Was The Gospel Of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Revelation1217
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Revelation1217

Guest
Was The Gospel Of Matthew The First Gospel Written, Composed Before 70 A.D., And Originally Written In Hebrew?

Source: shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008/06/was-gospel-of-matthew-first-gospel.html

Traditionally, the universities of the western world have taught that the Gospel of Matthew was not the first gospel written, that it was written in Greek, and that it was authored after 70 A.D.

However, as more and more discoveries have been made, those assumptions have been shown to be stone cold wrong.

As researchers are looking into the writings of the early church leaders, they are finding that not only was the gospel of Matthew most definitely the first gospel written (almost certainly before 50 A.D.), but that it was originally written in Hebrew!

Just check out what some of the early church writers from the first few centuries of the church have to say on this matter:

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.”

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called “According to the Hebrews” by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

And did you know that one of the 12 disciples of Jesus named Bartholomew actually carried a Hebrew copy of the book of Matthew into India?

Check out this astounding excerpt from an excellent article I found today:
onlinetruth.org/Articles%20Folder/hebrew_gospel_of_matthew.htm

This newly uncovered information further confirms that Matthew, an eyewitness to the miracles and events of Jesus’ ministry, was indeed the author of the first Gospel and verifies both the Jewishness and early date of the first Gospel.

Now, we have a clear mention that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew - not Greek or Aramaic, as widely thought - and was carried out of Israel by one of the original apostles to the Far East. Two of the earliest Church Fathers and historians, Eusebius and Origen, wrote that a second, long-overlooked apostle, Bartholomew, also went to India and took a Gospel text with him, aacording to Princeton scholar and author Samuel Moffett.

In his ground-breaking book, “A History of Christianity in Asia,” Moffett reveals that Pantaenus, a church historian and missionary who traveled to India in 180 A.D., discovered the copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that Bartholomew had taken with him.

“It is reported,” wrote Eusebius, a fourth century bishop and church historian, “that among person there who knew Christ, (Pantaenus) found the Gospel according to St. Matthew (which had arrived ahead of Pantaenus by more than a century). For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left them (in India) the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved.”

“There is a shock hidden in that matter-of-fact statement. …The surprise, of course, is the mention of Bartholomew as the pioneer to the East,” Moffett says.
Many scholars are unaware of an apostle other than Thomas ever going to India, and some even doubt that Thomas himself went.

Moffett ponders, “What was Bartholomew…doing in India with a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?”

–You can read the rest of this excellent article at the link at the top of the excerpt
 
I think so. It bugs me when people say Mark’s gospel was the first written.
 
I think that Hebrew language or Hebrew dialect might refer to Aramaic rather than Hebrew. As I understand it, In Jesus time Aramaic was the common language of the Jews and Hebrew was the liturgical language.

I have seen claims that the grammatical structure of Matthew is indicative of an Aramaic work translated in Greek; as opposed to a one which was originally composed in Greek.,

I know very little about these languages, or any others, but I think Hebrew and Aramaic are similar enough that that argument might equally indicate a Hebrew composition translated into Greek.
 
As mentioned, the early Church writings attest to Matthew being written originally in Aramaic, and its present structure shows a Semitic flavor to it.

It is, however, possible, that Mark may have been written before Matthew was translated into Greek, and that the present Greek Matthew may have borrowed some material from Mark’s Gospel.
 
Jerome and Eusebius both state that Matthew was written in Hebrew, and that copies in the Hebrew were still extant during their lifetimes.

As support for this, Jerome points out that all the quotes in Matthew are from the Hebrew language OT, not the Septuagint, so he is obviously referring to Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews, and the Jews used Hebrew as their written language, and also as their spoken language when speaking about religion:

[Luke]
{23:38} Now there was also an inscription written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

This title over the Cross exists (half of it) and it is written all from right to left, indicating that the inscriber was Jewish. Note that it is in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

{21:39} But Paul said to him: “I am a man, indeed a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of a well-known city. So I petition you, permit me to speak to the people.”
{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:

[Acts of the Apostles 22]
{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.
{22:3} And he said: “I am a Jewish man, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but raised in this city beside the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, just as all of you also are to this day.

Paul spoke in Hebrew because he wanted to get their attention for a speech that was about religion and faith.

{26:14} And when we had all fallen down to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me in the Hebrew language: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to act against the will of God.’
{26:15} Then I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
 
did not realize this was new news, I was taught in parochial school in the 50s that Matthew was the first gospel, addressed to the Jews, and written in Hebrew, possibly with parts in Aramaic.
 
puzzleannie said:
did not realize this was new news, I was taught in parochial school in the 50s that Matthew was the first gospel, addressed to the Jews, and written in Hebrew, possibly with parts in Aramaic.
Click to expand...
The Markan theorists would like to sweep that one under the rug.
 
buffalo said:
The Markan theorists would like to sweep that one under the rug.
Click to expand...
Yes, and many of them would like to exalt the hypothetical souce document called ‘Q’ as not only prior to Mark and the other Gospels, but as somehow better than any Gospel. There is no evidence that Q existed, no mention of it in patristic documents, no quotes from it, no fragments or copies of copies of it, not even at a very late date. Yet some speak about it as if it were established fact, while rejecting the well-supported idea that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

Thanks for your comment, puzzleannie. I didn’t realize that is what was taught in Catholic schools.
 
In his book Nothing But The Truth, Karl Keating seems to support the theory that all four gospels were originally written in Hebrew (not Aramaic) and at very early dates.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Yes, and many of them would like to exalt the hypothetical souce document called ‘Q’ as not only prior to Mark and the other Gospels, but as somehow better than any Gospel. There is no evidence that Q existed, no mention of it in patristic documents, no quotes from it, no fragments or copies of copies of it, not even at a very late date. Yet some speak about it as if it were established fact, while rejecting the well-supported idea that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

Thanks for your comment, puzzleannie. I didn’t realize that is what was taught in Catholic schools.
Click to expand...
What could be better for making up theories than a source no one has ever seen. It gives ever so much more latitude than a source which is available for checking. 😃
 
There is a theory that the Gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. There is even a scholar who published the “Hebrew Matthew” from a 14th century Jewish physician and claims that this work is somehow derived from the original Hebrew version. Here is a background article with some discussion.

I for one don’t buy it. The article cited above is written by James Tabor who is notorious for the the “Jesus Family Tomb” fiasco. I have seen articles by Jews and anti-Catholic scholars about this theory, but it certainly does not agree with the teachings we have about the Gospels.

In any case, the Gospels and New Testament came to us in Greek. And that seems right to me. The message of the New Testament is both for Jew and Gentile. It is appropriate that it is written in the universal language used during the life of Jesus Christ: Koine Greek.

In any case, our Church’s New Testament is in Greek (with a Latin version as well to help teach us.) I do not trust a 14th century physician who wrote a polemical work against Christ to teach us the original words of the New Testament. Instead, I rely on the Church.
 
Bible_Reader said:
There is a theory that the Gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. There is even a scholar who published the “Hebrew Matthew” from a 14th century Jewish physician and claims that this work is somehow derived from the original Hebrew version. Here is a background article with some discussion.

I for one don’t buy it. The article cited above is written by James Tabor who is notorious for the the “Jesus Family Tomb” fiasco. I have seen articles by Jews and anti-Catholic scholars about this theory, but it certainly does not agree with the teachings we have about the Gospels.

In any case, the Gospels and New Testament came to us in Greek. And that seems right to me. The message of the New Testament is both for Jew and Gentile. It is appropriate that it is written in the universal language used during the life of Jesus Christ: Koine Greek.

In any case, our Church’s New Testament is in Greek (with a Latin version as well to help teach us.) I do not trust a 14th century physician who wrote a polemical work against Christ to teach us the original words of the New Testament. Instead, I rely on the Church.
Click to expand...
Your argument does not make sense. The idea that Matthew was written in Hebrew (or some say Aramaic) is based on the word of Saint Jerome and Bishop Eusebius, both of whom asserted that the Gospel of Matthew in the original Hebrew was still extant and in use during their time. No one bases the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew theory on a 14th century text.

The message of the NT is for everyone. But Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not know that they were writing a Gospel for everyone. Matthew wrote for Jews. Mark wrote for Christians as Rome, most of whom did not convert from Judaism.

Also, Greek was not the universal language in the first century. Rather, there were several main languages: Romans used Latin as well as Greek, Jews used Hebrew as their religious language, Aramaic was used widely by Jews in their daily life and by non-Jews.

Greek was not the universal language during Jesus’ time; Jesus taught mainly in Aramaic, then also in Hebrew when he taught in the Synagogue. He probably used Greek even less than he used Latin.
 
steve99 said:
In his book Nothing But The Truth, Karl Keating seems to support the theory that all four gospels were originally written in Hebrew (not Aramaic) and at very early dates.
Click to expand...
It is untenable to say that Luke, writing for a Roman leader in Greece would write in Hebrew. The same for Mark writing for the Romans.
 
Ron_Conte said:
No one bases the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew theory on a 14th century text.
Click to expand...
Clearly you did not read the links I gave.
Ron_Conte said:
Greek was not the universal language during Jesus’ time; Jesus taught mainly in Aramaic, then also in Hebrew when he taught in the Synagogue. He probably used Greek even less than he used Latin.
Click to expand...
Koine Greek was the common trading language of the Mediterranean. Yes, Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic, the common tongue of Palestine. However, he also spoke Greek. He spoke with a Greek woman. (St. Mark 7:26) He visited Phoenician cities (Tyre and Sidon) and the Greek Decopolis cities (St. Mark 7:31-37). He spoke with a Roman centurion (and in that region, the centurions spoke Greek – Latin would be very unusual in Palestine) (St. Matthew 8:5-13 and St. Luke 7:1-10). Greeks wanted to speak with Jesus. (St. John 12:20-36). He was questioned directly by Pontius Pilate (who almost certainly did not speak Aramaic.) (St. Mark 15:2-5, St. Matthew 27:11-14, St. Luke 23:3, and St. John 18:33-38). And the early Church contained Greek speaking Jews (Acts 6:1-6).

There is no mention of any interpreter in any of the cases.

I am unaware of any credible Catholic scholar who maintains the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in Hebrew. Raymond Brown summarizes the case against a Semitic Gospel of St. Matthew on p. 210 of his Introduction to the New Testament. (Perhaps this is not your favorite book, but it is a reasonable summary of contemporary scholarship.)

In any case, it doesn’t matter. The Gospel of St. Matthew that we have is in Greek.
 
It would matter if what Jesus said was in Hebrew and if the Holy Spirit inspired it to be first written in Hebrew and if that does not perfectly coincide with later Greek translation of the same text.
 
Bible Reader;:
In any case, it doesn’t matter. The Gospel of St. Matthew that we have is in Greek.
Click to expand...
The commonly used text is in Greek. However, Hebrew Matthew manuscripts are known. Indeed, four or so years ago a book was written on the theological differences between Greek Matthew and Hebrew Matthew.

xan

jonathon
 
What upsets me is not so much the idea that the whole NT was written in Greek, but the application of the Greek-only theory to interpretation.

People say things like:
‘We can’t really know what that verse means unless we look at the Greek.’
or
‘The meaning of this Greek word can’t be adequately expressed in any other language.’
or
when they look up a Greek word in a verse and then base their entire interpretation of that verse on whatever the dictionary meaning is of the word.

Jesus mainly taught in Aramaic, then in Hebrew, so it can’t be true that we can only understand the meaning in Greek, or that it can only be expressed in Greek, or that there are shades of meaning that are only in the Greek. If that were so, then the meaning in question would not be in the original Aramaic or Hebrew.

Which language each book was written in is an interesting academic question. But the idea that Greek language should dominate interpretation is, in my view, untenable.

My view on language of authorship:

Matthew, Hebrew language (per Jerome and Eusebius; Matthew wrote for Jews)
Mark, Latin (per Baronius et al.; Mark wrote for Roman converts at Rome)
Luke, Acts, Greek (since he was writing for Theophilus, a Greek leader in Greece; also Luke was not Jewish)
John, Aramaic (since he was writing long discourse of Jesus which were given originally in Aramaic)

Hebrews, Hebrew (written for Hebraic Jews, who did not favor Greek-speaking synogogues and scholars)

Romans, Latin (hence Paul needed Tertius, a Roman, to translate)
 
Ron Conte: in the CPD you at times use “Repent” instead of “Do Penance”.

Why? Do you base that decision on Latin, Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew?
 
The CPDV is based on the Latin. I’m not sure which verse you are referring to. Some examples follow:

[Jeremiah]
{18:8} Si pœnitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo, quod locutus sum adversus eam: agam et ego pœnitentiam super malo, quod cogitavi ut facerem ei.
{18:8} If that nation, against which I have spoken, will repent from their evil, I too will repent from the evil that I have decided I would do to them.

The word poenitentiam (esp. with the verb egerit) can refer to doing penance, but in some contexts it clearly refers more to the repentance that naturally would precede any acts of penance. Also, if you check the original Douai and Challoner, you will find instances where repentance is used as well as some where do penance is used.

[Acts]
{3:19} Pœnitemini igitur, et convertimini ut deleantur peccata vestra:
{3:19} Therefore, repent and be converted, so that your sins may be wiped away.

In this example, again, the context indicates repentance rather than doing penance. Obviously, one first repents and is converted, thereafter one might do penance. So doing penance cannot precede repenting. There are some contexts though where I use do penance.

[Revelation]
{2:5} Memor esto itaque unde excideris: et age pœnitentiam, et prima opera fac. Sin autem, venio tibi, et movebo candelabrum tuum de loco suo, nisi pœnitentiam egeris.
{2:5} And so, call to mind the place from which you have fallen, and do penance, and do the first works. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Context makes the difference in the translation choices here. Doing the first works and doing penance are a good fit as two things to do after calling to mind their better spiritual state in the past. However, in the context of the much stronger statment to avoid a loss of ‘your lampstand’ (the local churches role in the larger Church), repentance is a better fit.

Context, context, context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top