The Language of the Gospel of Matthew

[Ferde_Rombola]

Is there any reliable documentary evidence for CA’s assertion the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Aramaic rather than Greek

 

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Jerome and Bishop Eusebius both state that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew (or the Hebrew language), and that copies in that language were still extant during their lifetimes. Some scholars understand the Hebrew language to refer to Aramaic; others believe that it refers to Hebrew.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Thanks for the reply. Can you cite where in St. Jerome’s and St. Eusebius’s writings I can find their statements that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic)? Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thanks for the reply. Can you cite where in St. Jerome’s and St. Eusebius’s writings I can find their statements that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic)? Thanks.

Citations and quotes are in this article:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-Matthew.htm

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Many thanks, Ron and Buffalo. You’ve been a big help to me.

Ferde Rombola

 

[IrishBrigade]

…an interesting post from Buffalo concerning the Synoptic Problem…I’ve spent a good part of the last two years studying this subject, and have accepted the Markan Priority as the solution most in accord with the problem’s solution, the salient point for me being the paucity of Mark’s account as against both Matthew and Luke, and the unlikely notion that Mark, with the availability of at least one of the other two, would deliberately choose to, in effect, ‘dumb down’ his own effort to liturgy. I accept that the evangelist known as Mark, whether the John Mark noted in the Acts of the Apostles, or some other (Marcus was a very common Roman name) created the literary genre known as ‘gospel’ , or the ‘kerygmatic narrative’, that portrays Jesus as presenting questions and challenges to his listeners in his own time…‘gospel’ is not biography, as we understand the term, nor does it appear to be derivitive of either Jewish or Pagan archetypal literature…
At any rate, I appreciate a lively discussion concerning Scripture, particularly the NT, and welcome more of the same on these fora…

 

[Ron_Conte]

…an interesting post from Buffalo concerning the Synoptic Problem…I’ve spent a good part of the last two years studying this subject, and have accepted the Markan Priority as the solution most in accord with the problem’s solution, the salient point for me being the paucity of Mark’s account as against both Matthew and Luke, and the unlikely notion that Mark, with the availability of at least one of the other two, would deliberately choose to, in effect, ‘dumb down’ his own effort to liturgy. I accept that the evangelist known as Mark, whether the John Mark noted in the Acts of the Apostles, or some other (Marcus was a very common Roman name) created the literary genre known as ‘gospel’ , or the ‘kerygmatic narrative’, that portrays Jesus as presenting questions and challenges to his listeners in his own time…‘gospel’ is not biography, as we understand the term, nor does it appear to be derivitive of either Jewish or Pagan archetypal literature…
At any rate, I appreciate a lively discussion concerning Scripture, particularly the NT, and welcome more of the same on these fora…

So you are ignoring Saint Jerome, and Bishop Eusebius, who both state that Matthew was written first. Also, Mark was a boy at the time that Peter and Mark fled Judea for Rome, so it is unlikely that he wrote until many years had passed.

my article on the Synoptics:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-synoptics.htm

Also, you are making a common argument of this form:

The Bible contains certain forms of literature,
therefore, the assertions made in the text need not be true.

Again, the argument also takes this form:

This passage is one form of literature, not another,
therefore, the assertions made in the text need not be true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The Bible is a unique book, the only inspired book (set of books). Therefore, although it contains various forms of literature, we cannot thereby conclude that those forms of literature follow all the conventions of the same form in other books. If the Bible were like other books in every respect, then it would not be inspired. There must therefore be limits, even within one form of literature or another, as to how the Bible conforms to the usual use of that form.

Also, an author making use of any form of literature could easily decide that he was going to use the form, but relate only what is true, avoiding all false assertions, even if such a false assertion were (supposedly) called for by the form.

Amusing example: So, you think that this thread is a type of literature called ‘lively discussion’; should I therefore conclude that you are not really asserting your true opinions, but merely saying whatever will result in a lively discussion?

 

[IrishBrigade]

Amusing example: So, you think that this thread is a type of literature called ‘lively discussion’; should I therefore conclude that you are not really asserting your true opinions, but merely saying whatever will result in a lively discussion?..

…I am, in rather plain English, which I assume you understand, stating that I enjoy, shall we say, invigorating exchanges of ideas on these threads…what more there is to read into that notion, other than the pedestrian meaning of the words I use, I can’t possibly imagine…
…regarding my ignoring of Synpotic topics, don’t stop with accusing me, please feel free to take up the matter with the majority of Biblical exegetes who formed the consensus opinion of Marcan priority…I’m sure you’ll have yourself a fun time…

 

[Ignatius]

…an interesting post from Buffalo concerning the Synoptic Problem…I’ve spent a good part of the last two years studying this subject, and have accepted the Markan Priority as the solution most in accord with the problem’s solution,

The problem here is that it requires an non-existent fifth Gospel.

the salient point for me being the paucity of Mark’s account as against both Matthew and Luke, and the unlikely notion that Mark, with the availability of at least one of the other two, would deliberately choose to, in effect, ‘dumb down’ his own effort

I don’t know of anyone with such a hypothesis. The normal explanation is that he didn’t repeat those portions which were well known and oft’ repeated already.

 

[IrishBrigade]

QUOTE=Ignatius;3872794]The problem here is that it requires an non-existent fifth Gospel.

…and you know that this document is nonexistant exactly how…

I don’t know of anyone with such a hypothesis. The normal explanation is that he didn’t repeat those portions which were well known and oft’ repeated already.

…which is kind of saying, in a more artful manner, that Mark’s account is ‘dumbed down’, is it not…

 

[thistle]

QUOTE=Ignatius;3872794]The problem here is that it requires an non-existent fifth Gospel.

…and you know that this document is nonexistant exactly how…

I don’t know of anyone with such a hypothesis. The normal explanation is that he didn’t repeat those portions which were well known and oft’ repeated already.

How about because it doesn’t exist? However, if you can point out where we can get a copy of this document we will be happy to read it.

 

[IrishBrigade]

How about because it doesn’t exist?

…ah, a pithy comeback if I’ve ever heard one…let’s backtrack a little…I assumed the poster Ignatius, I believe was his name, was referring to Q, an imputed source of sayings by Jesus, that forms the crux of the Synoptic double tradition, or the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark…in most lexica, imputed is not the same as non-existant, and I sought to determine by what method he could state unequivocally that Q did not exist, which question of course I also extend to you, regarding your above chiding of me…

…if he was not referring to Q but to some additional required canonical gospel, I have no idea what he’s talking about…Marcan priority is easily comprehensible by the two others using Mark as a source, thus explaining the triple tradition, and Q accessed by those same two explaining the double tradition…which solution, by the way, is that most accepted by biblical exegetes…

 

[thistle]

How about because it doesn’t exist?

…ah, a pithy comeback if I’ve ever heard one…let’s backtrack a little…I assumed the poster Ignatius, I believe was his name, was referring to Q, an imputed source of sayings by Jesus, that forms the crux of the Synoptic double tradition, or the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark…in most lexica, imputed is not the same as non-existant, and I sought to determine by what method he could state unequivocally that Q did not exist, which question of course I also extend to you, regarding your above chiding of me…

…if he was not referring to Q but to some additional required canonical gospel, I have no idea what he’s talking about…Marcan priority is easily comprehensible by the two others using Mark as a source, thus explaining the triple tradition, and Q accessed by those same two explaining the double tradition…which solution, by the way, is that most accepted by biblical exegetes…

For advocates of Q it is up to them to provide evidence of its existence and not up to others to prove it did not exist.

 

[IrishBrigade]

For advocates of Q it is up to them to provide evidence of its existence and not up to others to prove it did not exist.

…it’s hardly up to anybody to prove the unproveable, that is a fool’s errand…and such is not what I’ve challenged you to do…I merely seek to determine how you and others can stipulate nonexistence of something that cannot possibly be known to exist…two suppositions are possible, each as valid as the other…it’s in fact possible that near verbatim agreements in Lucan and Matthean material which do not appear in Mark, and which generally comprise Jesus’ sayings and wisdom statements, came about due to Luke’s study of Matthew, or it is in fact possible that the agreements came about due to independent usage of a source of these sayings…we will never know for sure, lost documents in antiquity are an all too common occurance. One makes a determination based on the existing facts, and when studying that material common in the double tradition, I simply conclude that the two-source hypothesis answers solves the puzzle for me nicely…

 

[thistle]

For advocates of Q it is up to them to provide evidence of its existence and not up to others to prove it did not exist.

…it’s hardly up to anybody to prove the unproveable, that is a fool’s errand…and such is not what I’ve challenged you to do…I merely seek to determine how you and others can stipulate nonexistence of something that cannot possibly be known to exist…two suppositions are possible, each as valid as the other…it’s in fact possible that near verbatim agreements in Lucan and Matthean material which do not appear in Mark, and which generally comprise Jesus’ sayings and wisdom statements, came about due to Luke’s study of Matthew, or it is in fact possible that the agreements came about due to independent usage of a source of these sayings…we will never know for sure, lost documents in antiquity are an all too common occurance. One makes a determination based on the existing facts, and when studying that material common in the double tradition, I simply conclude that the two-source hypothesis answers solves the puzzle for me nicely…

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead but ZERO evidence for Q. There are no facts about Q. Anybody can make a claim about anything and it is up to these proponents to produce evidence. You cannot claim something and then say it not up to you to prove the claim but up to others to disprove the claim. That is ridiculous.

 

[SFH]

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead but ZERO evidence for Q. There are no facts about Q. Anybody can make a claim about anything and it is up to these proponents to produce evidence. You cannot claim something and then say it not up to you to prove the claim but up to others to disprove the claim. That is ridiculous.

I think the most likely order was St. Matthew (Aramaic), St. Mark, St. Matthew (Greek Revision), St. Luke, and St. John.

St. Matthew (Aramaic) would most likely have been a shorter book, written by St. Matthew, and containing Christ’s words and a few accounts from His life. This is consistent with Apostolic Tradition, which says St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic.

Then, St. Mark would have written his gospel, relying in part on St. Matthew’s Aramaic version.

Then, St. Matthew would have been translated into Greek with the additions from St. Mark and other sources. (Nothing prevents this revision from having been done by St. Matthew or his disciples.)

Then, St. Luke.

And finally, St. John.

This appears to be the working hypothesis of the Dominicans at the Biblical School in Jerusalem (the ones who did the Jerusalem Bible).

 

[Nan_S]

I think the most likely order was St. Matthew (Aramaic), St. Mark, St. Matthew (Greek Revision), St. Luke, and St. John.

St. Matthew (Aramaic) would most likely have been a shorter book, written by St. Matthew, and containing Christ’s words and a few accounts from His life. This is consistent with Apostolic Tradition, which says St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic.

Then, St. Mark would have written his gospel, relying in part on St. Matthew’s Aramaic version.

Then, St. Matthew would have been translated into Greek with the additions from St. Mark and other sources. (Nothing prevents this revision from having been done by St. Matthew or his disciples.)

Then, St. Luke.

And finally, St. John.

This appears to be the working hypothesis of the Dominicans at the Biblical School in Jerusalem (the ones who did the Jerusalem Bible).

If you’re looking for Q, this is where you can find it - the Aramaic version of Matthew.

The event that we no longer have records for is when, how, and by whom Matthew’s Aramaic gospel was rendered into Greek. Obviously Matthew’s gospel was rendered into Greek, since that’s all we now have. We don’t know anything substantial about the content of that Aramaic original, other than the testimony recording its existence.

If I remember aright, the Aramaic Matthew was dated to the mid-40s. The Greek Mark was dated to the 60s, and published shortly after Peter’s crucifixion when Peter’s disciple Mark endeavored to put Peter’s message in writing while the details were still fresh.

When Matthew was rendered into Greek not long after, it appears that the ECF’s didn’t see any need to cause confusion by also copying and preserving a shorter “first draft”.

The ECF’s also make mention that the events in Mark’s gospel were not recorded in their correct order. If you favor Marcan primacy, please explain how the other three gospel writers knew how to re-sequence the events of Jesus life back into their proper order. If Mark had truly been written first, would it not have been more likely that the sequence of events in Mark’s gospel would also have been followed by the other three?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“Q” was posited by Markan priorists because of common material in Luke and Matthew not found in Mark.

So, SOMEHOW Luke and Matthew (for Markians, not the actual companion of Paul and the Apostle, but just convienient names of common usage) had access to Q and used it, a document that Mark writing earlier didnt use, yet NOT ONE Father mentions anything like it

Never mind the simplier explantion

Luke read Matthew. And per Dennis Barton, Luke may have been written first, but Mark got published ahead of Luke.

But historical evidence has never been the Markian’s strong point–the only thing really going for the Markan priority is inertia (ask a Geologist about academic inertia, vis the resistence against the theory of plate techtonics–that theory was finaly accepted only when the “old guard” of geologists either retired or died off)