Not necessarily. As I understand it, the Greek Primacists argue that the New Testament writers used Greek in order to reach a wide, literate audience outside of Judea.
However, just because they felt obliged to write in Greek does not mean they knew the language well. Those New Testament writers who were Jews -- and I believe all of them were -- would have spoken Aramaic as their first language. Greek would have been foreign to them.
Many Aramaicisms would have seeped into their writing simply because of their imperfect knowledge of Greek.
>However, just because they felt obliged to write in Greek does not mean they knew the language well. Those New Testament writers who were Jews — and I believe all of them were — would have spoken Aramaic as their first language. Greek would have been foreign to them.
We do know that probably Paul knew Koine. As Koine was a lingua franca in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and the fact that the Romans did all of their official work in Koine there, it is most likely that many of the Apostles, at least Matthew, a tax collector, knew at least a bit of Koine.
You must remember that a Roman soldier at the time could force a commoner to carry his pack. If you were that commoner, it might be in your best interest to learn enough Koine to keep the armed ruffian from using his weapons on you.
>Many Aramaicisms would have seeped into their writing simply because of their imperfect knowledge of Greek.
This is true. We have good indication that much of what Jesus spoke was Aramaic. But the body of the NT text is probably in Koine, and in some instances, written to people that had no Aramaic knowledge. The Gospel of John, for instance was written, most likely, in an area where Aramaic was not a common tongue, but rather Koine Greek.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: < http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm >
“The place of composition was, according to the above-mentioned prologue, the province of Asia. Still more precise is the statement of St. Irenaeus, who tells us that John wrote his Gospel “at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. haer., III, i, 2). All the other early references are in agreement with these statements.
The first readers of the Gospel were the Christians of the second and third generations in Asia Minor. There was no need of initiating them into the elements of the Faith; consequently John must have aimed rather at confirming against the attacks of its opponents the Faith handed down by their parents.”
Still, trying to force a text to say what is just hypothetical (to non-Catholics), and not clearly indicated is doing the Holy Scripture injustice (to the non-Catholics). I understand the difficulties that the Catholic is placed under, and when faced with two infallible sources, they must be made to say the same thing. However it must be also that the sources are not twisted out of shape. My opinion is that this particular bit is grasping at straws.