Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,748
388
83
I've read the "Didache" bit you posted above. Can you help me understand? What is GHeb-47, and how does it confirm that the Lord's prayer in the Didache is from the Hebrew version of Matthew?

And what is "this fragment" which it says was compared to GHeb47?

The GH with letters/numbering following indicates the specific word or phrase used but it is not found in the Greek Translated Bibles. And the then when you cross reference the words or phrase to Hebrew they are a 100% match. This is indicating the usage of these words/phrases come from a Hebrew Source only. But since the Lord's Prayer is found in the Book of Matthew, it is a better indication the Didaches Version of the Lord's Prayer comes from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Version.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,748
388
83
I wouldn't say don't trust them, but don't just take their word for it either.

What does the Holy Spirit tell you? He's the Spirit of Truth. Have you done hard investigation to learn the truth asking Him to lead you to the truth; or, have you only listened to one side. If you've done a thorough investigation, considering everything from all angles, and believe it's more likely true than not, then you can say yes, the church "fathers" were right all long. But it's not wise to just take someone's word for it, even if there's apparently a cloud of witnesses. Like your mother used to say, if everyone else is jumping off a cliff should you do it? Maybe they don't say that anymore. :giggle:

The Holy Spirit tells me the Greek freaks have always been incorrect. The reason they never want a Hebrew Matthew Version is because Matthew 28:19 matches the other 8 written examples of Water Baptism in Yeshua's Name. Now, as a Trinitarian or one who believes in the Father-WORD-Holy Spirit, this doesn't bother me because we HEAL in Yeshua's Name, we cast out demons in Yeshua's Name, we conduct most church business in Yeshua's Name, so being Baptized in Yeshua's Name like the other 8 examples in the Bible seem like no big deal. When Yeshua did anything, He did it in alignment with the Father. So to Baptize in Yeshua's Name would be Baptizing in the Father's Name and Holy Spirit all the same.

The Greek freaks are busy bodies trying to micromanage everything and proof of a Hebrew Matthew literally sets them off like we've seen just in the last page of Your thread. But truth is truth and it is what it is. Matthew was factually written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek later on.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,425
2,596
113
A more completed list:


Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, 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 Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]

He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]

First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]

Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

.

But not even a fragment of a Hebrew Matthew from the 1st or early 2nd centuries. Now, I realize the church fathers are considered if they quote something. But it is always limited to confirming what we already know, because the church fathers were simply not "inspired by God" like the actual books of the Bible. The Didache is certainly not a good source of inspired text, either. I had the honour of translating it in my Greek class. What the class found out, is that there are portions directly copied out of the gospels. Then there are long tracts an unknown person wrote. That includes saying the evangelists should be kicked out, if they stay more than 3 days in a village, and they were not allowed to give these touring evangelists money - just a bowl of food. I wonder if the Bible said that, if we would have less shysters ripping people off on TV and social media? There were also instructions on how to slap a man on his right cheek. That is why I would never trust the Didache, because it has some radically different material than the Bible does. I feel the same about church fathers.

"New Testament scholars have no doubt that Matthew was written in Greek. Certainly, it was attributed to the apostle Matthew in the second century, but before this the book was anonymous. By laying the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in parallel and reading them synoptically ('with the same eye') in Greek, scholars have established that Matthew and Luke were substantially copied from Mark, with Matthew using some 90 per cent of the verses in Mark. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language. Further sayings material not found in Mark but common to Matthew and Luke is attributed to the hypothetical 'Q' document, and once again, this could only come from Q in the Greek language.

the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.

As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Matthew 17:1-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.​
Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around."

https://christianity.stackexchange....what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written

I am willing to concede that some people in history thought that Matthew was written in Aramaic, although no early copies remain. But, if there was a Hebrew Matthew, scholarship says it was copied from the Greek Matthew, and Matthew copied a lot from Mark, which is always cited as the source of both Matthew and Luke, being synoptic gospels.. It just does not seem believable that there is not ONE extant Hebrew copy of Matthew. Esp. when Hebrew was not spoken, but Aramaic and Koine Greek in the 1st and 2nd centuries of Christianity in the Near Middle East. So post all you want. You are not open to hearing other sides, and honestly, neither of us is going to convince the other one that we are right.

(Edited for length of words!)
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,748
388
83
But not even a fragment of a Hebrew Matthew from the 1st or early 2nd centuries. Now, I realize the church fathers are considered if they quote something. But it is always limited to confirming what we already know, because the church fathers were simply not "inspired by God" like the actual books of the Bible. The Didache is certainly not a good source of inspired text, either. I had the honour of translating it in my Greek class. What the class found out, is that there are portions directly copied out of the gospels. Then there are long tracts an unknown person wrote. That includes saying the evangelists should be kicked out, if they stay more than 3 days in a village, and they were not allowed to give these touring evangelists money - just a bowl of food. I wonder if the Bible said that, if we would have less shysters ripping people off on TV and social media? There were also instructions on how to slap a man on his right cheek. That is why I would never trust the Didache, because it has some radically different material than the Bible does. I feel the same about church fathers.

"New Testament scholars have no doubt that Matthew was written in Greek. Certainly, it was attributed to the apostle Matthew in the second century, but before this the book was anonymous. By laying the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in parallel and reading them synoptically ('with the same eye') in Greek, scholars have established that Matthew and Luke were substantially copied from Mark, with Matthew using some 90 per cent of the verses in Mark. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language. Further sayings material not found in Mark but common to Matthew and Luke is attributed to the hypothetical 'Q' document, and once again, this could only come from Q in the Greek language.

the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.

As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.​
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.​
Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around."

https://christianity.stackexchange....what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written

I am willing to concede that some people in history thought that Matthew was written in Aramaic, although no early copies remain. But, if there was a Hebrew Matthew, scholarship says it was copied from the Greek Matthew, and Matthew copied a lot from Mark, which is always cited as the source of both Matthew and Luke, being synoptic gospels.. It just does not seem believable that there is not ONE extant Hebrew copy of Matthew. Esp. when Hebrew was not spoken, but Aramaic and Koine Greek in the 1st and 2nd centuries of Christianity in the Near Middle East. So post all you want. You are not open to hearing other sides, and honestly, neither of us is going to convince the other one that we are right.

(Edited for length of words!)
Actually Hebrew Language has been used by the Jews for several Centuries past Yeshua.

Most linguists agree that after the 6th century BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its population to Babylon and the Persian Empire allowed them to return, the Biblical Hebrew dialect prevalent in the Bible came to be replaced in daily use by new dialects of Hebrew and a local version of Aramaic. After the 2nd century CE when the Roman Empire exiled the Jewish population of Jerusalem and parts of the Bar Kokhba State, Hebrew gradually ceased to be a spoken language, but remained a major literary language.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,748
388
83
This is simply a Fact whether we like it or not!

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, 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 Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]


He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V


Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]


First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.


Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .


Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew."


Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
 
Jun 12, 2021
24
9
3
The GH with letters/numbering following indicates the specific word or phrase used but it is not found in the Greek Translated Bibles. And the then when you cross reference the words or phrase to Hebrew they are a 100% match. This is indicating the usage of these words/phrases come from a Hebrew Source only. But since the Lord's Prayer is found in the Book of Matthew, it is a better indication the Didaches Version of the Lord's Prayer comes from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Version.
There is no fragment of a Hebrew original from Matthew. Only theories based on existing Greek manuscripts of Matthew. Therefore it is just a bunch of speculation that there ever was a Hebrew translation and it is impossible to present an exegesis of a Hebrew translation of Matthew on any passage of scripture since there is no copy of an original Hebrew translation of Matthew in extant.

Any proposition that something in the Greek translation in extant should be read differently in the Hebrew based on an original Hebrew translation is impossible to propose. It is a fictional imaginational "what if" proposition.

We can only rely on the Greek copies of the manuscripts as the original as that is all that was preserved and therefore most likely all that ever was.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,748
388
83
There is no fragment of a Hebrew original from Matthew. Only theories based on existing Greek manuscripts of Matthew. Therefore it is just a bunch of speculation that there ever was a Hebrew translation and it is impossible to present an exegesis of a Hebrew translation of Matthew on any passage of scripture since there is no copy of an original Hebrew translation of Matthew in extant.

Any proposition that something in the Greek translation in extant should be read differently in the Hebrew based on an original Hebrew translation is impossible to propose. It is a fictional imaginational "what if" proposition.

We can only rely on the Greek copies of the manuscripts as the original as that is all that was preserved and therefore most likely all that ever was.
The fragment in question is not a piece of papyrus itself. The fragment is the specific wording used that does not match any of the Greek copies we have. When you take the word or series of words there are no Greek that matches the saying. When you take those same series of words and apply them to Hebrew they match. So they know the words in each fragment is Hebrew originated.