Did Jesus quote from the LXX?

[thankfulttt]

That's an improbable theory and goes against the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor). Also, it implies the scribes that copied down the New Testament were intentionally dishonest in their translations, which is very impious considering the Greek texts are some of the most widespread in the Christian world throughout time.

I totally disagree with your statement accusing the scribes as being dishonest. They changed no meanings.

Your are applying today's standard of textual criticism upon those who were attempting to translate a very difficult language into Greek for the first time.

 

[ebia]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; 175-185 AD

" Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect," (On the Composition of Mark and Matthew, citing Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor; lived ca. 60-130 AD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea 260-340 AD

But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." . (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome 347 – 420 AD said,

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene. (Illustrious Men, chapter three.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josephus (37 AD-100 AD)said,

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;---"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of those seem to rely on Papias, but unfortunately we don't have his original text. All the internal evidence is that the gospel we call matthew was written in Greek. It's possible that what papias knew about was so kind of proto-matthew.
In any case "Hebrew" here most likely means aramaic. Writers at the time seldom distinguished the two.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So earlier in this thread I wrote this:

There is the possibility that there may have been a collection of sayings (logion) written in Aramaic; an ancient tradition reported by Papias (c. 100 ~ 120 AD) as recorded in the writings of Eusebius was that prior to writing down his Gospel in Greek, Matthew had originally composed a list of Jesus' teachings or sayings in Aramaic. Similar in some ways to the modern Q Hypothesis, though the Q Hypothesis assumes Marcan priority rather than Matthean priority.

So it's possible that there was a sort of proto-gospel (though it shouldn't be called a gospel since if it existed was only a collection of sayings), but what we have in the New Testament were definitely Greek originals. That's not something serious historians or scholars question or doubt--indeed, as I noted before, examples of the ancient Peshitta demonstrate a reliance on Greek originals.

This is what Papias was referring to, a collection of logion--sayings--in Aramaic, which Irenaeus and others referred to as well.

As such this was addressed before it was even brought up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[thankfulttt]

Gentleman, it seems likely that there is no evidence that I could present that would change your mind. If you don't accept Jerome's statements, and you don't accept Josephus's statements, nor the statements in the Bible then what is left?

So large an industry has built up over the years since the major colleges created large Greek studies, and nobody wants to see that industry fail. So many jobs are dependent on it. All the translators, all the Universities, all the publishing companies.

Perception becomes truth, whether it is true or not.

Truth is most often sought after, and yet the least appreciated.

 

[Architeuthus]

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; 175-185 AD[/B]

" Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect," (On the Composition of Mark and Matthew, citing Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor; lived ca. 60-130 AD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea 260-340 AD

But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." . (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

This would be the Aramaic Sayings which was mentioned earlier by ViaCrucis. What Eusebius said seems to mean that multiple people translated those Sayings into Greek. They were presumably incorporated into the Synoptic Gospels, but it's pretty clear that these Sayings could not have been our Gospel of Matthew. For a start, our Gospel of Matthew seems to copy a great deal from the Gospel of Mark.

Excerpt from Book of Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book XX, chapter XI.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;---"

Josephus saying "sorry my Greek isn't perfect" is evidence of nothing, as previously stated.

And as to Jerome, he was writing fairly late (c. 400) and apparently never saw the Hebrew document in question. It's unclear what he's talking about, but it doesn't prove a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. And it CERTAINLY doesn't prove a Hebrew original for the rest of the New Testament.

Gentleman, it seems likely that there is no evidence that I could present that would change your mind.

That's because you've presented no meaningful evidence. In fact, there is no meaningful evidence that the New Testament was written in anything but Greek. Matthew may have written an Aramaic Sayings which was translated and incorporated into the Synoptic Gospels, but the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

So large an industry has built up over the years since the major colleges created large Greek studies, and nobody wants to see that industry fail. So many jobs are dependent on it. All the translators, all the Universities, all the publishing companies.

Now you're personally attacking people. All the most ancient New Testament manuscripts are Greek, so they would still need to be translated even if you were correct about Hebrew originals, which you're not.

Truth is most often sought after, and yet the least appreciated.

Indeed.

 

[ebia]

Gentleman, it seems likely that there is no evidence that I could present that would change your mind. If you don't accept Jerome's statements, and you don't accept Josephus's statements, nor the statements in the Bible then what is left?

If you don't have adequate evidence...

Jerome is writing over three centuries later. He's almost certainly dependent on papias, who we've already talked about.

I'm not clear what you think Josephus proves. Nobody is suggesting all jews were highly literate in literary greek.

So large an industry has built up over the years since the major colleges created large Greek studies, and nobody wants to see that industry fail. So many jobs are dependent on it. All the translators, all the Universities, all the publishing companies.

Even if matthew were originally penned in Aramaic none of that would be affected. The rest of the NT is certainly written in Greek, and the closest we have to original matthew is in Greek.

So no, your vested interest argument isn't going to fly either.



Truth is most often sought after, and yet the least appreciated.[/QUOTE]

 

[thankfulttt]

Josephus saying "sorry my Greek isn't perfect" is evidence of nothing, as previously stated.

Josephus said the language he was accustomed to speaking was not Greek. He said he was accustomed to speaking his native tongue. He stated that the Jews discourage other Jews from speaking anything but their native tongue.

And as to Jerome, he was writing fairly late (c. 400) and apparently never saw the Hebrew document in question. It's unclear what he's talking about, but it doesn't prove a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. And it CERTAINLY doesn't prove a Hebrew original for the rest of the New Testament.

Jerome said that the Hebrew text of Matthew's Gospel was still extant at that time in the library in Caesarea, and the Nazarenes were still using it.

That's because you've presented no meaningful evidence. In fact, there is no meaningful evidence that the New Testament was written in anything but Greek. Matthew may have written an Aramaic Sayings which was translated and incorporated into the Synoptic Gospels, but the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

I presented citations from the Church Fathers, and Josephus, as well as scripture which tells us the Jews language was Hebrew. You may call it something else, but the Bible calls it Hebrew. The sign over the cross said Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Now you're personally attacking people. All the most ancient New Testament manuscripts are Greek, so they would still need to be translated even if you were correct about Hebrew originals, which you're not.

It is not a personal attack, it is a true statement. If it were to be proven that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew the multi-billion dollar business of Textual Criticism would be manifestly affected.

 

[Architeuthus]

Josephus said the language he was accustomed to speaking was not Greek

... and then he wrote several lengthy books in fluent Greek. He was obviously just being self-deprecating.

Jerome said that the Hebrew text of Matthew's Gospel was still extant at that time, in the library in Caesarea, and the Nazarenes were still using it.

Jerome was writing c. 400. He didn't see the book. We don't know exactly what he was talking about.

I presented citations from the Church Fathers

Which several people have responded to.

scripture which tells us the Jews language was Hebrew. You may call it something else, but the Bible calls it Hebrew. The sign over the cross said Hebrew, not Aramaic.

The best translation of the Greek word is "Aramaic." Among other reasons we know this because directly transliterated Jewish speech in the New Testament is Aramaic, NOT HEBREW. "Talitha koum," for example, is Aramaic, NOT HEBREW.

It is not a personal attack, it is a true statement. If it were to be proven that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew the multi-billion dollar business of Textual Criticism would be manifestly affected.

That's ridiculous, because the hypothetical Hebrew Matthew would still no longer exist; the rest of the New Testament would still be written in Greek; and even Matthew would still have all its oldest manuscripts in Greek.

 

[thankfulttt]

If you don't have adequate evidence...

Jerome is writing over three centuries later. He's almost certainly dependent on papias, who we've already talked about.

Jerome said the original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew was siting in Caesarea at his present time.

I'm not clear what you think Josephus proves. Nobody is suggesting all jews were highly literate in literary greek.

Joesphus proves that Greek was not the language of the 1st Century Jews.

Even if matthew were originally penned in Aramaic none of that would be affected. The rest of the NT is certainly written in Greek, and the closest we have to original matthew is in Greek.

So no, your vested interest argument isn't going to fly either.

Lack of evidence is no evidence at all. You have brought no citations to show that all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek.

Common sense would tell you that if Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrews, and he wanted them to hear his message his first choice would not be Greek, according to Josephus.

 

[thankfulttt]

... and then he wrote several lengthy books in fluent Greek. He was obviously just being self-deprecating.

The Complete Words of Josephus is sitting along side of me. It is a translation by William Whiston. In the foreword on page IX it states that Josephus originally wrote it in Aramaic and later, he, with possibly some help rewrote it in Greek.

Jerome was writing c. 400. He didn't see the book. We don't know exactly what he was talking about.

It appears very obvious to me what he said.

That's ridiculous, because the hypothetical Hebrew Matthew would still no longer exist; the rest of the New Testament would still be written in Greek; and even Matthew would still have all its oldest manuscripts in Greek.

Do you have any citations from Church Fathers who say they saw any of the original autographs?

 

[Architeuthus]

Jerome said the original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew was siting in Caesarea at his present time.

Writing c. 400 and not having seen the document, he's hardly in a position to decide on that.

Common sense would tell you that if Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrews, and he wanted them to hear his message his first choice would not be Greek

Paul didn't write to the Hebrews. And whoever did wrote in Greek for the benefit of Jews outside Palestine.

The Complete Words of Josephus is sitting along side of me. It is a translation by William Whiston. In the foreword on page IX it states that Josephus originally wrote it in Aramaic

If you have that, then you know that (1) he says Aramaic, not Hebrew; (2) that only applies to one of the collected books; and (3) there is a specific reason why that one book was written in Aramaic first.

Do you have any citations from Church Fathers who say they saw any of the original autographs?

Do you have any citations from Church Fathers supporting your theory?

 

[ebia]

Josephus said the language he was accustomed to speaking was not Greek. He said he was accustomed to speaking his native tongue. He stated that the Jews discourage other Jews from speaking anything but their native tongue.

Remember who Josephus was for a while. A Jewish military leader in palestine, leading the fight against rome. The way he operated at the time and the way he wrote his books is all tied into what he wants to say about that. Language is a way someone invested in fighting for a cultural identity maintains that identity. But, as you've repeatedly ignored, there is greek and greek, and lots of different Jews living in palestine and beyond. Beyond palestine, most jews were hellenised. Even in palestine hellenisation was pretty extensive. In gallilee more than Judea, but in both. The normal, day to day language people spoke was mostly aramaic - but there would have been greek-only speaking Jews around even in Jerusalem. Pretty much everyone would be able to get by in Koine Greek at a linga-franca level.

If you go to France, people are liable to pretend they don't speak English. But a very high proportion do.

Jerome said that the Hebrew text of Matthew's Gospel was still extant at that time in the library in Caesarea, and the Nazarenes were still using it.

If an aramaic text was still around, it was most likely a back-translation from the greek, something that would have happened quite early. Even if Matthew was originally penned in Aramaic it would have to be very early and its unlikely that Aramaic versions would survive the Jewish war.

I presented citations from the Church Fathers, and Josephus, as well as scripture which tells us the Jews language was Hebrew.

No you didn't. Because the word "hebrew" was widely used for both languages in the first century, you cannot take a reference to "hebrew" and know from the reference that it means hebrew and not aramaic. The reality is that biblical hebrew was a virtually dead language, only used for reading the scriptures and that only in palestine. The spoken language of that world was Aramaic, but that was commonly called Hebrew.

It is not a personal attack, it is a true statement. If it were to be proven that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew the multi-billion dollar business of Textual Criticism would be manifestly affected.

Not all that substantially, no. The only text we have is still greek. All the other NT texts are greek from start to finish.

I can see why you want a conspiracy theory - because it saves a lot of work actually evidencing your position - but this one flies like a lead balloon.

 

[ebia]

The Complete Words of Josephus is sitting along side of me. It is a translation by William Whiston. In the foreword on page IX it states that Josephus originally wrote it in Aramaic and later, he, with possibly some help rewrote it in Greek.

He might well get a bit of help, because he wants a high-literary style. But the NT isn't written in literary greek, but Koine Greek. The equivalent of Global English (i.e. that used by people of non-english speaking countries like, say, Indonesia) rather than British or US English. A rough and ready trade language.

 

[ebia]

Joesphus proves that Greek was not the language of the 1st Century Jews.

Greek was not the first language of most Jews living in Judea.
Remember that the vast majority of Jews by this time were living nowhere near Judea but spread out across the Greek speaking world and beyond.
Also remember that most people outside the modern English speaking world are not mono-lingual.

Lack of evidence is no evidence at all. You have brought no citations to show that all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek.

The whole point of Papias mentioning "hebrew" for "matthew" is that the rest are written in and to the greek speaking world. And the internal evidence all points to them originating in greek. When a text is translated you find artefacts of that translation. You expect to find evidence of the original language lurking around. Given that they spread very quickly you'd expect the translation to have to be done more than once, resulting in different translations. And most of them are written to an audience that clearly doesn't speak hebrew or aramaic.

Common sense would tell you that if Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrews, and he wanted them to hear his message his first choice would not be Greek, according to Josephus.

Paul didn't write Hebrews, but thats beside the point.
The vast majority of hebrews weren't living in palestine but spread across the Roman empire and beyond, speaking Greek and the various local languages of the place they were living. Thats the whole reason they produced the LXX.

In fact Hebrews is about the most literary greek in the NT. There's no possibility that its a translation from anything else.

 

[thankfulttt]

Brothers in Christ;

Why do you have such an unnatural anathema for the possibility of any of the New Testament books having been written in Hebrew?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were 80 to 85% Hebrew.

The early church which had all things common was entirely Jewish. Paul's ministry didn't start until years after the cross.

Cornelius was the first Gentile mentioned.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Brothers in Christ;

Why do you have such an unnatural anathema for the possibility of any of the New Testament books having been written in Hebrew?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were 80 to 85% Hebrew.

The early church which had all things common was entirely Jewish. Paul's ministry didn't start until years after the cross.

Cornelius was the first Gentile mentioned.

, and Paul's call and ministry were spoken to him by the risen Savior in Hebrew -not aramaic!
The Word is clear that Hebrew was spoken in Israel, but The Hebrew people -the Jews.

The words called "Aramaic" by modern "Scholars" are not Aramaic, as has been proved by others.
Even "Tabitha Cumi" is Hebrew.

Pilate wrote the words above the cross in three languages: Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
Not "Aramaic". That is not in the Scriptures.

The Vulgate says "Hebrew". The Greek says "Hebrew", and the English is properly translated "Hebrew", because that is what it says.

Luk 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Ἑβραϊκός Hebraïkos


Jhn 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Jhn 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,


g1447 Ἑβραϊστί Hebraïsti


The angel said you shall call His name YESHUA, for He shall save His people from their sins.
Yeshua means "Salvation".
The Israelites of Jesus' day spoke Hebrew, and wrote Hebrew, and read Hebrew.
That is why Pilate wrote the charge in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
There are Dead Sea Scrolls from about that time written in Hebrew.

Aramaic is not Scripture truth for the language of the Jews at the time of Christ.
Jesus spoke Hebrew to Saul, who was, in his own words, a "Hebrew of Hebrews".

Phl 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Salvation is a Hebrew name. Joshua, the son of Nun, was named "Salvation" -Yeshua, by his father. Moses changed it to "YAH is Salvaton", "Joshua"


Ἑβραῖος Hebraios

Jesus Spoke Hebrew: busting the Aramaic Myth
Aramaic is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Yet on numerous occasions it speaks of the “Hebrew” language in first century Judaea – from the title over Jesus’ cross “in Hebrew” (John 19:20), to descriptions of places like Gabbatha and Golgotha “in the Hebrew tongue” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), to Paul gaining the silence of the Jerusalem crowd by addressing them “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40; 22:2), to Jesus himself calling out to Paul, on the Damascus road, “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 26:14).
In each instance, the Greek text reads “Hebrew” (Hebrais, Hebraios or Hebraikos), the natural translation followed by nearly all the English versions, as also by the Latin Vulgate and the German Luther Bible. Do we have the right to insert “Aramaic” for this plain reading – particularly when the Jewish people of the period, as we shall see, were so insistent on distinguishing them? The evidence is compelling that we do not, and that the New Testament expression, “in the Hebrew language”, ought to be taken as read.

and from the same scholar, Brent Minge:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, known to date from the same general period, reveal an overwhelming preponderance of Hebrew texts. The figure is generally accepted as around 80%, with Aramaic and Greek taking up most of the balance. In their comprehensive translation of the Qumran literature, Michael Wise and others observe that:

“Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dominant view of the Semitic languages of Palestine in this period was essentially as follows: Hebrew had died; it was no longer learned at mother’s knee. It was known only by the educated classes through study, just as educated medieval Europeans knew Latin. Rabbinic Hebrew … was considered a sort of scholarly invention – artificial, not the language of life put to the page. The spoken language of the Jews had in fact become Aramaic …

The discovery of the scrolls swept these linguistic notions into the trash bin … the vast majority of the scrolls were Hebrew texts. Hebrew was manifestly the principal literary language for the Jews of this period. The new discoveries underlined the still living , breathing, even supple character of that language … prov[ing] that late Second-Temple Jews used various dialects of Hebrew…”[1].

This sheer dominance of Hebrew goes far beyond the Biblical writings, which actually comprise, by Emanuel Tov’s calculations, just 23.5% of the overall Qumran literature.[2] It includes also the famed Copper Scroll (written, as Wolters notes, in “an early form of Mishnaic Hebrew”[3]), the day-to-day letters (where Hebrew, says Milik, is the “sole language of correspondence”[4]), and its general commentaries and literature (where, as Black concedes, “Hebrew certainly vastly predominates over Aramaic”[5]).

No wonder the Scrolls are said to “prove that late Second Temple Jews used various dialects of Hebrew”. And not just as an “artificial” language, but a “natural, vibrant idiom”, as the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls declares[6]. How else can such extensive evidence of the Hebrew language be taken – from commentaries to correspondence, from documents to daily rules?

Jesus Spoke Hebrew: busting the Aramaic Myth

 

[yeshuasavedme]

also from Brent Minge:

Jesus Spoke Hebrew: busting the Aramaic Myth

MOSES SEGAL


Well before the Scrolls and Masada provided their archaeological insights into Hebrew’s place in late second temple language, Moses Segal had come to the same conclusion on purely linguistic grounds. Co-translator of the Talmud and winner of the Israel Prize for Jewish Studies, Segal was a Hebrew lexicographer of the first order. While still believing that Jesus, as a Galilean, probably spoke Aramaic, he was in no doubt that the prevailing Judaean language of the time was Hebrew, as he already wrote in 1927:


“In earlier Mishnaic [rabbinic] literature no distinction is drawn between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. The two idioms are known as Leshon Hagadesh, the Holy Tongue, as contrasted with other languages … What was the language of ordinary life of educated native Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea in the period from 400BCE to 150CE? The evidence presented by Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew”.[8]

Such is the observation of one of the outstanding Hebrew scholars of the twentieth century, and editor of the Compendious Hebrew-English, English-Hebrew Dictionary. For Segal, as for the Dead Sea scholars, there is no doubt that the “language of ordinary life” in first century Judaea “was Mishnaic Hebrew”. It was the first language acquired by children in the home, and the natural medium of communication in daily speech. As Milik early recognized, “Mishnaic [Hebrew] … was at that time the spoken dialect of the inhabitants of Judaea”.[9]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Architeuthus]

, and Paul's call and ministry were spoken to him by the risen Savior in Hebrew -not aramaic!
The Word is clear that Hebrew was spoken in Israel, but The Hebrew people -the Jews.

The words called "Aramaic" by modern "Scholars" are not Aramaic, as has been proved by others.
Even "Tabitha Cumi" is Hebrew.

Every lexicon and scholar I'm familiar with agrees that these words are Aramaic. I'm not sure who Brent Minge is, but he doesn't appear to be a scholar of any kind.

You yourself link to the lexicon entry G1447 for Ἑβραϊστί (Hebraïsti), which explains that the word, although translated "Hebrew" in the KJV, actually means "Chaldee" (i.e. Aramaic).

 

[Architeuthus]

Why do you have such an unnatural anathema for the possibility of any of the New Testament books having been written in Hebrew?

It's not an "unnatural anathema," it's a respect for the truth.

Paul's ministry didn't start until years after the cross.

So? Paul's letters were obviously written during Paul's ministry. So was Luke/Acts.

And it really is clear that the entire New Testament was written in Greek, except perhaps for a Sayings by Matthew that pre-dates the gospel.

 

[thankfulttt]

It's not an "unnatural anathema," it's a respect for the truth.

So? Paul's letters were obviously written during Paul's ministry. So was Luke/Acts.

And it really is clear that the entire New Testament was written in Greek, except perhaps for a Sayings by Matthew that pre-dates the gospel.

You say Jerome's words spoken 1,600 years ago are not valid? Surely you don't deny he said them? He spoke these words around the time that is claimed for the writing of the (LXX) Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus . By the way, have they ever been carbon tested as were the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Jerome spoke the following and you have nothing of its equivalent. This is actual evidence.

"In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist(Matthew), whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew."

What is not clear about Jerome's statement? He says the scripture reference for the Old Testament in the Gospel of Matthew was obtained from the Hebrew and not the LXX.

If Rabbinical Judaism, and Jerome rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations and Hellenistic heretical elements, Why shouldn't we 1,600 years later?