OneInFundieville

This bible study teacher of mine was asserting Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. I shook me head in disbelief but didn't really know where he was coming from. I asked a few questions.

Mentioned that there are plays of words, translated phrases that point to a Hebrew original and that it would have been beneficial, if not necessary, for convincibility.

I asked for what he was talking about privately. He pointed me to Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew.

Where are the scholars on this? I had thought the consensus was on a Greek Matthew with influence of Mark and all that. I need some help on understanding this issue better.

The guy is a converted Jew and (self-professed) moderate scholar of Hebrew and had indicated that the way somethings are worded in Hebrew in Mt 5:33-5:37 (no swearing, let your yea be yea) helped him work through verses like Dt 10:20 (do swear by YHWH).

I need some help here to prepare for next week.

Thanks. Sorry for the dumb Q.

GakuseiDon

Maybe he was associating the Gospel of Matthew with the "Matthew" mentioned by Papias, according to Eusebius?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

"[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Toto

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew seems to be supported primarily by James Tabor, of the Tomb of Jesus fame. But this is a minority view.

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (or via: amazon.co.uk) by George Howard.

Hebrew_Gospel_of_MatthewThe primary problem with the idea that gMatthew was originally written in Hebrew is that Matthew incorporates so much of the Greek gospel of Mark.

OneInFundieville

Thanks for the responses.

Why is that a problem? Why could not a Hebrew author of Matthew included elements from Greek manuscripts such as Mark and Q? Why could not an early Matthew translator then also used these Greek sources to guide and supplement the translation?

Toto

If the Hebrew author of Matt had included parts of a Greek manuscript, he would have translated them into Hebrew, and then they would have been translated back into Greek in the Greek version of Matt. If that had been the case, you would expect to see some variations in language - but instead, there is a virtually word for word correspondence between Mark and Matthew.

andrewcriddle

IIUC the Shem Tov Matthew has some significant links with the Old Latin text of Matthew. It may be a translation from Latin into Hebrew rather than from Greek into Hebrew.

Andrew Criddle

Ray Moscow

Also, the fact that Matthew copies most of Mark, often verbatim, shows that there was no Hebrew version of Matthew that was independent of Mark. We just have the Greek Matthew, which is heavily dependent on Mark, and that's all there ever was.

However, this doesn't mean that someone could not have made a Hebrew translation from the Greek Matthew, which is now lost. One wonders "why" this might be done, though.

Ray

-Jay-

Isn't this pretty much what the Shem Tov Matthew is considered to be?

The Wiki article also mentions the Du Tillet and Munster exemplars of Matthew, both medeival. The description of the Munster Matthew mentions it having been used as an aid to Jews who were interested in countering Christianity. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do.

regards,

NinJay

Ray Moscow

Apparently, yes. I didn't know anything much about it until reading the comments above.

OneInFundieville

I'd be very interested in and appreciative in seeing any supports for this assertion.

Additionally, I'd be interested in stats and examples that support Greek origins as it relates the the parallels in Mark as well as the Markan priority as it relates to Matthew.

Thanks.