judge

Dr X , perhaps you have some evidence that Matthew was written in greek? I am not aware of any.

Do you know of any?


Many of the references to matthew having written his gospel in "the
Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)
MATQAIOS
MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA
hWS
HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

Scholars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but I
believe the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work
in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could"

Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".
There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew
dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken
by
jews at the time of Christ.
Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of
jews.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia...
Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the
Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we
know,
was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the
Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in
Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related.
Besides,
it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply
reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin.
However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable,
viz.,
that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.?

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)


There are in fact be more indications that at least some NT books were
originally penned in Aramaic, or the hebrew dialect/tongue.

An interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of
Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators , but
that of the Hebrew."
(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on
returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)

Jack the Bodiless

That's what I've found too: there are plenty of contradictions which directly relate to the fundamentals of the religion, the alleged properties of God.

It seems that whenever a Christian says anything about God, a quick check of a contradictions list will throw up plenty of verses that say the exact opposite. The Bible says that there are many gods, that God has a body, that God is not omnipresent or omniscient, that God is fallible and fickle, and that God is unjust.

Jack the Bodiless

Judge:
There is good evidence that Matthew was written by a person who did not understand Hebrew idioms.
If Hebrew and Aramaic use the same "Semitic idioms", then it follows that "Matthew" didn't know Aramaic either.

The most obvious one is the "stunt rider" incident where Jesus rides two steeds: a misinterpretation of a Hebrew idiom.

There is also the author's ham-fisted use of the Old Testament (ripping verses out of context, mangling them, and attributing them to the wrong prophet). "Matthew" has the biggest NT entry in the SAB's "false prophecies and misquotes" section. Which, to me, indicates an unfamiliarity with the language of the Bible.

RED DAVE

From judge:No cigar. Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic. This is shown by his famous mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah," which means "young woman," as "virgin." The proper Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." He did this because he was following the Septuagint, where "almah" is translated as "parthenos," which, indeed, means "virgin."

There are also a few more problems in that geneology. And, anyway, if the Bible is inerrant, why is that contradiction there in the first place to confuse us poor, gullible, nonbelievers?

RED DAVE

Amos

Nah, the stunt here is that we can only enter the New Jerusalem while 'riding' both the "old" and the "young" with the old being the subconscious and the young being the conscious mind.

Gooch's dad

judge, do YOU have any evidence that the "book of Matthew" we now have has any relation to the "book of matthew" that Papias mentions, which was supposedly written in the Hebrew tongue?

The earliest copies of gMt that we have are written in Greek. We have no reason whatsoever to think that they were translated from Aramaic. The prima facie evidence is that Matthew was written in Greek. If you want to show otherwise, give it a shot. So far I see nothing but special pleading.

Kelly

Amlodhi

Hello judge,

I'm far better versed in OT studies than in the NT, but I do have a couple of questions regarding these quotes.

In your quote from Jerome above, it states that; "I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it."

However, according to the translation of Jerome that I have read, chapter 3, book 2 is translated as:

The first difficulty I see in the above quotes is the statement that Matthew does not quote from the LXX. However, in our canonical Matthew, he does quote from the LXX.

Also, whereas your quote says that Jerome was allowed to copy this work of Matthew, the quote I have read says only that he had this work described to him. It says nothing about Jerome either copying or translating it into another language.

Now, again according to the translation I have read, where Jerome does say that he translated (into Greek and Latin) Matthew's writing is in chapter 2, book 2:

That this "Gospel according to the Hebrews" is considered by Jerome to be also the "Gospel according to Matthew" is evidenced by Jerome's statement in section 2, book 3 of "Against Pelagians"

Then the problem arises when Jerome goes on to quote some of the actual verses from the "Gospel according to Matthew/Hebrews". For instance:

The above quote from "Against Pelagians" continues on:

Thus, from the quotes I read, Jerome says that he had a "Gospel of Christ" written by Matthew "described" to him. He also says that he translated a "Gospel according to (or among) the Hebrews" into Greek and Latin. In "Against Pelagians" he identifies this "Gospel among the Hebrews" as "the Gospel according the the apostles" and also as "the Gospel according to Matthew." Irenaeus also refers to Matthew's work as a "gospel among the Hebrews".

Yet, as we can see from the quotes that Jerome himself reproduces from this text that he is translating, it cannot be the same "Gospel of Matthew" that we possess in our present canon.

This would also seem to be further supported by the statement in the opening quote of this post that Matthew doesn't quote from the LXX in Jerome's version, whereas he does quote from the LXX in our present version.

And finally, in "Against Pelagians", Jerome explicitly states that the "gospel according to the Hebrews" is "generally maintained" to be the "gospel according to Matthew". Could this "gospel according to the Hebrews" be the "gospel according to Matthew" that church tradition has recorded? IOW, is this tradition referring to a different writing altogether than the Greek Matthew which we have in our possession?


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

Judge:

Since Jack and Amlodhi answer your question most excellently, I am only left to ask if you have finished that paper that supports Aramaic priority for submission to the peer-reviewed literature yet.

--J.D.

HaysooChreesto!

All these fine arguments but none from the OP. Theoscholar, where art thou?

Now, did Judas hang by the neck until he cheered up or did he explode in a field?

Doctor X

Ha!

He did both . . . he cheered up too much . . . yeah . . . that explains it . . . of course. . . .

--J.D.