Hebrew Original for Matthew possible

[Nazaroo]

From the article:

A review of all of the facts presented herein establishes a number of important points. Most important of these is that the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew is not a translation of any known Greek or Latin Version. The DuTillet text is certainly not a translation of either the Greek Byzantine text or the Latin Vulgate, though any translation made in the Middle Ages would certainly be such. DuTillet contains a great variety of textual agreements with a variety of textual versions and manuscripts, generally of the so-called "Western" text type. Among these are agreements with the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and Codex D. There are also a great many agreements with ancient apocryphal Gospels, with the other synoptic Gospels, and with other canonical New Testament books. Moreover DuTillet Matthew has a tendency to follow the Masoretic Text in its Tanak quotes even where Greek Matthew follows the LXX. In addition DuTillet Matthew makes use of the tetragrammaton. None of these characteristics would be the case were DuTillet merely a translation from Greek or Latin. Moreover the agreements between DuTillet and the other synoptic Gospels may point to an earlier, more primitive text, which is closer to the synoptic source. Certainly, while the paper and the ink of the DuTillet manuscript may date only to the Middle Ages, the text contained on the paper reaches back to the most ancient times.

An exciting idea, so I am giving a link to the .pdf file below:

Hebrew Matthew

 

[mark53]

I believe that while Matthew's Gospel is aimed at the Hebrews it was not written in Hebrew. It might have been translated later into hebrwe. A couple of reasons to start with (what I can think of right now)
The people of that time, especially Jesus's followers probably spoke a close cousin in Aramaic.
Also a fair percenatge of this Gospel and that of Luke's are exactly the same (the proposed "Q" Gospel - relaitvely similar in style to the Gospel of Thomas) For MAtthew's gospel to have been originally written in Hebrew theer would be differences then in translating to the greek. C/f the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX

 

[FreezBee]

The people of that time, especially Jesus's followers probably spoke a close cousin in Aramaic.
Also a fair percenatge of this Gospel and that of Luke's are exactly the same (the proposed "Q" Gospel - relaitvely similar in style to the Gospel of Thomas)

Might be worth remembering here that Matthew is dependent on Mark, which no one has even claimed could have a Hebrew/Aramaic original. This is at least how things are seen today

Originally however Mark was though of as a compendium of Matthew and Luke; this kind of compendia were common in antiquity, and in that case Matthew might have had a Hebrew/Aramaic original.

For MAtthew's gospel to have been originally written in Hebrew theer would be differences then in translating to the greek. C/f the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX

Since the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls, it is known that the LXX is not based on the Masoretic texts, but on a different Hebrew text tradition, though of course that tradition would not have been "totally" different. The use of "parthenos" for "almah" in Matthew 1:23 (based on Isaiah 7:14) indicates dependence on the Septuagint rather than any Hebrew version.


Hope you all have had a merry Christmas

- FreezBee

 

[justified]

Since the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls, it is known that the LXX is not based on the Masoretic texts, but on a different Hebrew text tradition, though of course that tradition would not have been "totally" different. The use of "parthenos" for "almah" in Matthew 1:23 (based on Isaiah 7:14) indicates dependence on the Septuagint rather than any Hebrew version.

Not necessarily. Why would you say that?

Matthew wasn't written in Hebrew originally. The funny Hebrew in the version cited by Nazaroo is probably due to translation from Slavonic or Armenian. At least, that's my guess.

It's true that both Matthew and Mark have Hebraisms throughout. Yet neither of these compares to James and to the Apocalypse. Charles called the Apocalypse a "thin veil of Greek over the Hebrew language." He wasn't suggesting a Hebrew original (though cf. David Aune for source theories) but simply noting the fact that when you have a Hebrew mind or Aramaic original tongue, it's hard to write Greek like a Greek would.

 

[FreezBee]

Not necessarily. Why would you say that?

Exactly what would I say? My last statement? Assuming that, unless I have been more than usually misinformed, "almah" means "young woman" independent of any other qualifications, while "bethulah" means "virgin". Since Isaiah does use "bethulah" elsewhere, it's unlikely that he should have meant "virgin" in 7:14; while the OT does mentions some miraculous births (Samson, Isaac, ....), no virgin-birth is mentioned. Not that I remember, at least

Of couse, if the Septuagint translators could get it wrong, why not Matthew in his turn? It's just that, if he had read the Septuagint (and since he could write Greek, he could probably also read it as well, so most likely he had read the Septuagint), then he would know about the use of "parthenos" in Septuagint Isaiah 7:14, and that would rather control his choice of word than a random mis-translation, don't you think?

Matthew wasn't written in Hebrew originally. The funny Hebrew in the version cited by Nazaroo is probably due to translation from Slavonic or Armenian. At least, that's my guess.

This would be a fine hypothesis certainly.


- FreezBee

 

[justified]

Of couse, if the Septuagint translators could get it wrong, why not Matthew in his turn? It's just that, if he had read the Septuagint (and since he could write Greek, he could probably also read it as well, so most likely he had read the Septuagint), then he would know about the use of "parthenos" in Septuagint Isaiah 7:14, and that would rather control his choice of word than a random mis-translation, don't you think?

Possibly. Parthenos is not used only of virgins, either. Neither is bethulah.

 

[Nazaroo]

More Jewish propaganda.

As if the prophecy in Isaiah could be read, "young woman" or some such tripe.

Picture it:

Isaiah: "Attention please! An amazing miracle like unto no other since the history of the earth, a new thing will shortly come to pass! An astounding event: Hear ye Hear ye!"

The Priests and People: "Really? What is it?"

Isaiah: "Some unwed bimbo on welfare is going to get knocked up."

(soundtrack: "wah wah..." )

Try the context. It works for the rest of the O.T.

Can textual interpretation get any lamer?

Not without studying Homer Simpson.

 

[PreacherMan4U]

After reading the link that was posted, it certainly opens the door for some broad discussion on the possibility of a Hebrew original for Matthew. I'm just glad I don't have to make the determination!

 

[justified]

More Jewish propaganda.

Scholarly propoganda. I'm not Jewish. I hope my wife will be, though. They're hot.

As if the prophecy in Isaiah could be read, "young woman" or some such tripe.

I'd really appreciate it if you didn't talk about the Word that way. If you care to argue the Hebrew with me, fine. Otherwise, what are you doing?

 

[Nazaroo]

Scholarly propoganda. I'm not Jewish. I hope my wife will be, though. They're hot.

Well, I'm sure you'll attract a few by denying basic Christian doctrines. Whether unconverted Jews make for 'hot' wives or girlfriends, I'd be cautious: They may be willing to do more disgusting and perverted acts, but probably for the wrong, selfish reasons. You may find living with a non-Christian isn't all its cracked up to be.

But then again, if you yourself are a non-Christian with heretical minority doctrines, you may find a real match! Good luck on that...it sounds a lot like Esau, and Samson, ignoring their parent's wishes, and going after the 'exotic' babes from a foreign land. The attraction could all be in your head, and in your ignorance....and we know how those stories turned out.

I'd really appreciate it if you didn't talk about the Word that way. If you care to argue the Hebrew with me, fine. Otherwise, what are you doing?

In this case the Hebrew has no more authority than the English.
Common sense is common sense, in any language. Hebrew is useless for settling this question.

Hebrew (the biblical language) is a primitive language with too few tenses, and too few grammatical indicators, and too ambiguous a vocabulary (<5,000 word roots) to be usable for the discussion of scientific matter.

Modern Hebrew only survives (as do other tribal dialects) by importing over one third of its vocabulary and syntax from the West, from words like 'telephone' to 'transmission'.

Biblical Hebrew has no advantage whatsoever in the discussion of Christian doctrine, and was abandoned in favour of Greek, a much more inflected and precise language, for that very reason. The old wineskins can't hold anything for us today.

 

[justified]

Well, I'm sure you'll attract a few by denying basic Christian doctrines. Whether unconverted Jews make for 'hot' wives or girlfriends, I'd be cautious: They may be willing to do more disgusting and perverted acts, but probably for the wrong, selfish reasons. You may find living with a non-Christian isn't all its cracked up to be.

You need to relax. I was referring to ethnic Jews, not their religion.

In this case the Hebrew has no more authority than the English.
Common sense is common sense, in any language. Hebrew is useless for settling this question.

Hebrew is crap.

You are getting grumpy. I think it's probably your bedtime, then...

Hebrew is not useless for settling the question. Why don't you explain to all of us, using your fine 30 years of linguistic training and research into the Bible, how Isaiah actually meant this to be. Come on, Naz, I promise not to laugh. Just stop calling us stupid.

 

[WAB]

So... "Nazaroo" declares that "Hebrew is crap." Which leads to the logical conclusion that if the Scriptures are "God-breathed" as I believe they are, then God deliberately fed mankind a LOAD of "crap", for the great majority of the O.T. is in Hebrew.

 

[filosofer]

Might be worth remembering here that Matthew is dependent on Mark, which no one has even claimed could have a Hebrew/Aramaic original. This is at least how things are seen today

Except that "Matthew is dependent on Mark" is conjecture, and certainly not accepted as absolute. I know personally many conservative Christian scholars who do not accept Markan priority. Having studied the issue off and on for 20+ years, I am not convinced of Markan priority. For instance, check out David Wenham's recent work on the Synoptic Gospels.
In Christ's love,
filo

 

[mark kennedy]

MOD HAT ON​

Calling someone stupid because they don't agree with your interprutation is flaming. Any questions or concerns feel free to PM me.

:rules: Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[justified]

Except that "Matthew is dependent on Mark" is conjecture, and certainly not accepted as absolute. I know personally many conservative Christian scholars who do not accept Markan priority. Having studied the issue off and on for 20+ years, I am not convinced of Markan priority. For instance, check out David Wenham's recent work on the Synoptic Gospels.

Wenham is great. But which work are you referring to? He's got a lot out here. Though I guess I could walk up street and ask...

The question of priority aside, you don't deny the Q-source, do you?

 

[Nazaroo]

You are getting grumpy. I think it's probably your bedtime, then...

Okay I've had a nap now.

Why don't you explain to all of us, using your fine 30 years of linguistic training and research into the Bible, how Isaiah actually meant this to be.

I already have. Using irony. Just reread what I have clearly shown was *not* what Isaiah said, and the corollary should be obvious.

.. for the great majority of the O.T. is in Hebrew.

...when in fact, for the great majority, the O.T. is actually in English and Latin and Spanish, where it is abundantly clearer and easier to read for all.

The question of priority aside, you don't deny the Q-source, do you?

Just to open up the many real possibilities further,
I tentatively think that Luke wrote first using a 'proto-Mark', and Matthew wrote in full knowledge and in competition with Luke. The final draft of Mark is a vain attempt to stop the feud.

There is no need for 'Q', since Matthew was well aware of the contents of Luke, but avoided the nasty non-misogynist sections, preferring his Jewish patriarchical notions.

 

[filosofer]

Wenham is great. But which work are you referring to? He's got a lot out here. Though I guess I could walk up street and ask...

The question of priority aside, you don't deny the Q-source, do you?

Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke

Q is an artificial construct that has no manuscript evidence - it is identified by saying "the parts of ___ which are not in ___ and ___" - that is not evidence. Once Markan priority is no longer demanded, then there is no reason for hypothesizing a Q-document.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[justified]

Q is an artificial construct that has no manuscript evidence - it is identified by saying "the parts of ___ which are not in ___ and ___" - that is not evidence. Once Markan priority is no longer demanded, then there is no reason for hypothesizing a Q-document.

The research that's been done on it consists in more than that. There have been interesting numerical analyses which show something like 60% being used in other gospels..

 

[filosofer]

The research that's been done on it consists in more than that. There have been interesting numerical analyses which show something like 60% being used in other gospels..

Yes, I am well aware of the research that has been done. But the bottom line is that Q is still an artifical construct, with no manuscript evidence to support any of it. At this point it is helpful to go back to the starting asusmptions of why there was a conjecture about Q in the first place. Wenham (and many others) provide viable alternatives that deal with evidence (textual and manuscript) that do not require such constructs.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[justified]

Artificial, true. But perhaps hypothetical would be a better term. Considering the flabbergasting numbers, the alternatives are few. What, exactly, are Wenham's alternatives?