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.
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.....
RESPONSE:
Sorry. The Gospels and Epistles were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. But they may have been translated into Hebrew.
By that logic Ancient Warrior text of the Shinto religion was written in English and translated into Japanese You're dreaming but I'm not surprised. Most xtians will defend this stuff to the end regardless of reality.
For those interested in exploring the Hebrew/Aramaic question concerning the Gospel of Matthew and the possibility that PARTS of it existed in oral or written form, check out The Anchor Bible's translation and commentary on the book, by William F. Albright and C.S. Mann. They are partial to this idea, but don't go as far as to claim that a complete version of the Gospel of Matthew ever existed in a Hebrew or Aramaic form definately.
Though, in their commentary and notes, they spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the various Hebrew and Aramaic elements that they feel can be discerned in the various versions, they state in the preface that
We do not believe that any substantial part of our present gospel text was first written in Aramaic, though the possibility of such a composition cannot be ruled out entirely. Research on the proper names [the original Aramaic names in the New Testament] has led to recognition of the extraordinary importance of the Syriac rescensions for better understanding of the gospels.
(Matthew: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, p. vii of Preface, New York: Doubleday, 1971; emphasis theirs)
Much of the importance Albright and Mann place on the possible Aramaic/Syriac oral/written sources for the must be taken with a large grain of salt, and consideration must be made for the research that has taken place since this volume was released - but it's a good starting place for a scholarly investigation of the matter. For those who know Albright's tendencies in certain matters, his stance shouldn't surprise too much.
That's a translation INTO Hebrew FROM Greek, is it not?
For we have no indication that the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote in Hebrew. That used to be an older theory, long superseded by his dependence on the Septuagint for many of his quotations from it, among other linguistic markers pointing to a Greek original.
No, I have a copy of Hebrew Matthew, in a Primitive Hebrew Text with the translation on the opp. page. It is from Shem-Tob's copy of The book of Matt. written in Hebrew. I think that they have found about 25 or more copies of Matt. written in Hebrew. British Library of London, (Even Bohan cataloged Add no 26946) serves as a base text for H. Matt. There a others to look at . One is the Library of Jewish Theological Seminary of America of New York Ms 2426 (Marx 16), Ms 2279 (Marx 18), Ms 2209 (Marx 19), Ms 2234 ( Marx 15). That's one of the places you can find info on HB Matt. I believe that copies or parts of copies are kept in the National Archives in Israel.
It's such pure folly to envision 11 Jewish men writing in Greek. LOL. Yeah like that really happened. Mattityahu thinking in Greek terms and writing in Greek or Latin. As they said in the movie Music Man "not on your tin type". Some of you have your heads so far up the Greco Roman mindset you can't even deal with the reality of the culture. Hard to believe some times, but I'm seeing it all over. Delusion is the name of the game it seems.
No, I have a copy of Hebrew Matthew, in a Primitive Hebrew Text with the translation on the opp. page. It is from Shem-Tob's copy of The book of Matt. written in Hebrew. I think that they have found about 25 or more copies of Matt. written in Hebrew. British Library of London, (Even Bohan cataloged Add no 26946) serves as a base text for H. Matt. There a others to look at . One is the Library of Jewish Theological Seminary of America of New York Ms 2426 (Marx 16), Ms 2279 (Marx 18), Ms 2209 (Marx 19), Ms 2234 ( Marx 15). That's one of the places you can find info on HB Matt. I believe that copies or parts of copies are kept in the National Archives in Israel.
I have several Targums of Job (a "Targum" is a translation of a biblical book into Aramaic). Does this mean that I have a version of the original Aramaic of Job, or even that Job was originally composed in Aramaic? No, it does not. It means only that someone made an Aramaic translation from a Hebrew text.
You "think that they have found about 25 or more copies of Matt. written in Hebrew"? Are you sure about that? Here's what the Anchor Bible Dictionary has to say about the Hebrew versions:
Texts of Matthew in Hebrew first appeared in print in 1537 when Sebastian Munster published a manuscript of Matthew that he received from the Jews. In 1555 Jean du Tillet published another Hebrew Matthew (not radically different from Munster's) that also had been preserved by the Jews. Subsequently scholars incorrectly identified these texts as a translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1690 Richard Simon mistakenly equated Munster and du Tillet with an earlier unpublished Hebrew Matthew preserved in the 14th-century Jewish polemical treatise, the Even Bohan, by the Spanish author, Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut (= ibn Shaprut). The identification of Munster and du Tillet with the text of Shem-Tob discouraged subsequent scholars from investigating the latter until recently. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has now been published in full, accompanied by a critical apparatus, an English translation, and an analysis of the text (Howard 1987).
Apparantly Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is a Hebrew composition overlaid with scribal errors and layers of scribal modification. The modification are (1) stylistic, consisting primarily of improvements in grammar and diction, and (2) revisions designed to make the Hebrew correspond more closely to the canonical Greek and Latin texts. Munster and du Tillet appear to be systematic revisions of the Shem-Tob type text designed to make it read even more closely to the Greek and Latin.
....The old substratum to Shem-Tob's Matthew .... is written in biblical Hebrew with a healthy mixture of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic forms overlaid with medieval scribal revisions designed to improve its grammar, diction, and general style.
Whether Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is to be equated with the Hebrew Matthew referred to by Papias (ca. 60-130 C.E.) is unkown .... A comparison of Shem-Tob's text with quotations of a Hebrew Matthew or of a Hebrew apocryphal gospel cited by later writers (Epiphanius and Jerome) leads to the conclusion that Shem-Tob's Matthew was unknown by early gentile Christians.
("Matthew, Hebrew Version of", George Howard, ABD V. IV, p. 642, New York: DoubleDay)
I aplogize for the long quote, but it is of interest, no doubt. For those interested, read the entire article if one has access to the Dictionary. If no access is available, let me know and I might be able to procure you a digital copy.
See here for information regarding the Aramaic or Syriac New Testament versions - made from the Greek texts.
In addition to that, several scholars around the turn of the last century (late 1800s-early 1900s) attempted to make Hebrew versions of the New Testament by translating the Greek into Hebrew. While these are interesting, they are not what they appear to be.
Again - for some very good information regarding the Aramaic oral and written traditions behind our Greek texts of Matthew, see the commentary in the Anchor Bible Series by Albright and Mann I earlier quoted. They spend a large amount of time analyzing the Greek and comparing it to a possible Aramaic/Syriac original (at least in some parts of the Gospel) and noting how the understanding of some of these parts may have been lost after the transition from Aramaic/Syriac to Greek. They make a compelling case in some examples, not in all, however. Well worth the read, and easily available from Amazon for a couple of bucks, or your local Goodwill Bookstore if you're lucky.
It's such pure folly to envision 11 Jewish men writing in Greek. LOL. Yeah like that really happened. Mattityahu thinking in Greek terms and writing in Greek or Latin. As they said in the movie Music Man "not on your tin type". Some of you have your heads so far up the Greco Roman mindset you can't even deal with the reality of the culture. Hard to believe some times, but I'm seeing it all over. Delusion is the name of the game it seems.
Koine Greek was the lingua franca of that part of the world, and had been since the days of Alexander, so why wouldn't they speak it?
NOT in a Hebrew household. Greek was NOT spoken nor taught in Hebrew households. There is historical record on this, and quite frankly it makes perfect sense (to anyone that isn't overly in love with the Greek mindset)
NOT in a Hebrew household. Greek was NOT spoken nor taught in Hebrew households. There is historical record on this, and quite frankly it makes perfect sense (to anyone that isn't overly in love with the Greek mindset)
In their households, maybe. But some of the Apostles had businesses, one was a tax collector for the Romans, and all of them travelled through out the empire preaching the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, Gentiles who probably mainly spoke Greek.
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.
You're dreaming but I'm not surprised. Most xtians will defend this stuff to the end regardless of reality.
Some of you have your heads so far up the Greco Roman mindset you can't even deal with the reality of the culture. Hard to believe some times, but I'm seeing it all over. Delusion is the name of the game it seems.
