Jesus, King of the Jews

[trofimus]

I got the microfilm from Hebrew University, all the historical uotes above show that Matthew did indeed write it in Hebrew and it was translated from the Hebrew. I also have personally studied the Hebrew version and found it to be more original in content. In a number of places. This by no means mean I do not like the Greek, I still read the greek regularly, but I have done my homework in this particular matter. You do not have to agree with me, I did not beleive or doubt it at first, but once I looked into it, I found what I found.

"I got it from xxx institution" is not an answer to my question. They had to get it from somewhere. How old it is and who wrote that copy that was microfilmed? It has to have some history, it did not fall from heaven.

All the historical quotes you gave just say that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. It does not say that our Greek Matthew must be the same work, just translated to Greek.

Internal evidence of our Matthew proves that it was originally written in Greek:

1) Full sentences grammatically in the same form like in Mark (therefore Matthew is a synoptic gospel).

2) Extensive use of Greek Septuagint in OT quotes.

3) Many other reasons, thats why scholars do not accept "Hebrew origin" of our gospel of Matthew.

 

[graceNpeace]

funny for you to say this after it wa a direct reply to what you said. So when Yahshua read the scrool of Isaiah (written in Hebrew) He spoke aramaic? Why was Greek, Lating and Hebrew written on the corss if wveryone spoke aramaic? Romans and those that dealt with them spoke latin, Hellenist Jews spoke Greek which were a portion, a small one compared to the entire amount of Jews, the common kanguage was Hebrew, I know many scholars say they spoke aramaic as their first language but there are also many that say otherwise... Again why was Aramaic not on the Cross if everyone spoke it?

The reason your reply was irrelevant was because nobody is disputing what the HOME language of Palestinian Jews was - it was Aramaic....

It is absolutely true, too, that Koine Greek was practically universally spoken, not just in Palestine and the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire but clean across the Mediterranean as far west as the Iberian peninsula (present day Spain and Portugal).
For most, Koine Greek was their second language, but in terms of total speakers in the Roman Empire it was the most widely spoken language in the Roman empire by some way.

And that is practical reason why the documents that later came to constitute what we call the New Testament was written in Koine Greek - simply put, nearly everyone could speak and understand it in the Roman Empire...

 

[graceNpeace]

"I got it from xxx institution" is not an answer to my question. They had to get it from somewhere. How old it is and who wrote that copy that was microfilmed? It has to have some history, it did not fall from heaven.

All the historical quotes you gave just say that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. It does not say that our Greek Matthew must be the same work, just translated to Greek.

Internal evidence of our Matthew proves that it was originally written in Greek:

1) Full sentences grammatically in the same form like in Mark (therefore Matthew is a synoptic gospel).

2) Extensive use of Greek Septuagint in OT quotes.

3) Many other reasons, thats why scholars do not accept "Hebrew origin" of our gospel of Matthew.

These Hebrew versions of Matthew are well known - that is not in dispute...
However no textual critic I know believes that they constitute the original form of the Gospel of Matthew.
They are dated too late and the consensus is that are translations from the Koine Greek version of Matthew.

I also have no issue with the reference from Eusebius that was given. It is too vague to prove, by itself, that is a reference to the full version of Matthew that we can read today. It seems to imply the existence of multiple documents written in Hebrew which would exclude a final form...

 

[trofimus]

These Hebrew versions of Matthew are well known - that is not in dispute...
However no textual critic I know believes that they constitute the original form of the Gospel of Matthew.
They are dated too late and the consensus is that are translations from the Koine Greek version of Matthew.

I also have no issue with the reference from Eusebius that was given. It is too vague to prove, by itself, that is a reference to the full version of Matthew that we can read today. It seems to imply the existence of multiple documents written in Hebrew which would exclude a final form...

Also, our gospel of Matthew was anonymous in the beginning, it was ascribed to Matthew in the second century.

 

[Shamah]

"I got it from xxx institution" is not an answer to my question. They had to get it from somewhere. How old it is and who wrote that copy that was microfilmed? It has to have some history, it did not fall from heaven.

All the historical quotes you gave just say that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. It does not say that our Greek Matthew must be the same work, just translated to Greek.

Internal evidence of our Matthew proves that it was originally written in Greek:

1) Full sentences grammatically in the same form like in Mark (therefore Matthew is a synoptic gospel).

2) Extensive use of Greek Septuagint in OT quotes.

3) Many other reasons, thats why scholars do not accept "Hebrew origin" of our gospel of Matthew.

You asked where I got it, now you are asking a different question, this is OK, but lets not act like I avoided your question.

Where did you get this "Hebrew Matthew" and why do you think that our Matthew is a translation of it and not vice versa.

"I got it from xxx institution" is not an answer to my question. They had to get it from somewhere. How old it is and who wrote that copy that was microfilmed? It has to have some history, it did not fall from heaven.

This particular copy is from 1385, Shem Tob is the scribe and as I said in the first chapter it is shown to be authentic, 14 generations AS all texts say but only the Hebrew illustrate.

All the historical quotes you gave just say that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. It does not say that our Greek Matthew must be the same work, just translated to Greek.

Actually one of the quotes says exactly that, and by content it rings true.

Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)

Internal evidence of our Matthew proves that it was originally written in Greek:

1) Full sentences grammatically in the same form like in Mark (therefore Matthew is a synoptic gospel).

2) Extensive use of Greek Septuagint in OT quotes.

3) Many other reasons, thats why scholars do not accept "Hebrew origin" of our gospel of Matthew.

Since you say "our Matthew" this shows me you are going off emotion rather than un biased truth...

You can not say "scholars do not accept"

Some do others so not. Making a staement that all scholars are on one side or the other is false. Anything concerning how it wa translated is speculation, I could give a number of scenarios, it is not proof.

Content, the content is the proof.

If you can provide a single Greek text that has 14 generations from Babylon to the Messiah I will reconsider, until then I will stay with what I have diligently sought out, 14 proper generations and many other places in the text that are more correct.

Matthew 1:1-17,


“1:1, The book of the genealogy of יהושע Messiah, Son of Dawiḏ, Son of Aḇraham:"


1:2, "Aḇraham brought forth Yitsḥaq, and Yitsḥaq brought forth Ya‛aqoḇ, and Ya‛aqoḇ brought forth Yehuḏah and his brothers."


1:3, "And Yehuḏah brought forth Perets and Zeraḥ by Tamar, and Perets brought forth Ḥetsron, and Ḥetsron brought forth Ram."


1:4, "And Ram brought forth Amminaḏaḇ, and Amminaḏaḇ brought forth Naḥshon, and Naḥshon brought forth Salmon."


1:5, "And Salmon brought forth Bo‛az by Raḥaḇ, and Bo‛az brought forth Oḇĕḏ by Ruth, and Oḇĕḏ brought forth Yishai."


1:6, "And Yishai brought forth Dawiḏ the sovereign, and Dawiḏ the sovereign brought forth Shelomoh by Uriyah’s wife."


1:7, "And Shelomoh brought forth Reḥaḇ‛am,a and Reḥaḇ‛am brought forth Aḇiyah, and Aḇiyah brought forth Asa.” (Ammorite -1Ki 14:21, 1Ki 14:31)


1:8, "And Asa brought forth Yehoshaphat, and Yehoshaphat brought forth Yoram, and Yoram brought forth Uzziyah."


1:9, "And Uzziyah brought forth Yotham, and Yotham brought forth Aḥaz, and Aḥaz brought forth Ḥizqiyahu."


1:10, "And Ḥizqiyahu brought forth Menashsheh, and Menashsheh brought forth Amon, and Amon brought forth Yoshiyahu."


1:11, "And Yoshiyahu brought forth Yeḵonyah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Baḇel."


1:12, "And after the exile to Baḇel, Yeḵonyah brought forth She’alti’ĕl, and She’alti’ĕl brought forth Zerubbaḇel."



1:13, "And Zerubbaḇel brought forth Aḇihuḏ, and Aḇihuḏ brought forth Elyaqim, and Elyaqim brought forth Azor..


1:14, "And Azor brought forth Tsaḏoq, and Tsaḏoq brought forth Aqim, and Aqim brought forth Elihuḏ."


1:15, "And Elihuḏ brought forth El‛azar, and El‛azar brought forth Mattan, and Mattan brought forth Ya‛aqoḇ."



1:16, "And Ya‛aqoḇ brought forth Yosĕph the father of Miryam, of whom was born יהושע who is called Messiah." (Yosĕph ben Ya‛aqoḇ)


1:17, "So all the generations from Aḇraham to Dawiḏ were fourteen generations, and from Dawiḏ until the exile to Baḇel were fourteen generations, and from the exile to Baḇel until the Messiah were fourteen generations."



1:18, "But the birth of יהושע Messiah was as follows: After His mother Miryam was engaged to Yosĕph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant from the Set-apart Spirit."

 

[JaumeJ]

There is probably a very good reason no one ever wrote down which language was first used for the NT aside from the Epistles......and even the Epistles may be questioned on that subject.

Keep talking about what is falsely called knowledge in place of faith, and this is all you will ever achieve.

 

[graceNpeace]

There is probably a very good reason no one ever wrote down which language was first used for the NT aside from the Epistles......and even the Epistles may be questioned on that subject.

Keep talking about what is falsely called knowledge in place of faith, and this is all you will ever achieve.

This is complete nonsense!

The NT was written in Koine Greek - indisputable!

Also nobody is talking about these things "in place of faith"....

You keep making extraordinary comments that make no sense to the context...

 

[trofimus]

to shamah:

So you have a copy from from 1385 and argue that its more authentic than full Greek copy of our gospel of Matthew from the 4th century and scraps from even earlier centuries. It does not seem right.

You still quote some church fathers. But:

1) You cannot link your 1385 Hebrew Matthew with what those church fathers meant or had.

2) You cannot link our gospel of Matthew with either your 1385 version or with what church fathers mentioned.

3) You are still ignoring internal evidences of our gospel of Matthew that it was composed in Greek and its source was the same as of Mark, it is not an independent translation from Hebrew.

I use "our Matthew" to distinguish the Greek gospel in our Bibles from something given to Jews by apostle Matthew in Hebrew.

I do not even say that our gospel of Matthew must be written by Matthew, for me, its just a name of the book.

 

[Shamah]

to shamah:

So you have a copy from from 1385 and argue that its more authentic than full Greek copy of our gospel of Matthew from the 4th century and scraps from even earlier centuries. It does not seem right.

You still quote some church fathers. But:

1) You cannot link your 1385 Hebrew Matthew with what those church fathers meant or had.

2) You cannot link our gospel of Matthew with either your 1385 version or with what church fathers mentioned.

3) You are still ignoring internal evidences of our gospel of Matthew that it was composed in Greek and its source was the same as of Mark, it is not an independent translation from Hebrew.

I use "our Matthew" to distinguish the Greek gospel in our Bibles from something given to Jews by apostle Matthew in Hebrew.
r
I do not even say that our gospel of Matthew must be written by Matthew, for me, its just a name of the book.

Well I beleive it was written by Matt, I find it odd that you dont even believe Mat wrote it... Also there is no greek in the Hebrew, there is Hebraisims in the greek, historians say it was written in Hebrew, even quoting John saying it was, the content is undeniable, 13 generations or 14? and a number of other similar things. Also I am not ignoring the similarities to Mark, 2 thigns here, 1 you would have to read the Hebrew to know for sure, without reading it one can not be certian and even at that honestly myself and I think everyoine i HAVE EVER MET could use more knowledge on these ancient languages o be certian, 2 why there are or are not similarities are speculation, not that they exist by why, speculation is not fact. I fell you use speculation of traditional thinking as proof. We have had this discussion before, I have done my homework and believe what I do because the evidence. Each are free to seek His truth.

 

[JaumeJ]

If all knew what all the words of the Word are saying, they would not be too concerned with languages.

It is most likely the Septuagint was written for the early diaspora in Greek territory where many had already lost their grasp of Hebrew, since it was written long before Christ came.

Today, the diaspora is all who believe all around the globe, and we all read the translations in our own tongues, however this does not say they were first written in any particular language.

We know Christ fulfilled the prophets and the law in texts written primarily in Hebrew with half of Daniel and all of E
zra in Aramaic...........this and a dime will not buy you a cup of coffee.

All writings without the hOLY Spirit amount to death........so why the grandsons intellectual approaching and no faith?

The truth is Jesus Christ was a Jew who came to the lost sheep of Israel first, and to say He taught them His gospel, first ever received by Abraham, in Greek is just dumb, really.

 

[Shamah]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Jeremiah 23:5-6, “See, the days are coming,” declares [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה, “when I shall raise for Dawiḏ a Branch of righteousness, and a King shall reign and act wisely, and shall do right-ruling and righteousness in the earth. In His days Yehuḏah shall be saved, and Yisra’yl dwell safely. And this is His Name whereby He shall be called: ‘[/FONT]יהוה [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]our Righteousness.”[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[graceNpeace]

The truth is Jesus Christ was a Jew who came to the lost sheep of Israel first, and to say He taught them His gospel, first ever received by Abraham, in Greek is just dumb, really.

Just a massive straw-man - nobody is saying that Jesus taught in Greek!

However, you are the one continually making the accusation....

 

[trofimus]

Well I beleive it was written by Matt, I find it odd that you dont even believe Mat wrote it... Also there is no greek in the Hebrew, there is Hebraisims in the greek, historians say it was written in Hebrew, even quoting John saying it was, the content is undeniable, 13 generations or 14? and a number of other similar things. Also I am not ignoring the similarities to Mark, 2 thigns here, 1 you would have to read the Hebrew to know for sure, without reading it one can not be certian and even at that honestly myself and I think everyoine i HAVE EVER MET could use more knowledge on these ancient languages o be certian, 2 why there are or are not similarities are speculation, not that they exist by why, speculation is not fact. I fell you use speculation of traditional thinking as proof. We have had this discussion before, I have done my homework and believe what I do because the evidence. Each are free to seek His truth.

You can believe that your copy from 1385 is a good copy of what was written by Matthew, but you need evidence.

I can believe that the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible was written by Matthew, but I have no evidence, just a church tradition (its probably not an evidence any protestant would base his life on).

Do you have any evidence that:

1) our Gospel of Matthew is a translation?

2) our Gospel of Matthew is a translation from your version of Matthew?

3) your version is earlier and really is the one mentioned by church fathers? Without corruptions, editing etc?

Why:

1) does author of our gospel of Mathew uses Septuagint and not some kind of original Greek translation from Hebrew

2) does author of our gospel of Matthew uses Mark (or the common proto-source) so obviously, if its a translation of some independent Hebrew gospel. It should look as independently as the gospel of John, for example.

 

[JaumeJ]

You have not read all of the posts in this thread...

Just a massive straw-man - nobody is saying that Jesus taught in Greek!

However, you are the one continually making the accusation....

 

[trofimus]

Just a massive straw-man - nobody is saying that Jesus taught in Greek!

However, you are the one continually making the accusation....

Actually, Jesus could very well use Greek when talking to Romans or Jews from outside Palestine. Some of His sentences can be original, not a translation.

Greek was spoken everywhere and by everyone.

But I also think that most of His teachings were spoken in Palestinian Aramaic (not Hebrew). Just because of a simple fact that most of His teachings happened to Palestinians.

 

[graceNpeace]

Actually, Jesus could very well use Greek when talking to Romans or Jews from outside Palestine. Some of His sentences can be original, not a translation.

Greek was spoken everywhere and by everyone.

But I also think that most of His teachings were spoken in Palestinian Aramaic (not Hebrew). Just because of a simple fact that most of His teachings happened to Palestinians.

You are a little late to the party....I have been over all this ground, in detail, ad nauseum!

I know full well that Jesus spoke Aramaic.
He would also have spoken Koine Greek because it was the lingua franca of the Roman empire.
( I even went in to the history of why this was the case, but won't repeat all that here.)
I know full well that Jesus, during His years of ministry, ministered almost exclusively to fellow Jews.
At these times He would have ministered in Aramaic - there would have been no reason to do otherwise...

However He did occasionally minister to Gentiles, and in these situations it was almost certain that Koine Greek was the language of choice if the Gentile in question did not know Aramaic!
Also, Jesus would have had a lot of incidental contact with Gentiles - Roman soldiers and authorities, traders in the market, fellow-travellers (since Jesus did a lot of travelling - walking - around Palestine), and prior to His ministry years He was a carpenter and it is inconceivable that NONE of His customers were ever Gentiles.
I know this because Jews were a minority in Palestine in the NT period, and even in places like Nazareth in Galilee where the proportion of Jews would have been much higher than say along the Mediterranean coast of Palestine where it would have been hard to find a Jew, Jesus would have had regular, if not daily contact, with Gentiles.
Doing any business in the Roman Empire and even dealing with Roman authorities meant speaking Koine Greek....

So, I think I am on top the situation - my previous post was a generalisation that for the purpose of that post was very adequate in what it said...

 

[graceNpeace]

You have not read all of the posts in this thread...

Actually I have....

Please quote a post were ANYONE has posted that Jesus taught (all the time) in Greek as you allege in your OP....

 

[JaumeJ]

It was poste abuot Jesus speaking Hebrew, that it is certain He spoke Greek. Now I know God speaks in alllanguages when need be, but this comment about Jesus spaking Greek was just that.

 

[graceNpeace]

It was poste abuot Jesus speaking Hebrew, that it is certain He spoke Greek. Now I know God speaks in alllanguages when need be, but this comment about Jesus spaking Greek was just that.

Please quote post the where anyone has said that Jesus taught exclusively in Greek.....

I know that it does not exist - but you are the one continually making nonsense accusations...

 

[JaumeJ]

NawwI think I will just lit you simmer, wonder I shuld say.