Trusting the Church Fathers

[TheLearner]

AandW, when do you propose the Hebrew version would have been written?

When is the earliest record from one of the "fathers," stating its existence?

Is it possible the Hebrew version was actually written by someone other than Matthew, at a later date?

The first modern hebrew version came out of a an anti christian jewish tract.

"Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is the oldest extant Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew. It was included in the 14th-century work Eben Boḥan (The Touchstone) by the Spanish Jewish Rabbi Shem-Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut. George Howard[1] has argued that Shem Tov's Matthew comes from a much earlier Hebrew text that was later translated into Greek and other languages. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob's_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew

It is fairly well known that George Howard extracted his Hebrew Matthew from that Eben Bohan tract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_(Hebraist)

 

[oyster67]

It's come to my attention that some find the Church Fathers writings to not be credible sources to rely upon. Grant it, there are possible reasons to always question, look into deeper, and to proceed with caution from what we read concerning the Church Fathers. But for the most part, I personally believe they give us a deeper understanding of many things we read from our Bible. Look at the Didache, this is not connected to the Bible, but there are several written notations that help clarify Scripture when Scripture itself seems vague. I look at the Didache in the same light as I do the Church Fathers. And on one particular issue specifically, I believe they are correct even if [Modern Scholars] try to deny their claims. That issue is of course, "Was the Book of Matthew first written in the Aramaic/Hebrew Language first before it was later translated into the Greek?"

Here are some quotes that I believe are factual and answer this question:

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.




I believe there are more than enough sources to believe the Book of Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic Language.


I am sure this Issue and other issues with the Church Fathers writings are not new, but i would be interested in how others view this:

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

 

[TheLearner]

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

Thank God for the Vulgate to fix traditional translations.

 

[Blik]

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

That translation, with its faults, was used by the Lord for a mighty work.

If people would use it right, that work could still be as mighty and its faults could be minimized. To use it properly they would need to rely on Hebrew without being prejudiced against it. As a result, as an example, the word Easter would read Passover instead.

 

[Gideon300]

It does matter that the church today has the attitude toward the Hebrew language that is expressed here. In order to understand the word you need to understand the culture and ways of the people told of in that word. By having such a negative attitude toward that language, they are simply asking to misunderstand scripture. Thank heavens, there are men who study Hebrew in its many different forms in order to better understand scripture.

Because much was written in Greek, if the church had the attitude toward that language they have toward Hebrew, it would result in the same misunderstandings refusing to look at the Hebrew is having.

I know neither Greek or Hebrew. I've read a great deal written by Christians who know both. Yes, it helps. At the same time, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads me into all truth. If I have a question, I ask. One way or another, God answers me.

I use Bible Hub, I read commentaries, but fundamentally it is the Holy Spirit who teaches. Brilliant scholars look at Hebrew and come up with the various translations of the OT. So far I've found nothing that is earth shatteringly different to make me want to delve into Hebrew myself.

Too many scholars use the cultural background idea as an excuse to overlook sin. It is the approach taken by those who promote homosexuality and same sex marriage. The prevailing culture is interesting (yes, I have a book about it), but it's not influenced my Christian life in any way. It has not changed how I look at the OT.

 

[Gideon300]

That translation, with its faults, was used by the Lord for a mighty work.

If people would use it right, that work could still be as mighty and its faults could be minimized. To use it properly they would need to rely on Hebrew without being prejudiced against it. As a result, as an example, the word Easter would read Passover instead.

The word Easter appears once and in the NT, not the OT. Every other translation puts "Passover".

The KJV was written when the Church of England ruled. It was not that far removed from Roman Catholicism. So the Greek word "baptiso" was anglicised, to avoid any hint of baptism by immersion being the true baptism. That error has been carried through to every translation that I've ever come across.

And yes, God demonstrated that He is not dependent on the written word to bring about His mighty works. His word is mighty and powerful to save and deliver. It's worth remembering that the Church in China does not rely on English for preaching and teaching. They are doing ok without the KJV!

 

[AandW]

Primary source of your claim is what? produce it. with link

This is the FIRST proof of the proofs listed from page 1 of my opening Thread post.
This can be found in jerome's book titled [De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]]

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]

 

[AandW]

A

I believe that God preserved truth within the 1611 KJV well enough so that The Spirit can use it alone to guide us into a clear understanding of our Lord's Word.

Amen!

 

[AandW]

Did Papias himself say this? Is it a direct quote from his work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord? As I understand it, this work hasn't survived and is only known by excerpts by later authors.

Besides, this work by Papias is dated to 95-110.

Papias, [Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD.[2][3]] (flourished 2nd century), bishop of Hierapolis, Phrygia (now in Turkey), whose work “Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord,” although extant only in fragments, provides important apostolic oral source accounts of the history of primitive Christianity and of the origins of the Gospels.

It's from his own writings.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Papias, [Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD.[2][3]] (flourished 2nd century), bishop of Hierapolis, Phrygia (now in Turkey), whose work “Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord,” although extant only in fragments, provides important apostolic oral source accounts of the history of primitive Christianity and of the origins of the Gospels.

It's from his own writings.

Above it says "although extant only in fragments." Have you seen these "fragments?" Are there pictures of them online somewhere? Do they contain the quote in question about Matthew in Hebrew? Are you sure where it says "fragments" it shouldn't be "excerpts?"

If such fragments do exist, what do you say about the 95-110 dating of Papias' original work. Is this date wrong?

 

[AandW]

If such fragments do exist, what do you say about the 95-110 dating of Papias' original work. Is this date wrong?

I will answer this portion first.

Papias was born 60 A.D. and was a few years older than Polycarp when they both were the Apostle John's Disciples. This gives credence to the Apostle John being in Patmos during the mid 90's A.D. in the Preterist debate. But the fact of the matter is that Papias would have been a Disciple of John around his late 20's to mid 30's which also would be around the time he would have written his paper claiming [According to the Apostle John, Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew Language around the years 41-44 A.D.]

So the fact that Papias would have written this Paper after or during his Discipleship of the Apostle John, seems to be the correct time when he should have written it.

 

[TheLearner]

read to here

 

[TheLearner]

That translation, with its faults, was used by the Lord for a mighty work.

If people would use it right, that work could still be as mighty and its faults could be minimized. To use it properly they would need to rely on Hebrew without being prejudiced against it. As a result, as an example, the word Easter would read Passover instead.

"I thank God that I have a greater gift of “tongues” than any of you, yet when I am in Church I would rather speak five words with my mind (which might teach something to other people) than ten thousand words in a “tongue” which nobody understands."

 

[TheLearner]

This is the FIRST proof of the proofs listed from page 1 of my opening Thread post.
This can be found in jerome's book titled [De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]]

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]

Chapter 3
Matthew, who is Jupiter, the publican apostle (Matt. 9: 9; Mk. 2, 14; Lk. 5, 27) , first published in Judea of them who believed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew, composed who later on Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself until today Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, in this book, that those who make use of, are to be described have the capacity of. For he of whom it should be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Savior quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but as the Hebrew, these two forms are as follows: Out of Egypt have I called my son; and:He shall be called .

Chapter 36
Pantænus, the Stoic, the sect of the philosopher, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, as stated in the Indians as well, at the request of that nation's envoys were dismissed, by Demetrius of Alexandria, bishop neck. Where it finds, Bartholomew, of the twelve disciples together, and our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew's Gospel, preached the coming of the Lord, that it is written in Hebrew letters, when he went back he brought with him to Alexandria. Many of the holy scripture is extant, but rather orally benefit to the churches. He taught in the under the emperor Severus and Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla.

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

Jerome also gives the possibility, that the greek gospel was transliterated into hebrew letters. We were not there and can only speculate.

"(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

does dialektos mean dialot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob's_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_(Hebraist)
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4147/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261110

Thanks, it does not deal with the fact that we do not have the original gospel of Matthew.

The Hebrew gospel of Matthew that George Howard restored is from an anti christian jewish tract.

 

[TheLearner]

This is the FIRST proof of the proofs listed from page 1 of my opening Thread post.
This can be found in jerome's book titled [De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]]

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]

Thanks

 

[TheLearner]

Chapter 3
Matthew, who is Jupiter, the publican apostle (Matt. 9: 9; Mk. 2, 14; Lk. 5, 27) , first published in Judea of them who believed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew, composed who later on Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself until today Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, in this book, that those who make use of, are to be described have the capacity of. For he of whom it should be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Savior quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but as the Hebrew, these two forms are as follows: Out of Egypt have I called my son; and:He shall be called .

Chapter 36
Pantænus, the Stoic, the sect of the philosopher, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, as stated in the Indians as well, at the request of that nation's envoys were dismissed, by Demetrius of Alexandria, bishop neck. Where it finds, Bartholomew, of the twelve disciples together, and our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew's Gospel, preached the coming of the Lord, that it is written in Hebrew letters, when he went back he brought with him to Alexandria. Many of the holy scripture is extant, but rather orally benefit to the churches. He taught in the under the emperor Severus and Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla.

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

"(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob's_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_(Hebraist)
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4147/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261110

Thanks, it does not deal with the fact that we do not have the original gospel of Matthew.

The Hebrew gospel of Matthew that George Howard restored is from an antichristian jewish tract.

 

[DeanM]

Notice how the left has been slipping in socialism into the US a little at a time for years? The catholic heresy didnt just pop into existance one day. It was incremented a little at a time over the years. Thats how the takeovers work. So. When did it start creeping in? My reading I fully trust stopped after the book of Revelation. Were all the early fathers heretics? I dunno thats the problem.

 

[TheLearner]

Notice how the left has been slipping in socialism into the US a little at a time for years? The catholic heresy didnt just pop into existance one day. It was incremented a little at a time over the years. Thats how the takeovers work. So. When did it start creeping in? My reading I fully trust stopped after the book of Revelation. Were all the early fathers heretics? I dunno thats the problem.

They reflect what the Apostles taught them.

 

[DeanM]

They reflect what the Apostles taught them.

Maybe.

 

[TheLearner]

Maybe.

Here is a well know passage from the Didache

Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.