Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does one explain the use of Hebraic Idioms in the Gospel according to Mathew?...
RESPONSE:
Simple. Matthew was a Hebrew, wasn't he? (actually, it's only by tradition starting in 130 AD (see Papias) that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and that idea has long since been set aside by gospel scholars.
New American Bible, Introduction to Matthew:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (seeMt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
Last edited by ancient warrior; 02-21-2012 at 02:35 PM..
Reason: typo
Gee and I thought christians were supposed to consider ALL scripture in their NT as viable. I say study yourselves to show yourselves approved. The Shem Tov (Hebrew Matthew) has been found and since Hebrew is the native tongue and most accurate to decipher true meaning, intent and context I'd say Matthew (Mattityahu) is quite valuable. Indeed it is one of the most ignored by christians since they don't like 5:17-20 especially which established the Torah as the guidepost to what Yahushua (jesus) taught.
BTW, excellent post, chuckmann. Very interesting historical rundown of all the flawed manuscript trying to pass themselves off as the unadulterated Word of God.
Thank you but I cant take credit. The original post was from Micea, who is listed as a Senior Member.
I love this blog site. Even those with whom I disagree are well informed. Makes for interestng readng
Gee and I thought christians were supposed to consider ALL scripture in their NT as viable. I say study yourselves to show yourselves approved. The Shem Tov (Hebrew Matthew) has been found and since Hebrew is the native tongue and most accurate to decipher true meaning, intent and context I'd say Matthew (Mattityahu) is quite valuable. Indeed it is one of the most ignored by christians since they don't like 5:17-20 especially which established the Torah as the guidepost to what Yahushua (jesus) taught.
RESPONSE:
Which came first? The koine Greek Matthew (same language as the rest of the New Testament), or a Hebrew version?
Who and when was a Hebrew Matthew first claimed to exist? (Hint: Try Papias in 132 AD)
You all still miss my point. These were Hebrews who knew and thought in the Hebrew mindset, NOT Greek, nor did they write in Greek but rather Aramaic and Hebrew. You can say what you wish it won't change the REALITY that that is who these men were. They were NOT Greeks. If you have a smidgen of a concept of their culture you wouldn't even argue this point. So I won't either. It is what it is. These men undoubtedly wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew 1st. It was translated into a language that does NOT convey the proper context and intent of the native language. Good luck with that.....
When Christian Gentiles educate their kids in church they often neglect to say that Jesus and the Apostles were practicing Jews. This is called anti-semitism.
They also neglect to say that for 88 years most Christians were Jewish.
Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
Just as Protestants are an offshoot of Catholicism.
You all still miss my point. These were Hebrews who knew and thought in the Hebrew mindset, NOT Greek, nor did they write in Greek but rather Aramaic and Hebrew. You can say what you wish it won't change the REALITY that that is who these men were. They were NOT Greeks. If you have a smidgen of a concept of their culture you wouldn't even argue this point. So I won't either. It is what it is. These men undoubtedly wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew 1st. It was translated into a language that does NOT convey the proper context and intent of the native language. Good luck with that.....
One cannot discount the Hellenistic influence of the period. There probably were a fair percentage of the wealthy class who may well have been bilingual - Greek and Hebrew - or even trilingual - Greek, Hebrew, and the common tongue.
A weak analogy is the Jewish community in contemporary America, where almost al Jews speak English, and almost all of those English speakers speak English as their native language. But many also speak Yiddish and or Hebrew.
Whether Jesus may or may not have spoken Greek Himself is mere speculation. As an educated person, as well as a "tekton" He may as well have had a working familiarity with Greek, which would have been handy if indeed He spent a period of time working and building the city of Sephoris.
Don't get all excited about accuracy because I can assure you of one well known fact. Greek is not a compatible language to Hebrew. It is a linear language and Hebrew is multi level.
Even Strongs concordance is of little value as it simply gives the Hebrew word reference, but does NOT break down the meaning and contextual understanding of the Hebrew words correctly. For that you'll need a Lexicon and the Gematria.
I'm interested in this point. I have a son who spent two years in Jerusalem studying Torah, and when we discuss certain points, certain Hebrew words he has in interesting way of responding.
For example, I might ask him about the Hebrew word "sheol" he will begin by discussing the individual characters, the actual shapes of them, and what those shapes represent. I had the impression that the old Hebrew characters were something of a shorthand for some pictographic root. Which would kinda make sense, given that alphabetic writing isnt all that old relative to pictographic.
Any case, is that along the lines that you meant by Hebrew being "multi level" ??
How does one explain the use of Hebraic Idioms in the Gospel according to Mathew?...
I'm gonna ask a dumb question here. Forgive me.
Isnt idiom specific to a particular language? And maybe to a spcific period of time in the history of that particular language?
For example, in contemporary American English we have an idiom "kick ass"
If that phrase were to be translated into any other language literally, I assume there might be some confusion. Did the original writer / speaker instruct the reader to literally kick people in the rear? If a translator is to aspire to an accurate translation, doesnt he have to find some analogous idiom to purvey the original meaning into the new language, as opposed to literal translation that can lead to complete distortion of that original message?
Hope I am being clear in my question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
