Did the early church worship on Sabbath?

[Gary K]

Several so-called church fathers admitted that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and the statement you've quoted only appears in Matthew.

Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew
Mat 23:3 ועתה כל אשר יאמר לכם שמרו ועשו ובתקנותיהם ומעשיהם אל תעשו שהם אומרים והם אינם עושים

ועתה כל אשר יאמר לכם ~ "[and] Therefore all which he says to you"

Who therefore do you suppose translated this passage into the Greek texts we now have?

This is why it doesn't make any sense when rendered into English: for the Greek text isn't even rendered correctly from what was most likely in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text.

The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Mosheh: therefore whatsoever he says to you, (Mosheh), that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

The actual argument is that Mosheh is the greater authority among mortal men because they themselves sat in his seat or chair, (an actual symbolic stone seat which has been found in a few ancient synagogues), and thus they automatically confess that Mosheh is the higher authority, not themselves, by virtue of the fact that they sit in his seat. Therefore if their interpretations of the Torah are faulty then their interpretations will be overturned: which is indeed what was done away with, their faulty interpretations of the Torah.

The passage in the form which you have quoted it is merely just another churchy translation of a more ancient Hebrew or Aramaic text: and of course those who did this would want their adherents to believe their interpretation of the passage, for if the Master says in this passage to do everything the Scribes and Pharisees said, then surely now you will obey the will of your new hierarchy, the church and its leadership.

So if your church leaders tell you to break the law of God are you going to obey them?

 

[daq]

So if your church leaders tell you to break the law of God are you going to obey them?

The Elders of my assembly have names such as Noah, Mosheh, and Abraham: they cannot tell me to break the Torah because they are in the Torah and in the Kingdom of Elohim. When we sit down to break bread, they do the teaching, and I do the partaking.

How about you? do your church leaders teach you that a day begins at sundown, contrary to what my Elders teach?

 

[reddogs]

I am not a member of the Church of Rome so it doesn't bother me. I'd rather look at the entirety of Christianity. But, if you think the Church of Rome is corrupt, let's see what Jesus had to say about corrupt religious leaders:

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,

Mat 23:2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

Mat 23:3 “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Thats why it only holds true for those who believe and follow God, not traditions or pagan corruption, we need to follow what the Bible which is Gods Word gives us. And from the beginning at Creation, God gave us the Sabbath, and no other day that was made holy and blessed.

 

[Gary K]

The Elders of my assembly have names such as Noah, Mosheh, and Abraham: they cannot tell me to break the Torah because they are in the Torah and in the Kingdom of Elohim. When we sit down to break bread, they do the teaching, and I do the partaking.

How about you? do your church leaders teach you that a day begins at sundown, contrary to what my Elders teach?

No. We only observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night. The Biblical day.

 

[HIM]

So, if context dictates everything (at least as you imply the context to be) and it applies to everyone, does everyone have the authority to make judgements binding on the Church? If two people in Chicago make a decision, then two people in Atlanta make a decision the complete opposite, what is truth?

Yes context. Not everything, the text is about judgement in respect to forgiveness when a trespass occurs. Verse 15 through 31 are about forgiving and judging.
Verse 20's binding is in respect to the judgment that falls on the one who did not hear you, the two witnesses and then the church body in relation to their trespass. Verse 15's you is in the 2nd person singular and is being spoken generally. Meaning it applies to you, me, anyone. As Deut 19:15 applies to anyone. in which verse 16 quotes. The church in verse 17 is the assembly, the congregation. It comes from the Greek word Ekklessia which just means assembly, not the head of the church, everyone.

Verse 17 continues in the 2nd person singular in it's use of the pronoun you. So it is as verse 15 it is being used in the general sense. Here in verse 17 the judgment falls and it dictates that the one trespassed against in verse 15 see the trespasser as a heathen and tax collector. Why? Because they did not hear you, the two or three witnesses and the church body. In this context our Savior says truly I say unto you, whatever we bind or loosen on Earth shall be having been bound or loosen in Heaven. THE BOUND AND LOOSENED IN HEAVEN ARE IN THE PERFECT TENSE. MEANING THAT IT HAS OCCURRED ALREADY. In other word regardless of our judgement God has already made the righteous judgement. Verse 20 with 19 show how we are in accord with this judgement that has occurred in Heaven . Wherein it says that the two or three who are gathered together in agreement must be in His name. And if they are there our Lord is in our midst. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. In this truth anything we ask in His name will be done unto them as verse 20 states.

Then after hearing all this Peter continues in the same context of this teaching of forgiveness and judgment and asks a pertinent question. He asks, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?" And Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, Until seven times, but, Until seventy times seven.



Here is the text we are looking at. This J.P. Greens literal translation. It is my favorite, and we would recommend it to anyone. But I think I spend more of my devotional time in the Textus Receptus.


"But if your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear, take one or two more with you, "so that on the mouth of two" or "three witnesses every word may stand". * Deut. 19:15 * But if he fails to hear them, tell * it * to the church. And if he also fails to hear the church, let him be to you as the nations and the tax collector. Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on the earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven. Again I say to you, If two of you agree on earth as to anything, whatever they shall ask, it shall be to them from My Father in Heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst.

Then coming up to Him, Peter said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times? Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, Until seven times, but, Until seventy times seven. For this reason the kingdom of Heaven has been compared to a man, a king, who decided to take account with his slaves. And when he began to reckon, one debtor of ten thousand talents was brought near to him. But he not having * any * to pay, the lord commanded him to be sold, also his wife and children, and all things, as much as he had, even to pay back. Then falling down, the slave bowed the knee to him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. And being filled with pity, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the loan. But going out, that slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii. And seizing him, he choked * him * , saying, Pay me whatever you owe. Then falling down at his feet, his fellow slave begged him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. But he would not, but going away he threw him into prison until he pay back the * amount * owing. But his fellow slaves, seeing the things happening, they were greatly grieved. And coming they reported to their lord all the things happening. Then calling him near, his lord said to him, Wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt, since you begged me. Ought you not also to favor your fellow slave, as I also favored you? And being angry, his lord delivered him up to the tormentors until he pay back all that debt to him. So also My heavenly Father will do to you unless each of you from your hearts forgive his brother their trespasses. "

(Matthew 18:15-35 [LITV])

 

[daq]

No. We only observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night. The Biblical day.

What about Matthew 23:3, which was the context you responded to in replying to me this time around? What do you and your teachers claim that it says? I looks as though you and your teachers have no clue what a bad predicament you are in, theologically speaking.

 

[Gary K]

What about Matthew 23:3, which was the context you responded to in replying to me this time around? What do you and your teachers claim that it says? I looks as though you and your teachers have no clue what a bad predicament you are in, theologically speaking.

So you, a Torah believer, would rather have the OT and NT argue with each other?

 

[daq]

So you, a Torah believer, would rather have the OT and NT argue with each other?

Of course not: they fully agree in my understanding.
Now then, can you answer the question or not?

 

[Gary K]

Of course not: they fully agree in my understanding.
Now then, can you answer the question or not?

They don't. A Biblical day is from sundown to sundown, Do you really think the creation of the world didn't start in darkness and God, after he created light, didn't say the evening and the morning were the first day, or that there are only 12 hours in a day? You must think the earth is twice as old as it is.

 

[daq]

They don't. A Biblical day is from sundown to sundown, Do you really think the creation of the world didn't start in darkness and God, after he created light, didn't say the evening and the morning were the first day, or that there are only 12 hours in a day? You must think the earth is twice as old as it is.

You continue to avoid the question about Matthew 23:3. Why is that? One of the SDA commentaries on the Bible I found online, (here), upholds the statement in Matthew 23:3 from the current reading now found in the Greek texts, as quoted previously herein by HTacianas, which post I responded to, and to which you then quoted my response and deflected away from that discussion without giving your own understanding of the statement.

Do you suppose that the Pharisees and their Scribes are no more? They have not disappeared, and in fact the Pharisees even assumed the role of a priesthood after the events at the end of the first century and beginning of the second, (70-135), because thereafter the Sadducees and other sects disappeared. They wrote both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, then codified the lunisolar Hillel 2 calendar as one of the last acts of their earthly Sanhedrin before disbanding that institution. Then along came the Masoretes, (staunch Pharisees), and compiled the modern Masoretic text, foisting their entire Pharisee commentary onto the text by way of their vowel pointing system, and this process took about three hundred years, (about 700-1000). Moreover every new Torah scroll to this day is written by a Jewish Scribe, and they are certainly Pharisaic Scribes: so neither the Pharisees nor their Scribes have disappeared, and thus the Pharisees are the Rabbinic leaders and heads of the congregations which modern Judaism has placed over themselves in all their communities. Modern Judaism is essentially pure Phariseeism.

This therefore is your predicament:

The following is a commandment of the Master as read according to the SDA understanding of the Greek text of Matthew 23:3, but if you prefer a different English translation, it still makes no difference if it follows one of the majority Greek morph texts.

Matthew 23:1-3 KJV
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

You therefore have a commandment of the Master: you are to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid you to do, according to the reading of the above text which your own church upholds, and from his own words we know and believe that his words shall never pass away even if the heavens and the earth pass away.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 KJV
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 KJV
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

And this is the penalty for ignoring the Matthew 23:3 commandment of the Master, as quoted even by Peter, (whom some here even say was the first Pope), quoting from Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Acts 3:22-23 KJV
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

And now comes the real predicament: if you do not do what the Master commands you, according to how your church reads Matthew 23:3 from the current Greek texts, you are doomed according to Acts 3:22-23 and Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

And if indeed you truly do whatsoever the Pharisees and their Scribes tell you to do, as your church upholds in its reading of Matthew 23:3 from the Greek texts, then Meshiah will profit you nothing according to Galatians 5:1-11.

 

[reddogs]

You continue to avoid the question about Matthew 23:3. Why is that? One of the SDA commentaries on the Bible I found online, (here), upholds the statement in Matthew 23:3 from the current reading now found in the Greek texts, as quoted previously herein by HTacianas, which post I responded to, and to which you then quoted my response and deflected away from that discussion without giving your own understanding of the statement.

Do you suppose that the Pharisees and their Scribes are no more? They have not disappeared, and in fact the Pharisees even assumed the role of a priesthood after the events at the end of the first century and beginning of the second, (70-135), because thereafter the Sadducees and other sects disappeared. They wrote both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, then codified the lunisolar Hillel 2 calendar as one of the last acts of their earthly Sanhedrin before disbanding that institution. Then along came the Masoretes, (staunch Pharisees), and compiled the modern Masoretic text, foisting their entire Pharisee commentary onto the text by way of their vowel pointing system, and this process took about three hundred years, (about 700-1000). Moreover every new Torah scroll to this day is written by a Jewish Scribe, and they are certainly Pharisaic Scribes: so neither the Pharisees nor their Scribes have disappeared, and thus the Pharisees are the Rabbinic leaders and heads of the congregations which modern Judaism has placed over themselves in all their communities. Modern Judaism is essentially pure Phariseeism.

This therefore is your predicament:

The following is a commandment of the Master as read according to the SDA understanding of the Greek text of Matthew 23:3, but if you prefer a different English translation, it still makes no difference if it follows one of the majority Greek morph texts.

Matthew 23:1-3 KJV
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

You therefore have a commandment of the Master: you are to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid you to do, according to the reading of the above text which your own church upholds, and from his own words we know and believe that his words shall never pass away even if the heavens and the earth pass away.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 KJV
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 KJV
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

And this is the penalty for ignoring the Matthew 23:3 commandment of the Master, as quoted even by Peter, (whom some here even say was the first Pope), quoting from Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Acts 3:22-23 KJV
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

And now comes the real predicament: if you do not do what the Master commands you, according to how your church reads Matthew 23:3 from the current Greek texts, you are doomed according to Acts 3:22-23 and Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

And if indeed you truly do whatsoever the Pharisees and their Scribes tell you to do, as your church upholds in its reading of Matthew 23:3 from the Greek texts, then Meshiah will profit you nothing according to Galatians 5:1-11.

They did not follow the law or their own words, they did wickedly and with great sin as Christ made clear..
Matthew 23:25-33
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

 

[daq]

They did not follow the law or their own words, they did wickedly and with great sin as Christ made clear..
Matthew 23:25-33
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

No disagreement here.

 

[HTacianas]

Several so-called church fathers admitted that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and the statement you've quoted only appears in Matthew.

Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew
Mat 23:3 ועתה כל אשר יאמר לכם שמרו ועשו ובתקנותיהם ומעשיהם אל תעשו שהם אומרים והם אינם עושים

ועתה כל אשר יאמר לכם ~ "[and] Therefore all which he says to you"

Who therefore do you suppose translated this passage into the Greek texts we now have?

This is why it doesn't make any sense when rendered into English: for the Greek text isn't even rendered correctly from what was most likely in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text.

The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Mosheh: therefore whatsoever he says to you, (Mosheh), that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

The actual argument is that Mosheh is the greater authority among mortal men because they themselves sat in his seat or chair, (an actual symbolic stone seat which has been found in a few ancient synagogues), and thus they automatically confess that Mosheh is the higher authority, not themselves, by virtue of the fact that they sit in his seat. Therefore if their interpretations of the Torah are faulty then their interpretations will be overturned: which is indeed what was done away with, their faulty interpretations of the Torah.

The passage in the form which you have quoted it is merely just another churchy translation of a more ancient Hebrew or Aramaic text: and of course those who did this would want their adherents to believe their interpretation of the passage, for if the Master says in this passage to do everything the Scribes and Pharisees said, then surely now you will obey the will of your new hierarchy, the church and its leadership.

Your assumption is faulty because you assume that Church authorities got to their positions based on an interpretation of a text that didn't exist at the time they assumed their positions. Bishops have existed since before the gospels were written. 1 Corinthians 12:28 shows a hierarchy already in place before the gospels.

 

[daq]

Your assumption is faulty because you assume that Church authorities got to their positions based on an interpretation of a text that didn't exist at the time they assumed their positions. Bishops have existed since before the gospels were written. 1 Corinthians 12:28 shows a hierarchy already in place before the gospels.

For one, Shem Tov is an anti-Christian polemic. There is no way the author would have changed the text to read the way it does if the Matthean text before him read like it now does in the Greek texts: that would be counter productive to his anti-Christian polemic. He would surely have left it to say that the disciples were to observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them to do if that was indeed what was in his text. It wasn't in his text: that's how one may know that what we find therein is a remnant of the truth from the original Hebrew-Aramaic Gospel of Matthew.

For two, some of your own church fathers admitted that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and several of them even claimed to have translated it.

For three, the way the Greek text now reads is an antinomian anti-Torah translation of an original work which was clearly not originally penned in Greek even according to your own church fathers. Not only is the Greek in Matthew 23:3 antinomian but anti-Mosheh because that is who the disciples were to heed and observe in all that he says to do, according to the Hebrew text found in Shem Tov.

Understand also that I am not saying that all of Shem Tov Matthew is correct: what I am speaking about is this passage in this particular case, (though there are also others), containing truth that has been lost in the extant Greek texts.

 

[HTacianas]

For one, Shem Tov is an anti-Christian polemic. There is no way the author would have changed the text to read the way it does if the Matthean text before him read like it now does in the Greek texts: that would be counter productive to his anti-Christian polemic. He would surely have left it to say that the disciples were to observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them to do if that was indeed what was in his text. It wasn't in his text: that's how one may know that what we find therein is a remnant of the truth from the original Hebrew-Aramaic Gospel of Matthew.

For two, some of your own church fathers admitted that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and several of them even claimed to have translated it.

For three, the way the Greek text now reads is an antinomian anti-Torah translation of an original work which was clearly not originally penned in Greek even according to your own church fathers. Not only is the Greek in Matthew 23:3 antinomian but anti-Mosheh because that is who the disciples were to heed and observe in all that he says to do, according to the Hebrew text found in Shem Tov.

Understand also that I am not saying that all of Shem Tov Matthew is correct: what I am speaking about is this passage in this particular case, (though there are also others), containing truth that has been lost in the extant Greek texts.

So is this yet another case of the Church falling apart and needing someone to come along 2000 years later and straighten it out?

 

[daq]

So is this yet another case of the Church falling apart and needing someone to come along 2000 years later and straighten it out?

I encourage anyone here who is seriously seeking the truth in this subject matter to at least read the following short article and continue in your own studies from there. Apparently the self-proclaimed orthodox have no clue what is actually at stake in Matthew 23:3.

The Seat of Moses: A Note on Matthew 23:2-3 According to Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

 

[HTacianas]

I encourage anyone here who is seriously seeking the truth in this subject matter to at least read the following short article and continue in your own studies from there. Apparently the self-proclaimed orthodox have no clue what is actually at stake in Matthew 23:3.

The Seat of Moses: A Note on Matthew 23:2-3 According to Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

I encourage anyone here who is seriously seeking the truth in this subject matter to at least read the following short article and continue in your own studies from there. Apparently the self-proclaimed orthodox have no clue what is actually at stake in Matthew 23:3.

The Seat of Moses: A Note on Matthew 23:2-3 According to Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

I don't see how that article changes anything at all. Am I to now think that the Church has always been leaderless?

 

[JSRG]

For one, Shem Tov is an anti-Christian polemic. There is no way the author would have changed the text to read the way it does if the Matthean text before him read like it now does in the Greek texts: that would be counter productive to his anti-Christian polemic. He would surely have left it to say that the disciples were to observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them to do if that was indeed what was in his text. It wasn't in his text: that's how one may know that what we find therein is a remnant of the truth from the original Hebrew-Aramaic Gospel of Matthew.

For two, some of your own church fathers admitted that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and several of them even claimed to have translated it.

For three, the way the Greek text now reads is an antinomian anti-Torah translation of an original work which was clearly not originally penned in Greek even according to your own church fathers. Not only is the Greek in Matthew 23:3 antinomian but anti-Mosheh because that is who the disciples were to heed and observe in all that he says to do, according to the Hebrew text found in Shem Tov.

Understand also that I am not saying that all of Shem Tov Matthew is correct: what I am speaking about is this passage in this particular case, (though there are also others), containing truth that has been lost in the extant Greek texts.

It is unclear to me as to whether you are saying that Shem Tob Matthew dates back to an original Hebrew Matthew, or if it is not--your first paragraph only makes sense with the idea it does, but then your last paragraph indicates it is not.

But focusing primarily on the first paragraph with its apparent argument that it can be traced back to an older Hebrew Matthew, your arguments seem to have some issues.

The first is that you assert that the author wouldn't have changed the text in a way that is counter productive to his anti-Christian polemic. But how exactly is it counter productive? You don't really explain. Now, the full Shem Tob--meaning the Hebrew work "The Touchstone" (Even Bohan) by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut, a big argument against Christianity from a Jewish perspective that includes a line-by-line commentary of a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew--has never been translated into English (or any other language, as far as I'm aware). So I don't really know much about his specific arguments. But is there any argument he makes in it that would in fact be made stronger by the Greek text of this portion of Matthew? If not, this claim doesn't seem to make sense, as it requires the Greek to be better for his point than the version he was using.

The second is that even if it would have indeed been to his advantage, it assumes Shem Tob himself performed the translation into Hebrew. He could have easily been making use of someone else's Hebrew translation.

The third is the unlikelihood of it actually coming from a Hebrew original. The general scholarly opinion, as I understand it, is that the work is translated from a Catalan vernacular version translated from the Latin Vulgate. I lack competence to assess the accuracy of this, but the idea its origin is the original Hebrew Matthew seems to be a very fringe idea mostly populated by people on the Internet who have some kind of axe to grind. Indeed, if it somehow does date back to a Hebrew original, it's hard to see hot it could have somehow ended up in the hands of Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut. Such would require that even though the original Hebrew text (if it existed) was lost to Christians, Jews--who didn't believe in Jesus--still thought it was important enough that they, for centuries upon centuries, carefully copied the text and retained it until Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut used it, and then it was just forgotten about. This does not seem plausible to me.

If there was an original Hebrew Matthew and it did have the reading you propose, it showing up as such in the Hebrew Shem Tob seems like it would only be coincidence.

 

[Lukaris]

The late Messianic Jewish believer and scholar David H. Stern translated Matthew 23:3:


3. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!

Mattityahu 23 chapter Jewish New Testament and comments of David H. Stern

kifakz.github.io

I don’t see any difference between Messianic Jewish and Gentile Christian understanding of this passage.

 

[daq]

It is unclear to me as to whether you are saying that Shem Tob Matthew dates back to an original Hebrew Matthew, or if it is not--your first paragraph only makes sense with the idea it does, but then your last paragraph indicates it is not.

I do not believe it is perfect but it does have truth in it. Matthew 23:3 is one of those places.

But focusing primarily on the first paragraph with its apparent argument that it can be traced back to an older Hebrew Matthew, your arguments seem to have some issues.

I believe portions of it can be traced back to a much older Hebrew Matthew.

The first is that you assert that the author wouldn't have changed the text in a way that is counter productive to his anti-Christian polemic. But how exactly is it counter productive? You don't really explain.

Shem Tov was used to argue against Catholicism: do you suppose Shem Tov's version of Matthew 23:3 would have been acceptable in a debate with Catholics? Moreover it would be much preferable in a polemic against Christianity to have the Master saying what the Greek text says, not what it says in Shem Tov, that's just common sense.

The second is that even if it would have indeed been to his advantage, it assumes Shem Tob himself performed the translation into Hebrew. He could have easily been making use of someone else's Hebrew translation.

The scholarship that has been done on Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew pretty much supports that it was not a translation from a Greek or Latin text. It was George Howard who did some initial work on this with his translation of the texts into English, (I think there are now over twenty manuscripts). If you are serious you'll need to study that out on your own.

The third is the unlikelihood of it actually coming from a Hebrew original. The general scholarly opinion, as I understand it, is that the work is translated from a Catalan vernacular version translated from the Latin Vulgate. I lack competence to assess the accuracy of this, but the idea its origin is the original Hebrew Matthew seems to be a very fringe idea mostly populated by people on the Internet who have some kind of axe to grind. Indeed, if it somehow does date back to a Hebrew original, it's hard to see hot it could have somehow ended up in the hands of Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut. Such would require that even though the original Hebrew text (if it existed) was lost to Christians, Jews--who didn't believe in Jesus--still thought it was important enough that they, for centuries upon centuries, carefully copied the text and retained it until Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut used it, and then it was just forgotten about. This does not seem plausible to me.

If there was an original Hebrew Matthew and it did have the reading you propose, it showing up as such in the Hebrew Shem Tob seems like it would only be coincidence.

Yeah, we can all hem and haw about it and throw up our hands and move on to something else, as most will probably do anyway, and I'll be fine with that because I can and do keep the saying of the Master in Matthew 23:3, but you'll still have the serious problems brought up in Reply #150.