» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 75 | | 15 members and 60 guests | | Amazing Grace, buggy, christabella_warren, cih1355, CredoFidoSpero, dannyhyde, Jen, Jerusalem Blade, Montanablue, Reformed Thomist, TimV | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
09-10-2009, 04:07 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Wick, Caithness, Scotland
Posts: 386
Thanks: 20
Thanked 50 Times in 37 Posts
| | | Hebrew original of Mathew
I am hearing a lot about an original Hebrew text for Mathew.  To support this the following are quoted: - Papius Bishop of Heirapolis
- Iraneus Bishop of Lyons
- Origen
- Eusebius Bishop of Caeserea
- Epiphanius
- Jerome
I have no detailed knowledge of these characters so fill me in. How reliable is our record of what they say? How reliable are they?
__________________
Eoghan
member,Thurso Baptist Church
Scotland
specialist subject: Creationist Genetics (Bottleneck effect of the Ark)
interests: holiness (practical theology)
member of Biblical Creation Society (available as a guest speaker in the far north of Scotland)
| 
09-11-2009, 01:12 AM
|  | Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 5,190
Thanks: 74
Thanked 3,365 Times in 1,190 Posts
| | |
The problem with the theory, even if true, is...
we don't have such a work.
IOW, God was pleased to preserve Matthew in Koine, and not in Aramaic (or Hebrew, even less likely since it wasn't the language used in everyday discourse in 1st cent. Judea or Galilee).
If Mark is, actually, chronologically prior to Matthew, then a Hebrew original of Matthew is even more far-fetched.
If Matthew is the first Gospel written, it could have been preceded by scraps of Hebrew writing, as Christians all over Judea and Galilee (and beyond) might record the Apostle's preaching in bits and pieces (probably in Aramaic).
However, at some point the standard version was penned, practically without question by Matthew, and that version was Greek. Attempting to scrounge for pre-inscripturated revelation, by trying to get "behind" the text that was given to us, is speculative at best. It is trying to be wiser than God.
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12 When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? -- | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Contra_Mundum For This Useful Post: | | 
09-11-2009, 02:43 AM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Cali.
Posts: 3,891
Thanks: 1,996
Thanked 999 Times in 572 Posts
| | |
This theory of a Hebrew Matthew does not explain why the vantage point of Matthew is Greek, since when quoting Aramaic or Hebrew words, the Holy Spirit inspired the author to translate such phrases into Greek, for the sake of the Greek speaking audience.
Cheers,
__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA
"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."
| 
09-11-2009, 12:27 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Wick, Caithness, Scotland
Posts: 386
Thanks: 20
Thanked 50 Times in 37 Posts
| | |
I think what annoys me is the suggestion that Papius et al. were overlooked by scholars and the matter was not addressed.
Just before I got up this morning I went back to bed with Donald Guthrie. Starting at the bottom of page 33 of "Introduction to the New Testament" he discusses the tradition of the Hebrew text reputed to be the "original" and continues through to page 43. It was a fair treatment I thought although indecisive.
What annoys me in the Hebrew text scholars is that they do not give the counter arguments of
1. Aramaic sayings / quotations
2. the universal (?) quoting of the LXX
3. examples of 1st century Greek (koinone?)and Aramaic
They do produce examples of Hebrew and Hebrew idioms in the gospels but one swallow doth not a summer make.
Can you redirect me to a discussion of the Greek/Aramaic idioms and language in the NT? I have the afformentioned Intro to the NT by Donald Guthrie, The Canon of Scripture and Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity both by FF Bruce.
Is there a small, popular (I need something not overtly scholarly - FF Bruce type?) paperback giving the influence of Greek thought and idiom on the NT, Something to serve as a counterbalance to "Yeshua" by Ron Moseley who trys to show the numerous Jewish (i.e. Hebrew) idioms in the teachings of Jesus.
Last edited by Eoghan; 09-12-2009 at 04:23 AM.
Reason: swallow typed twice
| 
09-24-2009, 04:41 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Wick, Caithness, Scotland
Posts: 386
Thanks: 20
Thanked 50 Times in 37 Posts
| | | Exegetical Fallacies - D.A. Carson
This (book above) has helped a lot. It explains a lot about caution in exegesis and the priority you have to give to context.
| 
09-24-2009, 07:36 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Fairview, NC
Posts: 482
Thanks: 299
Thanked 94 Times in 35 Posts
| | |
If a Hebrew Matthew were found, would we need to take it into account as a new textual variant? Maybe refer to it in footnotes of Bible translations? This is assuming it isn't just the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or another lost apocryphal work.
__________________ Johnathan Tate Cornerstone Presbyterian Church (OPC), Arden, NC Husband of one, father of 3 (1 in-utero); Time's "Man of the Year" 2006 |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |