Was the Gospel of Matthew Written in Hebrew or Greek?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- Matthews gospel is one of the earliest writings in the New Testament dated to between 50-60AD. Throughout church history it has been regarded as the first of the four gospels written, though today scholars tend to hold that Mark was written first.
Often I'll hear people argue that Matthew was written in Hebrew and that we only have a translation.
So in this video, I want to ask the question, was the gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew? Or was it written in Greek?
Get your free language starter-pack from: www.biblicalmastery.academy/b...
Want to learn Greek? Go to: www.biblicalmastery.academy/g...
Want a tour of my library? • Books that shaped my t...
Follow me:
Twitter: / darrylb
Facebook: / masterntgreek
Awesome vid Daryll! Loving this kind of content. God bless you, brother!
I have read two compelling works on this subject. The first is David Allen Blacks book called " why four gospels". In this book Black argues that the gospel of Matthew was the first one written and it was written early as a statement of the of the early Jerusalem Church about the life of Jesus. It was a work that all the apostles could get behind and promote as the gospel.
The second is a work by nehemia Gordon, describing how a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew surfaced in the Middle Ages as an appendix to a book by Rabbi named Shem Tove. This Hebrew Gospel of Matthew appears to be originally written in Hebrew because it has certain poetic elements that only makes sense in Hebrew. If it is an original Hebrew work about the life of Jesus circulating among rabbis in the middle ages, one wonders how they got it where it came from and so forth.
Yes!! I'm familiar with Nehemiah Gordon, as well as Michael Rood's teaching on the Feasts of YHVH. Nehemiah and Michael work together in telling us the truth.
Michael is Messianic, but Nehemiah is a Karaite Jew who teach the Torah as written. While Judaism is Phariseeic in nature and they've added to and taken from the Torah in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, Judaism is Talmudic Rabbinical sayings which Yeshua destroyed in Matthew chapter 23..
What was once 5 Books of Moses has turned into over 63 volumes of Rabbinical baloney. The Mishna and Gemara are MAN MADE rules and doctrines and conflict with Torah.
In fact, Nehemiah was a former Pharisee but left that cult to teach Torah ONLY. Nehemiah has a doctorate in ancient Hebrew studies and writtings.
Yes! David Allen Black is worth reading.
Yes - Nehemia Gordon’s book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus sheds fascinating light on this set of questions.
The word “Church” does not exist. It was added by King James. The proper term is Ekklesia.
My research shows that Matthew was likely written about 34-37 AD, followed by Mark 55AD then John 90 AD, and then Luke 110 AD. There were also many other accounts of the life of Christ that varied in content and accuracy of which, most have been lost.
I text questions below while listening. At the end you basically validated my views. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone else say these things. Thank you
Good video, and some well thought out comments.
Thank you Dr. Darryl!
Excellent explanation and very accurate
Great video, Darryl! I have been doing a lot of studying on this very thing recently. It seems to make sense that Matthew wrote an account in Aramaic for the Jews AND a Greek account. He was an educated man. The language of trade was Greek. Anyway, thanks for making this!
Maybe Matthew, knowing the importance of the undertaking, actually wrote it out in all three languages.
Certainly a possibility. Darryl's line of thought towards the end of the video could probably be expanded to include the possibility of a trilingual composition, instead of just bilingual.
Hebrew/Aramaic would be either/or. If he wrote in one he would have no reason to write in the other.
Are they that similar?
@@vishyswa They target the same demographic. You wouldn't publish in book in Italy in both Italian and Latin.
Thank you sir! I would agree that this is the most probable explanation when we take the evidence into consideration.
Exceptional. I too arrived at Darryl's conclusions here, through my own study.
I agree. Considering the extant mss, it is interesting to see places where the choice of words in Hebrew would be unlikely selections from the Greek versions, and also where Greek words would be unlikely selections from their Hebrew versions. While it is possible that the translators used words more fitting to their understanding or thoughts of extra-biblical references, it appears likely that both texts were produced by the same source.
Given the historical references, I tend also to believe that Matthew did write in Hebrew first a text that may either have been this gospel or something closer to a sayings collection than the full gospel. To appeal to the Gentile community, Luke wrote knowing of the Hebrew work of Matthew, but was compelled to write because Matthew’s work was in Hebrew and not in Greek. Matthew, later recognizing the growth of the church among non-Jews, or possibly part of his plan all along, prepared the Greek version of the gospel which we have today. If Matthew’s first writing in Hebrew was not the full gospel, but sayings, this text could have been preserved for centuries in the Jewish community until the Hebrew Matthew from the Middle Ages (eg. Shem Tov and Vat. Ebr. 100) was produced to replace it in those communities.
Ok Ken, we don't have the Hebrew, so how could your opening statement be true? You have to have both to make a comparative argument, don't you?
@@betawithbrett7068 we do have the Shem Tov. Do your research. If you actually bother to read it you'd see the Shem Tov is clearly derived from an earlier tradition. The fact that second generation church leaders like Papias and lived during the life time of John, Polycarp and Clement at least and perhaps Paul (as a small child in Asia Minor); point to Matthew being of Hebrew origin is more than enough evidence for me that Matthew was not only written in Hebrew but was also the first written gospel (as per what these primary or almost primary sources say). The fact that modern scholars try and argue against this would not have gained near as much traction in any other historical discipline.
Maybe I should have been more clear. What I meant was how could Ken make a Judgment on what Greek words were more or less likely to have come from the Hebrew autographs of Matthew when we no longer have those?
@@betawithbrett7068 Yes, I was not very clear. I should have started by saying that “if we assume any of the extant Hebrew versions of Matthew are descendants of an original Hebrew Matthew…” I am comparing the existing mss in Hebrew to the Greek and other versions, such as the Coptic, and find that either the translator of Shem Tov was more eclectic and had access to more mss than we might otherwise expect, or the version preserves an early form of Matthew contemporary or predating our earliest copies of Matthew in Greek. Matthew 28:19 comes to mind as one place where these clues are found.
@@kenchilton I apologize that having read your response near when you wrote it, I had not yet replied. Ya know, I must say that until this video reading the comments and then researching about the findings of supposed Hebrew versions of Matthew called Shem Tov (good name) I had never heard of them... I did not know about the discovery. I will have to read some of them (my Hebrew is not too bad) and about them more. Thanks for your comments. Lord's blessings.
Charles Cutler Torrey (American) argued for an Aramaic original long before 1941 when he did sum up his work in 'Documents of the Primitive Church'. I stumbled across it in 1970 as a university freshman & was convinced even that far back. Thank you for bringing to light the important earliest witnesses.
Very interesting!
This is a feasible explanation, sufficient and satisfactory enough. I would like to ask you to do a video on the two lost letters of Paul to the Corinthians. Are they truly lost, if so, if they were to be recovered today would we regard them as inspired?
Good explanations. Video could be better with text of your points put on the screen. A small summary of the three points at the end as well for help remembering what the three reasons were.
What you've settled on as an explanation makes perfect sense. Why I'm interested is partly from internal evidence of Hebrew/Aramaic origins based on the use of Hebrew idioms that have been put into Greek and (then later) made somewhat nonsensical in explanations from the Greek of these idioms. I realize you couldn't cover everything, but it would be interesting to learn more about some things in Greek that may originally have been Hebrew/Aramaic idioms.
I love this video! While you were discussing tell tale signs of translation, this question occurred to me: do any books of the GNT exhibit signs that they were translated? I would love more videos about textual criticism like this!
Well done!!! I agree with your comments on why the Greek text does not appear to be a translation. Have you read James Edwards' case for Matthew originally writing in Hebrew? I have not because I'm just not that interested. As you said, the Greek text is what God chose to preserve. Thank you for a good discussion.
This is exactly what I have thought is most likely. I don't have any academic credentials, but I try to apply all the available resources of the Information Age in order to be wise in my assessments.
I agree that the translation would be very aged, however I tend to think, based on some of the untranslated hebraisms in the text, that Mathew himself did not write it from scratch. Rather another early Church leader, such as Clement, made the translation using Mark and the interpretations of Mathew such as the Didache to assist and guide his translation. This is just how I make sense of the data, since the Church Fathers never mention a Greek text actually written by Matthew, rather there being other interpretations and translations off of it.
Great video.
Interesting video! I’ve just assumed Papias and others were mistaken. But I like this solution. Great video!
This is an interesting perspective. I always like these videos and the clear explanations, well done. The explanation sounds a bit like the Plenary use of the genitive, not either/ or, but both.
I prefer to pick one though, both for the genitive and for the original manuscript language of Matthew. The Anti-Nicene fathers are writing hearsay, even though Iraneaus is an early father, one removed from the Apostle John (through Polycarp). My preference is to go with the Greek original as the sole manuscript rather than the plenary option.
I do, see an explanation for the use of manuscript translations (Hebraisms), especially with Jesus' saying on the cross. Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic on the cross, recording an Aramaic phrase is a sensible way to explain why Jesus' hearers thought Jesus was calling for Elijah (it makes contextual sense). Other gospel writers use Hebraisms with words like "Rabbi/oni."
These are my opinions and perspective, not authoritative :-). I am well pleased that I have the manuscript evidence God wants me to have for faith and godliness. I have plenty to study and obey in the present. I can ask Matthew what he did in glory and find out who wrote to the Hebrews.
Maranatha!
Hi dear brother, what is your thoughts on the findings of Nehemiah Gordon on the findings of pages of book of Luke and John in Aramaic?
Thank you for the video! The view that Matthew was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek may influence how one views the inspiration and canonical status of the Greek text as we have it. It is possible, as you suggest, that Matthew simply made two original versions, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that an inspired Hebrew version has been lost. Because we lack hard evidence either way, I prefer to think that Matthew was originally inspired and written in Greek for Hellenistic Jews, and Matthew or another Jewish Christian made a very early Hebrew/Aramaic translation, which has not survived. The fathers knew of the Heb/Aram version and some of them mistakenly assumed that it was written first. This interpretation not only makes sense of the facts but maintains the Greek version as the canonical inspired text.
It is possible to argue from providence that the Hebrew edition (assuming it existed), since it was not preserved by God through the ages, was not inspired. Regardless, the Greek version is :)
Im confident you’re correct on this
This hypothesis makes a lot of sense. I would love to study it more and understand it more fully and I plan to do that. Otherwise, great video once more.
I've made one of my 2022 projects to collect my reasons for thinking that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and is preserved in a small family of Hebrew manuscripts and editions. One of the points that I personally find most compelling is that the Greek translator changed the order of the Apostles in Matthew 10:1-4 so that the first six match the order in Luke. In the Hebrew of the family, the original order is preserved. When comparing texts, it's usually noted that the reading that brings two gospels to match is the later correction.
There are also dozens of linguistic elements that are best in Hebrew like puns and alliterations. My personal favorite is in Matthew 6:22. The word for "light" is נר (often translated candle) and is very close to נהר which means "river." The Hebrew word for "eye" and "spring" is the same word. All that is fascinating, but Matthew (Jesus?) pulls it out even further by using תמימות for the word for "innocent." Normally you'd expect the word טוב there, but then you wouldn't get מים meaning "water" in the middle of the word. This doesn't really change how you read the verse, but it's the kind of thing that you wouldn't get in a translation.
The manuscripts that preserve this family that I'm aware of are Manuscript 132 from the National Library of Paris and British Library Manuscript 7637. Sebastian Münster also produced a printed edition in this family, and there was another printed edition in this family produced in 1551 titled תורת המשיח. (Torah of the Messiah)
I'm not sure these are as compelling as you might think they are. Also are you going where the evidence takes you or are you looking for evidence for a presupposed position? Finally, how does a Hebrew original for Matthew actually impact your faith? Why is this significant? I'm concerned that many in the church today seem to be fascinated with Judaism, and some even embrace the law and in doing so many unintentionally undermine the sufficiency of Christ. I'm not saying this is you, but I think it is significant that the New Testament is all in Greek as it is part of opening up the new covenant for Gentiles.
@@bma These points don't stand alone. They are the ones that are *for* *me* most compelling. They're based on well established practices in source analysis and textual criticism. It's well established that puns and alliteration don't translate, and that the chances of a translator adding more than the original had are generally very small. Similarly, it is recognized that when a manuscript family has a change to bring a gospel reading more in line with the other gospels, then the reading that's more different is more likely to be original. That's why these are the elements that are most interesting to me: the Hebrew is the one with more puns and alteration and word plays (like we would expect from an original) and the Greek has the text in 10:1-4 in a way that conforms to Luke (like we would expect from a derivative reading.)
I always go where the evidence leads. How about you? Are you looking at the evidence just to find a way to disprove it in order to justify your preexisting beliefs, holding up your presuppositions about why you think people would do this to justify a simple dismissal?
I'm not Jewish. I'm Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English. I'm not particularly interested in cultural studies. It does sometimes impact my interest in history and scripture, of course, but I don't make a habit of memorizing cultural elements. I don't know when any Jewish holidays are except Hanukka and Passover, and those only because they're near Christmas and Easter. Of course I'll look them up when it's relevant to a particular point I'm studying, but as Sherlock Holmes once said, I than endeavor to forget it once it's no longer relevant.
*My* reason for pursuing this is because I want to get closer to God's word. If Matthew wrote in Hebrew and descendants of that version exist, I want to read them. (Well, translate. אני רק קורא עברית קטן. אני צריך מילון טוב לקורא עברית. אלא אני עשור הטוב יותר שלי. Duolingo helps, but I don't think I'll ever be fluent.) Would you like me to speculate as to your reasons for dismissing it? I generally don't like to do that because I'm not a big fan of when people do that to me, but I'm letting you set the tone here. One reason that I've seen is that people don't like complexity. They like the simplicity of saying "The Old Testament is in Hebrew and the New Testament is in Greek." Is that you? Does complexity scare you? Another reason I've seen is just because they've never really thought about it and take the consensus. Is that you? (That's me on a lot of subjects, so no judgment if that's you on this one. There's a lot to know and we all have to rely on experts eventually. And if that's you, then I'm literally just some guy on the Internet, I'm not at all offended if you just ignore me.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "how does this affect your faith." How could it affect my faith? It's the same Gospel whether it's in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or English. I'm the kind of guy that wants to get as close as I can to God's Word. I don't like having a translation standing between me and the Word. To borrow from a poet, I prefer not to kiss my bride through that veil. So it impacts where I go for that original. How does it impact the faith of those who never make the decision to learn Hebrew and/or Greek and always read through a translation? How does it impact the faith of those who only learn Greek and read their Old Testament through the lense of the LXX? How does it impact the faith of those who grew up speaking Spanish and prefer to go back to the Spanish version when they read? I mean, there are times when people get off into the weeds and I'll bring up mine and say, "Ah. That's an interesting position, but the original I draw from can't be read that way." To make up a relatively silly example (because most of them look to me to be pretty silly) if someone were to take the order of the apostles in Matthew and Luke as designing their relative ranks, I would say, "Hmm, I can't get behind that. In mine, the order is different in all three Synoptic Gospels. Other than Peter and Andrew being first and Judas being last, there isn't anything consistent there in the original I'm drawing from." Or something else like that. I think I'd need a more concrete example of how you would see using a different source as impacting a person's faith to give a better answer.
So are you saying that the Greek text of Matthew is not inspired?
@@bma I would nuance that saying that any translation has a derivative inspiration. Very very very few people read their Bibles primarily in the original languages. Translating a book of the Bible doesn't wring the inspiration out of it.
But I do view the translations of Matthew from the Greek with the same pinch of skepticism that I view a translation of the Old Testament from the LXX or a translation of the Gospels from the Syriac Peshitta or Vulgate. It's the same Gospel, it's got all the same primary points, etc. But I would prefer something that gets closer to the original.
I just read the work of Dr Nehemiah Gordon and then listened to his video on CZcams concerning the same topic and he argue quite convincing towards a Hebrew /Aramaic original text, and argues that a copy of an original text is in the London museum. It is just as thought provoking as your video. Thank you very much for sharing your research with us.
You're welcome! Thanks for watching!
I don't think the hebrew original on display is THE original manuscript, only that it may be an original mss of shem tovs Hebrew matt perhaps...?
Im pretty convinced Matthew was written in Hebrew. In Hebrew, the book is clearer and resolves the Greek inconsistencies.
Agreed brother
Well done sir, I lean more towards it was written in Aramaic originally. Keep up the good work.
I don’t understand how people come tohis conclusion. The HEBREW alphabet is right there in every Bible in Psalms 119.
The original TANAKH was written in Hebrew. ELOHIM is Hebrew. The language Messiah spoke to Paul in Acts was Hebrew. The times when Messiah quoted from the Torah when He was in the wilderness up against the adversary he would not of quoted Aramaic because the Torah was written in Hebrew. So many things point to Hebrew. The Aleph Tav which is what Messiah told John that He is. He wouldn’t of said “I’m the alpha and omega” Messiah would not of been speaking Greek to John on the island of Patmos.
@@YeshuaSaves-tc6iu history provides clues that most did not read Hebrew at the time of Yahoshua, rather the common man spoke Aramaic, Eloi Eloi, vs Eli Eli, when Messiah quoted the Psalm on the cross. Most knew Greek as well, but from what I can find, not that many (commoners) were extremely fluent, especially in writing and reading Hebrew. This thought is interesting when looking at the book of Acts when Paul starts speaking in Hebrew and the crowd grew more quiet, so they could fully understand what he was saying, they became more attentive to his speech. Since biblical Aramaic and Hebrew are very close, they would've needed to pay closer attention. Just a thought, keep searching! May Yah bless your journey, shalom!
what language did the People in Samaria speek?
what about the other 3 gospels?
Best explanation so far including Matthews Hebraicism
Thank you. I think this presentation of yours is very logical. I’ve also heard that after 70 AD, the ancient Hebrew language was almost extinguished. Some time after 1948 (when Israel became a nation again) it was resurrected
Based Irenaeus’s early statement, more likely it was a pidgin or creole version of Koine that the Hebrews were more commonly speaking in their region. Which seems to add up when you take into account the Aramaic/Hebrew elements of the wordings in his gospel
Nothing new under the sun even with launguage .🤔 thank you!
Dr. Burling, I found your statement about Harod making Greek the national language really interesting. Could you give me a source for that.
Second, what are your thoughts on the opinion that the early church fathers simply meant that Matthew wrote in a Hebrew style, rather than in the actual Hebrew language?
Sure. Regarding Herod: He made Greek the language of government, but I may be off on the date. I think I said 40 BC but I may have conflated that date from somewhere else. You’ll find a reference to it in James Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, p123, though Jeffers doesn’t include the date. It would have to be after 37BC though as that is when Herod came to power! So ignore the date I gave, it’s obviously wrong. But somewhere between 37 and 4BC and probably earlier rather than later. Regarding style, I think Matthew writing two texts in two different languages is more plausible than the early church referring to a style. However, I wasn’t there so I could be wrong. :)
@@bma Thank you Dr. Burling. I was always under the impression that Latin was the governmental language, Greek was the trade language, Aramaic as the regional language of Palestine, and Hebrew was the religious language-which was known by very few.
But if Herod made Greek the governmental language of Palestine, then Greek may have been more familiar to people in Palestine than I had previously thought.
Have you read G Scott Gleaves' book "Did Jesus Speak Greek?: The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine." (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2015)?
Would you consider doing a video on the likelyhood of Jesus being trilingual. We know he spoke Aramaic, and probably knew Hebrew (Luke 4:16)-though he could have been reading from the LXX or a targum-but did Jesus know Greek? Gleaves claims that he did. Perhaps you would do a video... if you haven't already.
Thanks again.
I haven't read this book yet, but I've recently become aware of it. I'll read it and see about making a video if something comes from it. :)
Yeah, I buy that take.
Well done. Good summaries for the various perspectives. What about the possibility of additional pericopes (chapter subtitles) added to the original somewhat shorter gospel as Matthew the tax collector pieced his gospel together from a very large number of unused pericopes, making minor changes. I draw this conclusion from piecing together Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31; John 21:24-25. That is almost what seems to have happened in John’s Gospel ending with the closing last statement of chapter 20, then later adding chapter 21. Although, none of the earliest MSS that I am aware of end at chapter 20.
Is this a possibility that may explain the differences of opinions? In your summary, I do not see either side attempting to explain, or refute the opposing position.
Is this a possibility in the writing process of daily, or weekly diary writing, become pericopes, become narrative accounts of their experiences with Jesus?
I’m not sure that daily writing was an option. Writing was much more expensive then than today. But Jesus said the Spirit would bring them to remember all things Jesus said (John 14:26).
Dr. Stephen Boyce had a plausable hypothesis that he covered in an interview with Wesley Huff - that Matthew's first "draft" was in Hebrew and was less a narrative and primarily just the teaching/sermons of Jesus, with Mark being the first narrative account written shortly thereafter based on Peter's recollections - and that the church in Jerusalem encouraged a Greek version by Matthew (with the help of the other apostles) as Christianity was spreading and needed to be in the common tongue; the gospel of Mark helped create the narrative/timeline structure that the teachings and sermons recorded by Matthew could be merged with, creating a more complete account that was endorsed by the church in Jerusalem.
Has there been any copies or fragments of Matthew found written in Hebrew?
Not that I'm aware of.
@@bma: I don’t think Matthew was ever written in the Hebrew language, there is no evidence for it in terms of manuscripts. However, it’s not to say, it was written in Greek with a Hebrew mindset and nuance
@@kensmith8152 New Testament is written in Aramaic. Original New Testament is called Aramaic Eastern Peshitta. In Acts 1 verse 19, "Field of Blood" was known to "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in their own tongue as "Akel Dama" which is transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama."
Aramaic was the language of Hebrews in first century AD and second century AD until Simon Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD to 135 AD).
New Testament is written in Aramaic (known as Aramaic Eastern Peshitta or Aramaic New Testament). Not in Greek.
Aramaic was the lingua franca of first century Middle East (including Turkish regions).
Josephus points out that his nation did not encourage the learning of Greek and Hebrews knowing Greek were extremely rare in first century AD (in his Antiquities XX, XI).
Josephus' above testimony is also supported by Old Testament where Nehemiah the Governor was angry with Hebrews (or Judeans) and cursed Hebrews when they abandoned their language and their culture in favor of the cultures and the languages of Ashdod, Moabites, and Ammonites (Nehemiah 13 verses 23 - 26).
Josephus learned Greek in order to communicate to Romans and to translate the works of his country for the benefit of Romans and Greeks in European regions.
In first century AD, Josephus points out that Aramaic was a widespread language and understood accurately among Aramaic speakers.
Josephus points out that Parthians, Babylonians, remotest Arabians, and those of his own nation beyond Euphrates with Adiabeni knew accurately through books he wrote "in the language of our country" (which is Aramaic), prior to translating into Greek for the benefit of the Greeks and Romans (Josephus’ Judean Wars Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1 to 2).
This is also agreed by Dead Sea Scrolls Archaelogist Yigael Yadin who points out that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the time period (Yadin's Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Page 234).
There is Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew that has been found and Nehemia Gordon writes a book about it. I believe he is the one who found it.
Matthew 27:46…Lamsa translation?…My God My God, for this i was kept….i’ve always wondered why Lamsa(who i realize doesn’t get much credit) translated this from Aramaic in this way…..it sounds appropriate to the circumstances…..what are your thoughts?….
The problem is there is no original gospel please can you explain who wrote the Gospel ?
What I found to be interesting is that, the Syriac transliterated from Greek and not from Hebrew.
Just two examples:
1). The Greek word for 𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 is Διαθήκη(𝗗𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗸𝗲), the 𝗣𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗮 transliterated from Greek,ܕܝܬܩܐ(𝑫𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒒𝒆)(see Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20).
2). The Greek word for 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲 is Θρόνος(𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘀).
The 𝗣𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗮 transliterated from Greek, ܬܪܢܘܣ(𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙬𝙨)(see Mathew 19:28).
The Syriac Peshitta is from the 3rd century(NT) - I see this to be another good argument for Greek originality. But I do understand your arguments as well and they do make a lot of sense. It is not an easy one to solve.
Interesting presentation. When Matthew quotes the OT is it the LXX he quotes or Hebrew Scripture?
What is the Hebrew scripture?
@@infinitylord08 Not the Masoretic text, of course, but whatever version of the Hebrew Torah and other books was prevalent in 1st century A.D.
This is a good question, one I think is worth looming into
Good question. Check the video at 8:11. He explains, that Matthew quotes from 1) the Hebrew, 2) LXX, and 3) sometimes has variants readings different from either one.
It’s a mix. Sometimes it is from the Hebrew Scriptures, other time it is from the Septuagint and other times we don’t know where he’s getting it because it is not quite the same as either. Thanks for Watching!
Well done! It is highly likely that Matthew wrote both a Greek and a Hebrew version - as perhaps Josephus did? I find it helpful to regard the Greek as the main valid witness that we have available today. However there are Hebrew late manuscripts coming to light and these may provide further witness. I have mastered Biblical Hebrew, read the NT in Modern Hebrew and have started diving into Greek. As stated in another comment the Hebrew idioms are every where! One biblical language is a start but not enough for me!
Josephus wrote his works in Greek.
Philo wrote in Greek and did not know Hebrew.
I agree. Moreover, the translation of Isaiah 42:1-4 from the Hebrew text that is presented in Matt.12:18 onwards, which is far superior to that rendered in the Septuagint copies that we possess, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, is evidence not only of his consummate skill as a a writer and linguist in translating, but also of his dedication to accurately convey the truth, as one inspired and giving glory to God, in Christ. Thanks be to God.
If Matthew also used Mark as a source, it makes one wonder whether parts of Mark were translated into a semitic language for that edition, or whether the received Greek edition was a combination of Matthew’s Aramaic “sayings” edition with the gospel of Mark…
Could Matthew’s Aramaic “sayings” perhaps be a sort of Q?
Yeah I'm pretty convinced that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew but himself did the Greek translation hence why it became accepted so early as extremely authoritative I also believe that a similar case happened with Mark's Gospel I believe he did probably write it in Latin first but especially with his travels to Egypt and Alexandria I believe he himself did the Greek translation. It makes the most sense to me that if an author knows a language and is actively pushing his teachings that he would probably translate his own work into the languages that he already knows
Yes, this does make sense.
1) My thoughts for the Hebrew arguement is that the Jews were festidious in keeping the Torah in Hebrew.
The rest of the Tanak was also written by Hebrews for Hebrews; with that portion of Danial that was in Aramaic. Perhaps here too there were both Hebrew and Aramaic and that portion of the Hebrew text was lost and replaced with a known Aramaic.
2) The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew.
3) The sign above the LORD Jesus Christ's head was in Roman/Latin, Greek and Hebrew. If Aramaic was so prolific then why was it Hebrew and not Aramaic?
Also, It would not surprise me if the Vatican has a full copy (or several copies) of every book in Hebrew. There is much that has been rewritten and is hidden from us. But the faithfulness of our LORD God to give us enough to understand and then to live by faith is glory to Him in the midst of Satan attempts to keep us in the dark.
John 1:5 "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it."
Based on your argument, what source are you supplying that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew when we know it was written in semantic Greek used during the synagogue period. Later translated into other languages, such as Hebrew Aramaic, church, Slavic
Agree 100%
Thanks for the video. But I'm a bit confused when you say that the Greek in Matthew reads like an original Greek text. What about the evidence discovered by Jean Carmignac? Didn't he find numerous grammatical semitisms in Mark and Matthew, yielding strong evidence for the extant Greek Matthew and Mark being derived from either an Aramaic or Hebrew text? He wrote a book on it called The Birth of the Synoptics.
I think there were 2 versions of Matthew. One in Greek, one in Hebrew.
The key is that Papias says that Matthew wrote "the logia"- the sayings of #Jesus , not a gospel. A Gospel includes not only the sayings, but the miracles, and some interactions in Jesus's life like baptism, death on cross. It was written in Aramaic. Those sayings appear in what is called the Gospel of Thomas, which is a sayings story in Greek and Coptic Egyptian now.
You may want to consider that the Eastern Syrian Orthodox Church uses Aramaic today as a liturgical language, and have an Aramaic bible as well. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I am intrigued by the thought that they may have retained the original language of Mathew's gospel.
Since the writer Matthew copied most of his text from the writer of Mark and he wanted the religion more for Jews, could the writer of Marks gospel have been written in Greek and later the writer of Mathew wrote his version in Hebrew/Aramaic for the Jewish readers, adding stories?
Pretty good so far I am halfway through a little over halfway through.
One criticism. When arguing for the Greek writing first. People are thinking, 21st-century, western writing styles on what a person from a 21st-century western mindset would write and how they would do it.
Hebrew are eastern theory, concrete people they don’t have the same writing styles as us know do they think like us. If you’re going to do an accurate pro Greek, you need to put your mindset in a Greek writer in the first century, and how they would do it not how we think someone today would do it.
It is very obvious that Matthew, Mark and John were written in Hebrew. They are Hebrews they’re writing to a Jewish Hebrew audience. The sayings and the items are Jewish or Hebrew. They’re not Greek. Just because they spoke the language does it mean they communicated it to each other outside of dealing with the rest of the Roman world. Luke, being a gentile writing to a gentle audience, would be the most common Greek gospel.
Paul. Writing to Gentiles scattered. Wherever the lost descendants of the northern tribes were that’s where Paul went to his audiences. That is who the biblical Gentiles are in the New Testament. So everything would be from a Greek mindset. But Paul is still using Hebrew items and Hebrew sayings.
If one assumes that the "Sayings of Jesus" (eg from the Didache, Q, Thomas, etc.) are the didactic setting for the doxological jewel of the Eucharistic prayer, then Matthew's Hebrew edition, like the Latin typica of the Novos Ordo, would allow for generous paraphrasing in Greek. Worship may well include venerable antique, archaic or otherwise foreign language usages alongside of vernacular "vulgar" texts, that are properly subordinated to the traditional language.
Yes. If I was Matthew and wrote the gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew because i was going to preach to others, i would then translate my gospel to use with others, including Jewish diaspora. It makes perfect sense.
I beg to differ. We have several gospels of Matthew that are in Hebrew. One has been on display in the museum in London for the past 40 years. Matthews Hebrew gospel is quite different from the Greek version. This is one reason the Greek text sounds correct, it was written in Greek. But the Hebrew gospel was originally written in Hebrew and it is not able to be translated over to the Greek language in the same way that the Greek text shows the translation to be. The Hebrew version also does not include the first two chapters that the Greek does leading most to conclude that was a later addition to the text by a scribe.
Several copies of Matthews Hebrew gospel were taken to India in the first century by one of the apostles. This is where the museum in London got theirs from.
Ther Nazarines and Ebionites of the first century only had Hebrew versions of the "New Testament" scrolls.
Very interesting and informative. However, if this was written by Matthew, who is an eye-witness, why does he copy Mark so frequently (according to the documentary hypothesis)?
That is a longer discussion, but suffice to say that the documentary hypothesis is a product of enlightenment skepticism. The church believed that Matthew wrote first for the first 1500 years of its existence. As someone else mentioned, the testimony of the early church should be enough for us. Perhaps I should cover this in a future video.
@@bma Wow. That would be great. That seems to make more sense of Matthew being an eye witness.
Except there are copies in the Vatican library.
I’m not sure who told you that. But the Vatican only holds Greek copies of the gospel of Matthew, most famously Vaticanus, a fifth century codex of the entire Greek translation of the OT and the Greek NT.
My opinion is that since Hebrew was the primary language spoken in first century Israel. The apostles wrote most of not all of their material in Hebrew. But as their ministry moved into Aramaic speaking areas they or their disciples translated material into Aramaic. Then the Greek speaking believers used Greek translations of the Aramaic. From Judea into Samaria and into the rest of the earth. Later the Greek speaking church came under great persecution and cut down their text to the bare bones to preserve what each felt was most significant and could be most quickly copied before the copyist died and another took over. As a result, when persecution died down, there was a lot of confusion as to what scripture actually said. The fragments were collected and compared bits were retranslated from surviving sources and Jerome (I think it was Jerome. It was someone significant.) Was sent to India where one of the apostles was known to have preserved the new testament in Hebrew. A copy from that textual tradition was brought back to Rome and used as a controll to verify and correct the Greek text. After this, a death sentence was passed on any who preserved the text in Hebrew. All Hebrew new testaments were to be destroyed on sight. As the Roman church spread conquering the Aramaic churches Aramaic new testaments were also supposed to be destroyed unless they were modified by back translating select portions to conform to the Greek reading that allowed for certain Catholic doctrines. As a result we have only two textual traditions surviving in Aramaic and these show Greek textual influence in portions.
When thinking about the Gospel of Matthew you need to ask if the Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and we just don't have the original writings. Even if we have a manuscript that is in perfect Greek doesn't mean that it was the original.
We do have some original writings of Hebrew Matthew. We have one that is old is a D130. And yes, you can tell in certain passages because I did a deep dive study on this, and spoke to plenty of rabbis and scholars who are familiar with first century, Hebrew. There are plenty in the Greek words that don’t do the Hebrew word, justice, and or miss translated a little bit. And when you read the original Greek, you can see why, because some words from Hebrew to Greek aren’t perfectly translated. So there is a source and sources that we can go back-and-forth to, and it is very evident that this is a copy of the Hebrew.
He makes the interesting point at 3:45 (Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3.1 (c.182 - 188 AD) that Matthew's Gospel was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. This would give us an approximate date when the gospel was written. Paul is supposed to have died in July 64 AD. Peter died about the same time or maybe up to 4 years later. So the gospel must have been written before July 64 AD.
The thing is that Matthew and Luke use Mark as the basis of their writing and since Mark always was in Greek, they other two were originally composed in Greek too - otherwise similarities would be lost in the translation. (The same problem would get worse, if Mark had been written im Aramaic.)
It is more likely that Matthew wrote some early gospel (the sayings) that was later incorporated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew that we now have. Or as the video said...
I like the explanation that Matthew wrote the "Q" source in Aramaic first, possibly even while travelling with Jesus, and then later filled in narratives and details using Mark's account to make it a coherent story. This makes sense of why Matthew was considered the "first" gospel early on, as well as these quotes about it being in Hebrew. It also removes the idea of a "lost" source that Matthew and Luke both relied on -- it was Matthew all along.
This is a nice synthesis of the Q hypothesis and Matthew writing first. Personally, I’m not convinced Q is a necessary document when we have eye witnesses who are recounting the same events under the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ.
Eusebius is our historical source. He gives no hint of Matthew and Mark using each other's texts.
He says Mark followed Peter as He preached and wrote stuff down.
Matthew on the other hand wrote a gospel to convince Jews Jesus is their Messiah.
This is a very feasible explanation. Totally agreed. Before our Independence, we have experienced the Dutch occupation for hundreds of years, and so everybody understand some or more Dutch. Yet, each tribe have their own vernacular language (700-800 tribal language) and use it among them. Before the Independence we vow to have a national language: Indonesian. And so during my parents life, almost everybody are trilingual. During that era, the Roman Catholic still use Latin in their missal, and so some RC will understand at least a bit of Latin. So I imagine this is a similar situation during Jesus' time.
I generally agree with you. Matthew would have been capable of writing in any of the 3 languages discussed. While it's quite possible for.him to match his audience, Greek was the most common language for jews and gentiles. My only concern here is that if Matthew wanted his gospel to have the religious impact with the jews, he would have used Hebrew or Aramaic. We also must consider what was spoken commonly.verus what was written.
@ericschwartzbaum3771
0 seconds ago
I think the conclusion of two versions written by Matthew makes sense. And it makes no sense to deny the clear testimony of the early church that Matthew wrote a Hebrew version. However, there is another point worth mentioning and that is the statement in Matthew 1:21. “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
This verse only makes sense if the Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua (or Yehoshua)is used which means YHWH saves. The Greek name Iousus, was a transliteration of Yehoshua and has no intrinsic meaning which invalidates the point of the verse -that His name was related to salvation.
This is an important theological point which is clear in Hebrew and lost in the Greek.
According to linguists, Hebrew was widely spoken in the entire region until about 150AD, confirming that it was widely spoken in Israel until 70AD. And some say that only the Hellenistic Jews spoke Aramaic and Greek, otherwise only the most highly educated, like the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, spoke anything other than Hebrew around Yeshuas' time. There's Aramaic in the gospels because that's what the Greeks used to translate the Hebrew, some scholars say. Yes, Mathew was originally Hebrew. Some scholars also believe that Mark, John, possibly Acts, and pretty sure Revelation was also originally in Hebrew as some of Revelation was about events before 70AD. Mathew is believed to have been written before 40AD. What we do know for certain is that the entire new covenant was written before 70AD otherwise they would absolutely mention the events of 70AD as Yeshua prophesied about them in Mathew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and saved the lives of all Christians in the area. All Christians knew it was coming and escaped when the signs appeared. In fact, the army surrounded Jerusalem, turned around and left for some mysterious reason, just long enough for the Christians to escape, then came back and sacked Jerusalem. Yehovah works in mysterious ways. Also, there are too many Hebraisms in the gospels that the Greek cannot make up in their language, such as in Mathew 1:21 "...and you shall call His name YESHUA (Jesus) for He will YOSHIA (save) His people from their sins. (Ve'atah tikra shmo Yeshua ki who yoshia et amo ma'hatoteyhem) There are dozens of these Hebraisms in the gospels that cannot be planned out when writing in Greek. The Greek in the gospels is written in a very semitic sentence structure that is not typical of Greek, suggesting it was copied from Hebrew.
I am of the perspective that internal indicators, hebrew idioms, and other external indicators are sufficient to say it was orig written in Hebrew and translated by others who were not as familiar with Hebrew, prob christian translators, not being as familiar with the tanakh also.
The Eloi Eloi part is in Marc. And it is Aramaic.
In Matthew it is Eli Eli and this is Hebrew.
I appreciate you sharing all the angles. Great video! But why are these quotes from Tertullian,
Eusebius, and the like considered as having any authority? Can someone today speak with authority on what happened in the late 1700s without having a documented source? To me these quotes seem like empty claims. But that's just my 2 cents!
Move the time forward from the 1700s to say the 1850’s. I have family stories that have been handed down from WW1 though undocumented. With something as significant as the NT it is entirely likely that a) many things were written and handed down which have since been lost and b) in a world where documentation was more expensive oral tradition was more reliable than it is today. I’m confident there are people today who have family artifacts from the American civil war and can tell the story behind them. However, these men are just men writing and nobody is calling them inspired and authoritative in the sense of scripture.
Matthew 6:34 has the day personified. The day does the worrying. I think the last line, often translated "The trouble for the day is enough", can refer to any day - be it today or tomorrow - and is likewise personifying the day. In the Hebrew, the "to be" verb is missing, and in the Greek, the word for "enough/sufficient" does not agree in gender with the word for "trouble". Therefore, it makes more sense to translate it: "It is enough [that] the trouble [be] of the day." In other words, the trouble already has an owner, and that owner is the day, so don't you go and try be its owner as well. The trouble belongs to the day, and the day does the worrying about the trouble, so don't you try to make the trouble belong to you, and don't you worry about the trouble. This perhaps links backs to how no man can have two masters in 6.24. In 6.34, then, no trouble should have two masters either. Either the trouble has the day as its master, or the trouble has you as its master. Jesus says that the master of the trouble is the day, so we should not meddle in the relationship between another master and another servant. That other master will have to worry about its servant, and it is not our job to be involved. What do you think? Is the misunderstanding of Matthew 6:34 because we are trying to read the Greek translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic text, and losing sight of the "to be" verb that never became part of the Koine translation? It would only be implied in the Hebrew, not explicit, and for not being explicit, it does not appear in the Greek, but if we read it into the text, the text makes more sense. For too long, people have thought that Jesus is teaching that we should not worry about tomorrow but are perfectly justified in focusing on dealing with today's troubles. Jesus' focus is that we should not worry about any troubles, not even today's.
This would lend credence to the idea that God has inspired a translation, which is contradictory to modern scholarship on preservation. Thoughts?
Matthew may have written another *edition* of his gospel in Greek, but I wouldn’t call it a translation any more than I would call a modern author who rewrites his own book in a second language translating it. A translation is generally not completed by the same author but by an author who is trying to undestand what the original author was trying to say and reproduce the original work as closely as possible and so it could be understood by the target audience. An author translating his own work doesn’t have to wrestle with the uncertainty of what the author was trying to communicate and can just say what they wanted to say in the second language. In this sense the two editions can be different, and the second edition may even include or exclude content relative to the first, but still carries the authenticity of the author. This second edition is what I’m saying is the inspired edition. Of course, we’ll have to ask Matthew in heaven to be sure. 😊
@@bma Awesome, thanks for your reply! Appreciate your channel!
I think that the question of an inspired translation is a separate question that would be very difficult to settle. There have been at various points in history people arguing for inspired translations, for example the Vulgate and the King James. These will even go so far as to say that the translation that they prefer is better than the original. Sometimes their arguments are not-so-stupid-as-you-might-hope.
I believe that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and that descendants of that Hebrew original exist in about a half-dozen manuscripts. One of the conversations that I've had with people who disagree was with someone that said that the New Testament has come down to us as a complete document in Greek, so even if individual parts of it were originally Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or Klingon, it doesn't matter. It's that complete Greek text that's the "real" inspired, authoritative text. To further support his position, there are elements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke which make more sense in Aramaic, but there is no sign of that Aramaic original. This is particularly true in Luke. And even if I'm right and Matthew the Apostle wrote the gospel in Hebrew and it was translated into Greek later, there are particular portions which still look better/original in Greek. The Beatitudes, for example. Even if Matthew wrote in Hebrew, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that at least one original telling of the Beatitudes from Jesus's lips was in Greek. (There's also a wordplay in Hebrew in the Beatitudes, but I think that was added by Matthew. There's a few alliterations through the Beatitudes in Greek, and I think that's the language they were originally spoken in.) So however you look at it, there are sections of the Gospels that are probably in Greek that were spoken in Aramaic or written in Hebrew and spoken in Greek. So if that's true, that's an inspired translation.
And as much as I disagree with the conclusion, the facts aren't wrong. The New Testament (or maybe just the Gospels, if we want to be cautious here) are often rolled together in a single Greek document. Questions like "Do the Gospels end with the word 'Amen' or not?" Only make sense when considering them as a single, combined unit. As individual units, they almost certainly did not. And he's right, no matter which language you choose for any of the Gospels, there are particular sections which make more sense in sets of at least two if not three languages. There's good reason to think that a lot of the things in Mark came through a Latin filter because they make the most sense in either Latin or Aramaic. So no matter how you slice it, it looks like there are some inspired translations.
One section that I think makes the most sense in Hebrew is 6:22. There's a play on words with a water motif in Hebrew that's not carried in any other language I'm aware of. But as I already said, I think that the Beatitudes were originally spoken in Greek. So either the Beatitudes are an inspired translation from Greek to Hebrew if my preferred source is right, or the "light of your body is your eye" is an inspired translation from Hebrew to Greek if those who think that the Greek was original are right. Either way, there's an inspired translation in Matthew. Extending that to a whole book is just a matter of degree, not principle.
For my part, I'm willing to take those parts, and then things like The Lord's Prayer which seem to work better in Aramaic, and consider the possibility that oral tradition preserved them to the available editions. (Peshitta? Old Syriac?) And I'll consider those versions for the individual positions that seem to work best in that language for that particular spoken moment. (So I'll read my Beatitudes in Greek if I'm just reading the Beatitudes.) But when I'm considering the whole flow of the document, I'll draw from what I see as the original full form of the document, because the author will sometimes include elements that tie forward and backwards in that composition, regardless of the original spoken language of the quoted text.
Not to mention that there was/is a genuine effort to prove greek is the true inspired language of the bible, even an improvement over the hebrew, as if the translation is an improvement on the original.
7:06 Matthew writes ηλι ηλι λαμά σαβαχθανι, but Mark writes ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι, Mark 15:34. This is consistent with two separate individuals transliterating the same characters based on the same text.
A friend of mine, while he was taking Greek during seminary, said that Paul's Greek was very unsophisticated compared to some other NT writers. I know this doesn't directly correlate to Matthew, but since you mentioned it was very good Greek and was apparently written by someone who was fluent in Greek, I think that may lend some credence that Matthew may have been originally written in Greek.
I would say that Paul's Greek is quite good. John's books, all 4 of them, do read like he is writing in a second language, but the rest of the NT is written in good Greek. I'd say Hebrews and then Luke-Acts are "higher" Greek than Matthew. Peter's Greek is surprising good, probably because he had a secretary.
I’d agree with RevV 45ACP. 😊
Does this confirm the Matthean Priority?
Confirm might be a bit strong, but it could perhaps lend support to it. Someone else commented that Matthew’s Aramaic gospel may fit the criteria for the Q document, which would then mean that Mark borrowed from Matthew who wrote Q. I don’t hold to the Q hypothesis myself.
I personally find the Aramaic makes much more sense than the Greek does. The genealogy affords for Mary to have a Father named Joseph (and her husband Joseph) and the generations add up properly, when the Greek doesn't seem to add up to me. Simon the Lepper vs Jar-Maker, spelled the same in Aramaic. Easy to understand how a translator could get that crossed.
I would tend to agree with your hypothesis, that the Logia (sayings of Jesus) and the Gospel were originally written in (probably) Judean Aramaic (as opposed to Galilean Aramaic - the native tongue of Jesus and many of His core disciples, like Peter etc) since Matthew was (I believe) of Judean and not Galilean origin. This would also tend to explain the Gospel of Matthew's rendition of "Eli, Eli lama sabachthani" meaning "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" which is the exact wording found in Psalm 22:1.
A study of Old Galilean Aramaic reveals quite a different meaning to the same statement, which is (I am led to believe) "From my heart of hearts, this is my destiny." Such a statement being directly addressed to Jesus' Galilean Aramaic-speaking closest friends and relatives at the foot of the cross. In other words, "Do not grieve for me, this is why I came. To die on this cross to pay the debt of your sin." The word lema/למא can mean either "why is this...?" or "this is why!" depending on the context and the dialect being used.
The two dialects of Aramaic (Galilean and Judean) were different enough that often the Judean speakers would misunderstand what the Galilean speaker was actually saying and I suggest this may have well been the case in this instance referred to in Matthew's and Mark's Gospels. Especially since there was the prior statement in Psalm 22:1, which everybody would have been quite familiar with influencing people's understanding of the phrase. Just my thoughts on the subject for what they're worth.
Do these theories make Q unnecessary?
I would go with it being written in Hebrew as many of the phrases and the construction of the grammar only work in Hebrew and not Greke.
If this hebrew or aramaic version happened at all, i think the last solution most probable, or that at least there were composed two separate versions, each written on their own terms, written separately by Matthew, in this way some in the early church thought that the one was translated... the inspired version being the greek, and the hebrew or aramaic being just a separate version, not the one written "under inspiration"...
There are reports of groups of Jewish Christians using a version of Matthew's gospel that didn't have the virgin birth. So maybe the gospel of Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience, and was adopted as such, but changed to suit that theology of Jesus as not being God; or maybe the original didn't have the birth, and both the Greek gospel of Matthew and the Aramaic Jewish gospel of Matthew are based on a smaller earlier version Matthew in either language. Who knows
The Hebrew alephbet is the Aramaic Alephbet and has been since before Jesus... Likely since the Babylonian exile, whose language was Aramaic. I am sure we agree so far.
If the Hebrew written by Matthew had sayings translitered in Aramaic and the Gentile Christian translators did not know Aramaic, would they not ALSO have transliterated them in Greek alphabet?
For me the unanimous testimony of men who lived less than a century after the Gospel was penned is enough, also the hebraic idioms used, I don't believe this poses any problems to the authority of Scripture. I don't think the criticisms of tell-tale signs of translation being allegedly absent is a sufficient critique, and the explaining of Aramaic terms is certainly explainable if not strengthening to the case that it was translated rather than the contrary.
The lack of mention of a second original Gospel by the early fathers, but rather that Matthew's work was translated, puts me on the original hebrew translated greek camp. But a bi-original Gospel hypotheses can be argued for it just seems to have slightly more conjecture, only slightly, and that it is offered mainly to defend a certain view of inerrancy or inspiration?
Either way, great video, laid it out well boss, Stoked to see a cool kiwi teacher getting some good material out there, I'm a kiwi too.
Grace and peace
Are you the same Tim Mora I did CPE with years ago? With Sr. Marie, and in Akld. hospital? Yours, Bob Driver
@@bernarddriver6563 you're probably thinking of my father :) small world though
Matthew writing one in Hebrew and one in Greek is certainly what looks like the best explanation. I am not very persuaded he wrote one in all three, but likely chose either Hebrew or Aramaic.
New Testament was written in Aramaic. In Acts 1 verse 19, "Field of Blood" was known to "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in their own tongue as "Akel Dama" which is transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama."
Aramaic was the language of Hebrews in first century AD and second century AD until Simon Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD to 135 AD).
New Testament is written in Aramaic (known as Aramaic Eastern Peshitta or Aramaic New Testament). Not in Greek.
Aramaic was the lingua franca of first century Middle East (including Turkish regions).
Josephus points out that his nation did not encourage the learning of Greek and Hebrews knowing Greek were extremely rare in first century AD (in his Antiquities XX, XI).
Josephus' above testimony is also supported by Old Testament where Nehemiah the Governor was angry with Hebrews (or Judeans) and cursed Hebrews when they abandoned their language and their culture in favor of the cultures and the languages of Ashdod, Moabites, and Ammonites (Nehemiah 13 verses 23 - 26).
Josephus learned Greek in order to communicate to Romans and to translate the works of his country for the benefit of Romans and Greeks in European regions.
In first century AD, Josephus points out that Aramaic was a widespread language and understood accurately among Aramaic speakers.
Josephus points out that Parthians, Babylonians, remotest Arabians, and those of his own nation beyond Euphrates with Adiabeni knew accurately through books he wrote "in the language of our country" (which is Aramaic), prior to translating into Greek for the benefit of the Greeks and Romans (Josephus’ Judean Wars Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1 to 2).
This is also agreed by Dead Sea Scrolls Archaelogist Yigael Yadin who points out that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the time period (Yadin's Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Page 234).
Please remember that Seleucid Dynasty and its promotion of Hellenism were defeated by Judas Maccabeus and his supporters during Maccabean revolt.
Further details can be seen in my articles on New Testament at quora under my name.
It was in Hebrew, check George Howard's research on the subject.
I find it odd that the Gospel of Matthew, although allegedly being originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, that no trace of it would be in the Syriac version of that gospel. Now, Syriac IS ARAMAIC and in a version of Aramaic that's mutually intelligible with the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. You would think that if a Hebrew / Aramaic version of Matthew was in fact written separate from the Greek version of Matthew that traces of it would appear in the Syriac version of Matthew, but it does not. The Syriac version of Matthew shows, instead, a direct translation from the Greek version.
I think if a Semitic version of Matthew was around before the Greek version, then it was probably quite different from the Greek version that we have today and that's why it wasn't preserved. The Semitic version of Matthew was probably Matthew without the influence of Mark. The Greek version of Matthew was probably an IMPROVEMENT on the original Semitic version hence why it was copied and recopied and the Semitic version of Matthew, being rather inferior to the later Greek version, was not copied, recopied and henceforth preserved.
Professor Edwards thinks the gospel of Luke is more closely related to the Hebrew Gospel as qouted by early church fathers. There are Hebraisms as well such as the translating of egras as locusts. The word for locust and manna is a one letter difference in Greek. You can see how a scribe could make a mistake and mistranlate that word from Hebrew to Greek incorrectly. Theres the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew that may more closely resemble the original manuscripts. Nehemia Gordon does a good rundown of that.
It’s all speculative, but I tend to think Matthew was written in Greek because so much of Mark is identical. For those who don’t know: tradition says Mark wrote his gospel first. This makes sense since both Matthew and Luke seem to have used Mark as a source (both gospels share a large portion of text with Mark but diverge from each other). I also think Jesus’ mother Mary was consulted by Matthew since he alone shares so much of her perspective and personal thoughts.
Thanks for your comments. One note of clarification, tradition says Matthew wrote first, but many modern scholars argue that Mark came first instead and that there was a previous text which Mark depended on. It is possible that *if* there was a Hebrew form of Matthew, perhaps Mark worked from this, though I would still be inclined to think Matthew's Greek gospel came before Mark. Thanks again!
@@bma I tend to give the Early Church the benefit of the doubt when they disagree with modern scholars, so you may be right about Matthew coming first. I wonder if Matthew wrote both a Hebrew AND Greek version of his gospel which could account for some disagreement regarding the language of his gospel as well as the timing of its publication. But none of that accounts for the remarkable agreement between Mark with the other two synoptic gospels where Matthew and Luke tend to differ. I really do think one of the synoptic gospels was used as a basis for the other two--though there's room for disagreement for which one was the base text.
Josephus and his book says that Aramaic was the language and that Greek was totally foreign to most of the speakers in Israel
No one has ever been able to answer this question for me. If Matthew grew up speaking Greek and Hebrew, or Aramaic, then his native tongue is not one or the other, but all languages that he spoke. If he could also write in these languages, then he could have written it in both, and there wouldn't be any translation necessary. It seems to me that this would be true of anyone who came after who was a native speaker of all of those languages. What signs would you expect to find in that situation?
Also, anyone who's well versed in the scriptures and understands what is being taught could translate and make it fluent in whatever language they translate it to. When we read the bible and use the ESV, the NKJV, the KJV, the HDB, etc etc, what signs are there in those translations that show up because they are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew into English? Some translations are very wooden and no doubt show signs of being translated. But the goal of many of them is to make it read as naturally as possible. So, why couldn't that be true of the Greek translation of Matthew, if it was written originally in Hebrew?
It’s an easy one to resolve from which side is correct lol
There were multiple church fathers, who said that there was a Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. That is it you don’t need to go any further. It’s like 100 years from now someone saying the twin towers used to be there and then someone from 2000 years ago saying no lol he go with the earliest quotes and sources.