The Our Father from the Hebrew

[COPLAND_3]

When Jesus taught the Our Father to the disciples was He speaking to them in Hebrew or in Aramaic?

Many scholars think Aramaic, and probably so.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Copland

I think your work is important to correct the current common error among Biblical scholars, which is that they reject the assertions of St. Jerome and Bishop Eusebius that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

The manuscript you are working with may well be in the Scriptural lineage of the original Hebrew, with some subsequent influence from other texts.

Jerry-Jet,

When Paul wanted the Jews in Jerusalem to listen to him more intently, on an important matter concerning the Jewish faith, he switched to speaking Hebrew.

[Acts of the Apostles]
{21:40} And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. And when a great silence occurred, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying:

{22:1} “Noble brothers and fathers, listen to the explanation that I now give to you.”
{22:2} And when they heard him speaking to them in the Hebrew language, they offered a greater silence.

So although Jesus generally spoke Aramaic, He may well have spoken Hebrew for the Our Father. We cannot be certain, but is is tenable.

 

[zach_dunn]

Copland

I think your work is important to correct the current common error among Biblical scholars, which is that they reject the assertions of St. Jerome and Bishop Eusebius that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

So Matthew was written in Hebrew? I thought it was written in Aramaic . . . I’m confused now!

 

[COPLAND_3]

So Matthew was written in Hebrew? I thought it was written in Aramaic . . . I’m confused now!

It is debatable to whether it was Aramaic or Hebrew. The Fathers say Hebrew but there is (I think St. Papias) who said that Matthew wrote it in their native tongue, which leads many to think he was talking about Aramaic, not to mention that many think that they may have said it was in Hebrew when actually they meant Aramaic and that they used it synonymously. Not that I believe that to be the case, but that is an arguement that is made.

As for me personally, I believe that the Biblical authors wrote their accounts more than once and in more than one language. In my personal opinion, I believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and Aramaic, and may have written it in Greek too (would not surprise me). For some reason scholars have limited themselves to believeing that the authors of the Bible only wrote their accounts one time and in only one langauge, and depending on what school of thought they have been trained in usually determines what language they say all the NT was written in, Greek or Aramaic, either or. But if I was writing something of such importance and I did not have a copy machine or printing press, I am quite certain that I would make numerous copies, and I would also provide it in all the languages that were in my surrounding area.

 

[zach_dunn]

It is debatable to whether it was Aramaic or Hebrew. The Fathers say Hebrew but there is (I think St. Papias) who said that Matthew wrote it in their native tongue, which leads many to think he was talking about Aramaic, not to mention that many think that they may have said it was in Hebrew when actually they meant Aramaic and that they used it synonymously. Not that I believe that to be the case, but that is an arguement that is made.

As for me personally, I believe that the Biblical authors wrote their accounts more than once and in more than one language. In my personal opinion, I believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and Aramaic, and may have written it in Greek too (would not surprise me). For some reason scholars have limited themselves to believeing that the authors of the Bible only wrote their accounts one time and in only one langauge, and depending on what school of thought they have been trained in usually determines what language they say all the NT was written in, Greek or Aramaic, either or. But if I was writing something of such importance and I did not have a copy machine or printing press, I am quite certain that I would make numerous copies, and I would also provide it in all the languages that were in my surrounding area.

But then the question is, which language would be considered the inspired one? Could they all be considered inspired if the came from the pen of St. Matthew?

 

[COPLAND_3]

But then the question is, which language would be considered the inspired one? Could they all be considered inspired if the came from the pen of St. Matthew?

We first and foremost rely on what the Church has defined as inspired, and that has been worked out for us already since we have Catholic approved texts. But the original langauges are helpful for us to gain a deeper insight since translations take some level of meaning away, no translation is perfect. But even with all the ancient manuscripts that we have of the Bible in different languages, regardless of what the original or originals were, all manuscripts that we have are not originals but merely copies, and no manuscript is perfect, they all have some textual errors. Fortunately we are not bound to some of the dilemmas of some non-Catholics who are left to scholars or subjective opinions about what to hold as inspired, we have the Apostolic Church who has given us trustworthy Scripture texts. But some of us love to explore the world of ancient Bible manuscripts and textual criticism, not to find something new that the Church has not thought of (God forbid), but to glean insight and the benefits of learning Scripture in the ancient languages.

 

[zach_dunn]

We first and foremost rely on what the Church has defined as inspired, and that has been worked out for us already since we have Catholic approved texts. But the original langauges are helpful for us to gain a deeper insight since translations take some level of meaning away, no translation is perfect. But even with all the ancient manuscripts that we have of the Bible in different languages, regardless of what the original or originals were, all manuscripts that we have are not originals but merely copies, and no manuscript is perfect, they all have some textual errors. Fortunately we are not bound to some of the dilemmas of some non-Catholics who are left to scholars or subjective opinions about what to hold as inspired, we have the Apostolic Church who has given us trustworthy Scripture texts. But some of us love to explore the world of ancient Bible manuscripts and textual criticism, not to find something new that the Church has not thought of (God forbid), but to glean insight and the benefits of learning Scripture in the ancient languages.

Thank you very much!

 

[Ron_Conte]

So Matthew was written in Hebrew? I thought it was written in Aramaic . . . I’m confused now!

Saint Jerome says that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Some scholars have interpreted this as referring to the daily language of the Hebrew people, which was Aramaic. However, to support his claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew, Jerome points out that the quotes from the OT in Matthew are from the Hebrew version of the OT, not the Greek version. So obviously, Jerome was referring the Hebrew, not Aramaic.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So which is more accurate–daily bread?–perpetual bread?–supersubstantial bread?

St. Jerome translated one gospel account of the Our Father as daily bread and another as supersubstantial bread.

Is it possible that BOTH translations could be true?

Perpetual bread seems to indicate both daily bread and supersubstantial bread.

Could it be possible that the Holy Spirit wished to inspire one gospel writer with one word and another with another word because whatever word Jesus originally used conveyed both thoughts?

The reson I ask is because it is possible for anyone to use a word that can simultaneously mean more than one thing at a time.

If human beings are capable of doing such a thing–could not the Holy Spirit or Our Lord be capable of doing such a thing?

I love the rendering of Suopersubstantial bread in addition to daily bread–I had never heard of the Hebrew rendering of perpetual bread–but I love that. too.

I just wonder what word Jesus would have used if He was teaching the disciples in Aramaic?

I also wonder if the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures in Hebrew, Aramic, or perhaps in Greek?

One thing is for certain–daily bread does not COMPLETELY convey what perpetual or supersubstantial conveys.

Just think how much easier it would be to teach transubstantiation to Protestants if they knew that perpetual bread or supersubstantial bread–in addition to daily bread–was what the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel writers?

Since the Ecumenical Council of Trent teaches that the Vulgate does not ERR on matters of faith and doctrine I am inclined to think that BOTH daily bread and supersubstantial bread as written in the Vulgate are BOTH true.

 

[COPLAND_3]

So which is more accurate–daily bread?–perpetual bread?–supersubstantial bread?

St. Jerome translated one gospel account of the Our Father as daily bread and another as supersubstantial bread.

Is it possible that BOTH translations could be true?

Perpetual bread seems to indicate both daily bread and supersubstantial bread.

Could it be possible that the Holy Spirit wished to inspire one gospel writer with one word and another with another word because whatever word Jesus originally used conveyed both thoughts?

The reson I ask is because it is possible for anyone to use a word that can simultaneously mean more than one thing at a time.

If human beings are capable of doing such a thing–could not the Holy Spirit or Our Lord be capable of doing such a thing?

I love the rendering of Suopersubstantial bread in addition to daily bread–I had never heard of the Hebrew rendering of perpetual bread–but I love that. too.

I just wonder what word Jesus would have used if He was teaching the disciples in Aramaic?

I also wonder if the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures in Hebrew, Aramic, or perhaps in Greek?

One thing is for certain–daily bread does not COMPLETELY convey what perpetual or supersubstantial conveys.

Just think how much easier it would be to teach transubstantiation to Protestants if they knew that perpetual bread or supersubstantial bread–in addition to daily bread–was what the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel writers?

Since the Ecumenical Council of Trent teaches that the Vulgate does not ERR on matters of faith and doctrine I am inclined to think that BOTH daily bread and supersubstantial bread as written in the Vulgate are BOTH true.

Great post and great thoughts and questions!

As for your question about the Aramaic readings, one Aramaic version called the Curetonian agrees with this Hebrew while the the Aramaic Pehsitta uses ܕܣܘܢܩܢܢ which means “of necessity.”

 

[MonFrere]

What I think would be interesting to follow through on is the concept of “sacrificial bread”. If I remember correctly there were daily offerings of this type of sacrifice in the sacrifices of the Jews in ancient times.

I’ve also speculated that perhaps the closest we can come to in our life of something being “eternal” is that we do it DAILY. I think this is the best we temporal humans can come to imitate a “perpetual now”.

I just think having more insight into these ancient Hebrew thank offerings would give us more clues into what Jesus may have had in mind in this famous petition from the “Our Father” prayer.

MonFrere

 

[Linda_Marie]

I just think having more insight into these ancient Hebrew thank offerings would give us more clues into what Jesus may have had in mind in this famous petition from the “Our Father” prayer.

MonFrere

Herman Wouk wrote a book called ‘This is My God’ about the practice of the Jewish faith. He describes not only current practices but also the ancient ones. He is a very good author and easy to read. I got it from the library. It is in the Religion section. In fact, I think I need to get it out again and give it another read.

From the Editorial review in the above link:

But a great many Jews who feel defrauded over their ignorance about their background, will learn here --in as much or little degree as they wish- **the facts of Jewish faith, of the law, of the history of development, of the holidays and holy days, their history, significance and observance, **of the difficulties- and the possibility- of following the path of the law in today’s society. The liturgy too is discussed, more in spirit than in detail

bolding mine