I hope that you can forgive me being a little anachronistic with this post, using modern terminology to describe a period where the terminology did not exist. Today, we have several terms to explain how something is translated. For example, the two most commonly used terms is “formal equivalence” and “dynamic (or functional) equivalence.” Formal equivalence (henceforth, “FE”) is the method of attempting to retain the original wording (including order) to the highest possible degree, or what some people call a “word-for-word” translation. Some people also use this term synonymously with “literal translation,” though I think that this is unhelpful and flawed (that is for another post, however). An example of this is the New American Standard Bible. Dynamic equivalence (Henceforth, DE), on the other hand, is a method of translation that seeks to convey the original meaning, though it may translate ancient idioms into modern idioms, or change grammar so that it is understandable to modern ears (this includes breaking up sentences, etc). Examples of DE include the New Living Translation and the Today’s New International Version. Translation is not black and white, of course. There are between these two a myriad of other methods, with more seemingly created each day.

The period of time between the actual life and ministry of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament books is often called the “oral stage,” or the “formative stage.” During this time, the stories of events and teachings were passed from person to person orally- via word of mouth. This was quite common in the ancient oral cultures. At some point, the authors of the New Testament began putting these stories into writing as the faith spread to other nations and languages. My question is simply this:

What method did the original authors use when translating the original stories into Greek?

One of the issues regarding translation that is often lost is that no language has a one-to-one correspondence. When people say that their translation is “word-for-word,” it is ultimately misleading, because I guarantee that their translation will actually have many more words than the original Greek New Testament. As fellow-blogger Mike [at least, I think it was Mike. Either way, here is a free link.] has stated (paraphrased), “Aner does not mean man or husband; aner means aner.” This is important for us to remember when we consider that the Gospels, in the original Greek, are themselves a translation. Jesus did not speak in Greek (at least, not primarily) but Aramaic. The Gospel authors are translating the Aramaic into Greek, or going with the translation that came out of the oral period. Just as there is no 1:1 correspondence between Greek and English, there is no 1:1 correspondence between Greek and Aramaic. It would be interesting to see how the New Testament authors have chosen to translate the Aramaic of the oral stories, and accounts given by actual eyewitnesses.

For the most part, of course, any ability to do this is lost. There may be some clues hidden in the Gospels however. At various times, the Gospel authors have included some Aramaic along with its translation. This is particularly true of John and Mark:
John 5:2; 19:13; 19:17; 20:16
Mark 3:17; 5:41; 15:31
See also Acts 1:19

If anyone happens to know both Aramaic and Greek, and would like to put in their thoughts, I would be very appreciative!