In search of Gospel of Matthew - the one gifted by the St. Thomas Christians in Kerala

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4823033&postcount=15
Destroying the “Paul invented Christianity” Myth

Originally Posted by paarsurrey:

So, there was a Gospel of Matthew which the St.Thomas Christians say was written in Aramaic/Syriac and they gifted it to a Catholic religious official. This should have been made public by the Catholics so that it could be compared for checking mistakes of the Greek translation.

It was also the responsiblity of the St.Thomas Christians to make at least a copy of the same and kept it preserved with them; If they had any fears that the original will not be taken care of. It would have been more prudent if they had kept the original with them and only gifted a copy, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Originally posted by codebilly:

here is another syriac bible

in.reuters.com/article/lifest…andCha nnel=0

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I am in search of the one gifted by the St.Thomas Christians for the Clergy at Rome; this one for which our friend codebilly has provided the links, is surely not that. Any body having an clue for that.

I love Jesusand Mary as mentioned by Quran.

Thanks

 

[Eucharisted]

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters and in the “Hebrew dialect”, which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: “It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume.” Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy).[37] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.

A Hebrew text of Matthew was published by the Spanish Jewish polemicist Ibn Shaprut in the 14th century. Although it has usually been considered to be his own translation, there are various signs pointing to the possibility that he was using a pre-existing text based on something older than our present Greek text. There is also a papyrus codex in Coptic containing Matthew from verse 5:38 to the end which also seems to contain hints of an older text. Some passages make more sense, such as the Jews saying to Jesus “Hoshanna in the house of David” (“Save, we pray, in the house of David”) rather than “Hoshanna to the son of David” (“Save, we pray, to the son of David”) in Matthew 21:9 and 21:15.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_According_to_Matthew#Possible_Aramaic_or_Hebrew_gospel_of_Matthew

 

[paarsurrey]

scholars, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy.

Hi

Now we have two independent sources one from the Rome and antother from the Christians of India, that there was an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew gifted to the RC by the Christians in India, which St. Thomas brought to India in 52 A.D.

Where is that?

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

 

[Eucharisted]

1. In the Early Church
2. Since the first Christians were for the most part Palestinian Jews, either “Hebrew” or “Hellenistic” (cf. Ac 6:1), their views on Scripture would have reflected those of their environment, but we are poorly informed on the subject. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament suggest that a sacred literature wider than the Hebrew canon circulated in Christian communities. Generally, the authors of the New Testament manifest a knowledge of the deuterocanonical books and other non-canonical ones since the number of books cited in the New Testament exceeds not only the Hebrew canon, but also the so-called Alexandrian canon.34 When Christianity spread into the Greek world, it continued to use sacred books received from Hellenistic Judaism.35 Although Hellenistic Christians received their Scriptures from the Jews in the form of the Septuagint, we do not know the precise form, because the Septuagint has come down to us only in Christian writings. What the Church seems to have received was a body of Sacred Scripture which, within Judaism, was in the process of becoming canonical. When Judaism came to close its own canon, the Christian Church was sufficiently independent from Judaism not to be immediately affected. It was only at a later period that a closed Hebrew canon began to exert influence on how Christians viewed it.
3. Formation of the Christian Canon
4. The Old Testament of the early Church took different shapes in different regions as the diverse lists from Patristic times show. The majority of Christian writings from the second century, as well as manuscripts of the Bible from the fourth century onwards, made use of or contain a great number of Jewish sacred books, including those which were not admitted into the Hebrew canon. It was only after the Jews had defined their canon that the Church thought of closing its own Old Testament canon. But we are lacking information on the procedure adopted and the reasons given for the inclusion of this or that book in the canon. It is possible, nevertheless, to trace in a general way the evolution of the canon in the Church, both in the East and in the West.

In the East from Origen’s time (c. 185-253) there was an attempt to conform Christian usage to the Hebrew canon of 2422 books using various combinations and stratagems. Origen himself knew of the existence of numerous textual differences, which were often considerable, between the Hebrew and the Greek Bible. To this was added the problem of different listings of books. The attempt to conform to the Hebrew text of the Hebrew canon did not prevent Christian authors in the East from utilising in their writings books that were never admitted into the Hebrew canon, or from following the Septuagint text. The notion that the Hebrew canon should be preferred by Christians does not seem to have produced in the Eastern Church either a profound or long-lasting impression.

In the West, the use of a larger collection of sacred books was common and was defended by Augustine. When it came to selecting books to be included in the canon, Augustine (354-430) based his judgement on the constant practice of the Church. At the beginning of the fifth century, councils adopted his position in drawing up the Old Testament canon. Although these councils were regional, the unanimity expressed in their lists represents Church usage in the West.

As regards the textual differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Bible, Jerome based his translation on the Hebrew text. For the deuterocanonical books, he was generally content to correct the Old Latin (translation). From this time on, the Church in the West recognised a twofold biblical tradition: that of the Hebrew text for books of the Hebrew canon, and that of the Greek Bible for the other books, all in a Latin translation.

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church’s constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

From the Pontifical Biblical Commission (link)

 

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4828224&postcount=19

Originally Posted by **Lion of Narnia: **
By the way, even very secular scholars admit the koine greek Matthew’s gospel was clearly written by a native Semitic speaker–and its astonishing easy to "back translate ’ it into Hebrew or Aramaic.

My understanding is that syriac is another semitic language, about as similar to aramaic, as spanish is to italian

Originally posted by paarsurrey:

Hi

Your understanding not withstanding; we are in search of the syrianc Matthew Gospel the one gifted by the St.Thomas Christians for the Clergy at Rome; that would be the earliest Matthew Gospel. We will check the present one with that. It would be interesting.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

As regards the textual differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Bible, Jerome based his translation on the Hebrew text. For the deuterocanonical books, he was generally content to correct the Old Latin (translation). From this time on, the Church in the West recognised a twofold biblical tradition: that of the Hebrew text for books of the Hebrew canon, and that of the Greek Bible for the other books, all in a Latin translation.

Hi

That was a faulty decision, in my opinion; they should have preferred the Hebrew Original or Aramaic Original and given it side by side of the translation in Greek or Latin.

Where is the Syrianc Matthew Gospel the one gifted by the St.Thomas Christians for the Clergy at Rome? That would be the earliest Matthew Gospel. We will check the present one with it. It would be interesting.

I love Jesus and Mary.

 

[2John1vs3]

Quote: “I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim”

Friend:

You admit the truth of what we Christians call “the Old Testament”; at least the scripture, verbatim, contained in Genesis.
So I ask you, in friendship, what does God mean (since it is clear that God is speaking) when He says in Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us…”
What does our God mean by “US”? Why would a God call Himself by a plural pronoun if He were not (please understand) what Christians say He is (by revelation) TRIUNE: one God in three divine Persons?
I have asked this of some friends who practice Islam [and I do have friends and they are Moslems] but they are confused by the question. Genesis is wrong? Does The Prophet say that? Or your image of God is not entirely complete? Could The Prophet, being only a man, consider such a Truth?

 

[Ghosty]

Hi

That was a faulty decision, in my opinion; they should have preferred the Hebrew Original or Aramaic Original and given it side by side of the translation in Greek or Latin.

Where is the Syrianc Matthew Gospel the one gifted by the St.Thomas Christians for the Clergy at Rome? That would be the earliest Matthew Gospel. We will check the present one with it. It would be interesting.

I love Jesus and Mary.

That particular text likely doesn’t exist anymore, and if it does exist it’s not in any known library. The material it would have been made out of was not prone to surviving for 2000 year, not to mention the fact that texts were often destroyed by the Pagans of the time during their persecution of Christians.

Peace and God bless!

 

[paarsurrey]

Quote: “I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim”

Friend:

You admit the truth of what we Christians call “the Old Testament”; at least the scripture, verbatim, contained in Genesis.
So I ask you, in friendship, what does God mean (since it is clear that God is speaking) when He says in Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us…”
What does our God mean by “US”? Why would a God call Himself by a plural pronoun if He were not (please understand) what Christians say He is (by revelation) TRIUNE: one God in three divine Persons?
I have asked this of some friends who practice Islam [and I do have friends and they are Moslems] but they are confused by the question. Genesis is wrong? Does The Prophet say that? Or your image of God is not entirely complete? Could The Prophet, being only a man, consider such a Truth?

Hi friend 2John1vs3

I think Quran mentions evolution/creation of man with more clarity. Quran does not mention of Adam as the first man ever born on earth; it mentions of Adam being the first man to receive direct Word of revelation from GodAllahYHWH like Mose , John the Baptist and Jesus, with a message for his people.

You may perhaps like to read one of my posts :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…0&postcount=55
Adult discussion; faint hearted and short-tempered may please get aside

Hi

My Catholic friends and others would have noted in the chapter of Mary or Maryam in Quran that:

1. Verses from 1-16 give life account of Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist or Yahya.
2. Verses from 16-30 give life account of Mary, mother of Jesus.
3. Verses from 30-37 provide life account of Jesus.

John the Baptist and Jesus were both born naturally of their mothers. Quran establishes the similarities of the events of John and Jesus; as to their birth, as to the dedication of John’s father and Jesus’ mother and their receiving Word of revelation from GodAllahYHWH, as to John’s and Jesus’ being Messenger of GodAllahYHWH etc.

I don’t see any difference among the both. They loved one another. They were good teachers of the Jewish faith.

If any Catholic friend or anybody else sees the difference; he is welcome to express it within the text and the context of Quran.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

 

[jblake]

paarsurrey;:

Where is that?

The extant ninth century Japanese manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been translated from the Aramaic.

jonathon