show_no_mercy

I know in the 4 BCE (cira) Greek translation of the Hewbrew bible, the Septuagint, in Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew word for "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin", which only fueled the whole "virgin birth" mythos.

But does this mean that the initial Christians were either Greek speaking Jews or Gentiles? Wasn't the first Christian Church called the Greek Orthodox Church? Even more so, does this mean that Jesus himself and his disciples were Greek speaking Jews?

Diogenes the Cynic

The "virgin" mistranslation was made by Matthew in 80 CE, not in 4 BCE. The Christians who wrote the NT used the Septuagint because they were mostly Greeks.

judge

Hi, all our early witnesses clearly tell us that Matthew did not write in greek. Here is an example.

Secondly the NT does not quote from the septuagint. At times the NT agrees with the LXX at other times it agrees with the massoretci hebrew text and at other times it follows the Aramaic targums.

Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

Diogenes the Cynic

Back to reality now.

Matthew wrote in Greek. He copied verbatim from Mark, which was Greek, from Q which is Greek and from the Septuagint. Papias made mention of a "logia" - a sayings gospel - which he claimed was composed by Matthew in Hebrew but if such a gospel ever existed it it wasn't Canonocal Matthew which is not a sayings gospel and was not composed in Hebrew (or in Aramaic).

judge

But Mark does follows the Aramaic targum (at times at least) and not the septuagint.

Additionally you have no direct proof that Q ever existed yet you ask us to assume it did.


Forget papias then.
You still haven't dealt with Eusebius who writes of the gospel of matthew in the original Aramaic/Hebrew charcters.

Do you have any witness telling us the gospel of matthew was written in greek?

Diogenes the Cynic

This is a fringe view at best.
It is the mainstream consensus that Q existed.
Eusebius was referencing Papias.

There is no reason to believe that Papias' logia, if it is existed, was Canonical Matthew and no "witness" is necessary to tell us it was written in Greek. The text itself tells us that.

judge

Are you saying that in this section Eusebius is referencing papias?

Diogenes the Cynic

Probably. At least that's where he got the notion of an Aramaic Matthew.

Crazy Liz

The LXX was translated approximately second or third century BCE, not 4 BCE.

show_no_mercy

Hmmm... I probably gratuitously skipped over the word "century" as in 4th century BCE when I read when it was translated