]Hist. Eccl.[/i] 3.39.16]; we have lost Papias's originals) saying that "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew dialect ([i]en Hebraïdi dialektōi[/i]—may refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated ([i]hērmēneusen[/i]—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability." This doesn't necessarily refer to Matthew's Gospel, though it may. It may also refer to Q, if we entertain the possibility that Q could have been written by Matthew (If Q even exists, that is).

Eusebius, [i]History of the Church[/i] 5.10.3-4, also writes: “Pantaenus was one of these and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally became the head of the school at Alexandria, and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing."

Irenaeus (AD 180) writes, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect” ([i]Against Heresies[/i] 3.1.1). “[Matthew wrote his Gospel] 'while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome.' "

So obviously Matthew was writing something in Aramaic or Hebrew, whether his Gospel, Q, or a collection of stories about Jesus is unknown.

Those are the only indicators we have of anything in the NT possibly being written in anything but Greek.

There's every reason to believe Paul could speak Greek. His missionary journeys brought him into many Roman cities and in contact with many non-Jewish audiences.

There's reason to believe Jesus himself was trilingual, so possibly many of his disciples were also. Jesus spoke with the people of Palestine, presumably in Aramaic. He also conversed with centurions and Pilate, very probably Pilate at least in Latin. There is also mention that Jesus occasionally spoke with Greeks (Mark 7.26; John 7.35), presumably in Greek. Jesus may have known Hebrew as well, but there's no evidence I know of where He spoke it and it's recorded for us that He did that.

It's also possible that the NT writers used amenuenses (secretaries; scribes). It seems that Paul had a penchant for finishing his epistles with a note of greeting in his own handwriting (1 Cor. 16.21; Gal. 6.11; Col. 4.18; 2 Thes. 3.17; Philemon 1.19). Peter seems to have used Silas to write for him (1 Pet. 5.12).

But there's some credence to the possibility that they all knew Greek. Matthew was a tax collector and may have had to be multi-lingual. Mark was probably the poorest Greek writer of them all. Luke was a Gentile physician, and his Greek is refined and artistic. John lived in Ephesus and probably spoke it.

Was the NT originally written by the saints in Hebtrew/Aramaic and then translated into Koine Greek, or were they originally in Koine Greek? I suspect Paul's letters could've been in Koine Greek, but what about the other saints'?

If the non-Pauline texts of the NT were written not in Koine Greek, how could you reconcile the fact that most of the apostles were mere unlikely to have been knowledgeable in Koine Greek? I suppose one explanation would be they were able to write it following what happened on Pentencost? Thanks.