stumbling and/or being crushed

[seeingeyes]

I'm having some trouble with this passage:

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:43-44)

Jesus seems to be making a distinction between people who fall on the stone and people the stone falls on.

But after looking it up in several translations, I see that that distinction is not so clear. Here are some examples:

NIV- He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.

ESV- And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.

KJV- And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And the interlinear (on Biblos.com) isn't helping me at all. And there is a note that verse 44 isn't in some manuscripts.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

The Word of God is that Rock, which is also the stone that the builders rejected.

Those who believe in the Word of God shall fall on that stone and be humbled (broken) by it.

But those who reject the Word of God shall be judged (ground to powder) by it.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[childofdust]

I'm having some trouble with this passage:

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:43-44)

Jesus seems to be making a distinction between people who fall on the stone and people the stone falls on.

But after looking it up in several translations, I see that that distinction is not so clear.

Your translations are trying to figure out what to do with what in the Greek is δε – a postpositive conjunction. Usually (in classical Greek) it means “but” or “on the other hand.” Biblical Greek, however, may use it as either coordinating (and) or disjuctive (but) - oftentimes because it is mimicking the Hebrew conjunction Waw, which carries both these meanings. So to figure out exactly what it means, one needs to look at the context.

The Greek of the SBLGNT reads:
Και ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται
And the one having fallen upon this stone will be crushed
εφʼ ον δʼ αν πεσῃ λικμησει αυτον
but over whomever it may fall, it will scatter him.

I seems to me that “but” is the more appropriate rendering here because two verbs with different meanings are being used to say something different about the one who falls onto the stone and the one on whom the stone falls. That signals a disjunctive meaning.

The Hebrew, however, is slightly different. Unlike the Greek, it looks exactly like a proverb you would read anywhere in Proverbs, neatly divided into a hemistich. And because it uses the same verb to speak of the one who falls onto the stone or the one on whom the stone falls, this signals a coordinating meaning.

The Hebrew of DuTillet reads:
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ומי שיפול על האבן הזאת ישבר[/FONT]
Now, whomever falls upon this rock will be broken
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ועל מי תפול תשבר אותו[/FONT]
and over whomever it falls, it will break him.

 

[Clare73]

Your translations are trying to figure out what to do with what in the Greek is δε – a postpositive conjunction. Usually (in classical Greek) it means “but” or “on the other hand.” Biblical Greek, however, may use it as either coordinating (and) or disjuctive (but) - oftentimes because it is mimicking the Hebrew conjunction Waw, which carries both these meanings. So to figure out exactly what it means, one needs to look at the context.

The Greek of the SBLGNT reads:
Και ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται
And the one having fallen upon this stone will be crushed
εφʼ ον δʼ αν πεσῃ λικμησει αυτον
but over whomever it may fall, it will scatter him.

I seems to me that “but” is the more appropriate rendering here because two verbs with different meanings are being used to say something different about the one who falls onto the stone and the one on whom the stone falls. That signals a disjunctive meaning.

The Hebrew, however, is slightly different. Unlike the Greek, it looks exactly like a proverb you would read anywhere in Proverbs, neatly divided into a hemistich. And because it uses the same verb to speak of the one who falls onto the stone or the one on whom the stone falls, this signals a coordinating meaning.

The Hebrew of DuTillet reads:
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ומי שיפול על האבן הזאת ישבר[/FONT]
Now, whomever falls upon this rock will be broken
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ועל מי תפול תשבר אותו[/FONT]
and over whomever it falls, it will break him.

That is certainly consistent with the way much of the OT is written.

 

[Clare73]

I'm having some trouble with this passage:

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:43-44)

Jesus seems to be making a distinction between people who fall on the stone and people the stone falls on.

But after looking it up in several translations, I see that that distinction is not so clear. Here are some examples:

NIV- He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.

ESV- And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.

KJV- And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And the interlinear (on Biblos.com) isn't helping me at all. And there is a note that verse 44 isn't in some manuscripts.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

That verse, however, is found in Lk 20:18.

Both broken and crushed describe the doom of those who reject the Messiah.

 

[seeingeyes]

Your translations are trying to figure out what to do with what in the Greek is δε – a postpositive conjunction. Usually (in classical Greek) it means “but” or “on the other hand.” Biblical Greek, however, may use it as either coordinating (and) or disjuctive (but) - oftentimes because it is mimicking the Hebrew conjunction Waw, which carries both these meanings. So to figure out exactly what it means, one needs to look at the context.

The Greek of the SBLGNT reads:
Και ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται
And the one having fallen upon this stone will be crushed
εφʼ ον δʼ αν πεσῃ λικμησει αυτον
but over whomever it may fall, it will scatter him.

I seems to me that “but” is the more appropriate rendering here because two verbs with different meanings are being used to say something different about the one who falls onto the stone and the one on whom the stone falls. That signals a disjunctive meaning.

The Hebrew, however, is slightly different. Unlike the Greek, it looks exactly like a proverb you would read anywhere in Proverbs, neatly divided into a hemistich. And because it uses the same verb to speak of the one who falls onto the stone or the one on whom the stone falls, this signals a coordinating meaning.

The Hebrew of DuTillet reads:
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ומי שיפול על האבן הזאת ישבר[/FONT]
Now, whomever falls upon this rock will be broken
[FONT=XMOTYG+NewPeninimMT]ועל מי תפול תשבר אותו[/FONT]
and over whomever it falls, it will break him.

This is extremely thorough and much appreciated.

In what way do you think the disjunctive or coordinating meaning changes the meaning of the verse (if at all)?

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

seeingeyes,

I'm having some trouble with this passage:

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:43-44)

Jesus seems to be making a distinction between people who fall on the stone and people the stone falls on.

But after looking it up in several translations, I see that that distinction is not so clear. Here are some examples:

NIV- He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.

ESV- And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.

KJV- And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And the interlinear (on Biblos.com) isn't helping me at all. And there is a note that verse 44 isn't in some manuscripts.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

You may gain some knowledge from one known as an Early Church Father in THE HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

Part of

Homily LXVIII.

Matt. XXI. 33-44.

Then, that they might learn that nothing was opposed to God’s will of the things doing, but that the event was even highly acceptable, and beyond expectation, and amazing every one of the beholders (for indeed the miracle was far beyond words), He added and said, “It is the Lord’s doing.” And by the stone He means Himself, and by builders the teachers of the Jews; as Ezekiel also saith, “They that build the wall, and daub it with untempered mortar.” But how did they reject Him? By saying, “This man is not of God; This man deceiveth the people;” and again, “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil.”
Then, that they might know that the penalty is not limited to their being cast out, He added the punishments also, saying, “Every one that falleth on this stone, shall be broken; but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” He speaks here of two ways of destruction, one from stumbling and being offended; for this is, “Whosoever falleth on this stone:” but another from their capture, and calamity, and utter destruction, which also He clearly foretold, saying, “It will grind him to powder.” By these words He darkly intimated His own resurrection also.

That was from Christian Classics Ethereal Library website and I have taken reference numbers out in editing this post.

If you go to the website, look for Browse, then choose Author, then listed under C about half way down from top of the list you may see Chrysostom, John, St. (c. 347-407), then you may need to click on a small square like symbol to reveal the list of literature. You may look for NPNF1-10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew.

If you want to change the background to white on CCEL web page then look to top right hand corner of web page for small mechanical symbol and click on it and choose and you may change font size.

To look at the contents of the works, look towards top left hand corner for the lines symbol next to Prev and click on it.

If you ever need knowledge of the bible, the works of the ones known as Early Church Fathers may be most beneficial.

At CCEL or Christian Classics Ethereal Library you may use the literature of the ones known as Early Church Fathers. At the website click on Home and click on Church Fathers.

 

[seeingeyes]

The Word of God is that Rock, which is also the stone that the builders rejected.

Those who believe in the Word of God shall fall on that stone and be humbled (broken) by it.

But those who reject the Word of God shall be judged (ground to powder) by it.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

This certainly speaks to the context of the verse, although the idea of "falling on the stone" sounds an awful lot like "stumbling over the stone", and those two terms are equated in Isaiah 8: "but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

So whether falling/stumbling is a good thing (contrasted to being crushed) or whether falling/stumbling is a bad thing (amplified by "crushed") makes a difference in the meaning of the verse, no?


Is this an important distinction? Or is it gnat straining?

 

[seeingeyes]

seeingeyes,



You may gain some knowledge from one known as an Early Church Father in THE HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

Part of

Homily LXVIII.

Matt. XXI. 33-44.

Then, that they might learn that nothing was opposed to God’s will of the things doing, but that the event was even highly acceptable, and beyond expectation, and amazing every one of the beholders (for indeed the miracle was far beyond words), He added and said, “It is the Lord’s doing.” And by the stone He means Himself, and by builders the teachers of the Jews; as Ezekiel also saith, “They that build the wall, and daub it with untempered mortar.” But how did they reject Him? By saying, “This man is not of God; This man deceiveth the people;” and again, “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil.”
Then, that they might know that the penalty is not limited to their being cast out, He added the punishments also, saying, “Every one that falleth on this stone, shall be broken; but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” He speaks here of two ways of destruction, one from stumbling and being offended; for this is, “Whosoever falleth on this stone:” but another from their capture, and calamity, and utter destruction, which also He clearly foretold, saying, “It will grind him to powder.” By these words He darkly intimated His own resurrection also.

That was from Christian Classics Ethereal Library website and I have taken reference numbers out in editing this post.

If you want to change the background to white on CCEL web page then look to top right hand corner of web page for small mechanical symbol and click on it and choose and you may change font size.

To look at the contents of the works, look towards top left hand corner for the lines symbol next to Prev and click on it.

If you ever need knowledge of the bible, the works of the ones known as Early Church Fathers may be most beneficial.

At CCEL or Christian Classics Ethereal Library you may use the literature of the ones known as Early Church Fathers. At the website click on Home and click on Church Fathers.

Thanks. I'll check out that site.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

This certainly speaks to the context of the verse, although the idea of "falling on the stone" sounds an awful lot like "stumbling over the stone", and those two terms are equated in Isaiah 8: "but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

So whether falling/stumbling is a good thing (contrasted to being crushed) or whether falling/stumbling is a bad thing (amplified by "crushed") makes a difference in the meaning of the verse, no?


Is this an important distinction? Or is it gnat straining?

The person falling on the stone speaks one willfully coming to the Word of God and being humbled by it.

But the opposite is shown with the stone falling on the person, and instead speaks of judgment.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

seeingeyes,

Thanks. I'll check out that site.

Amen.

It appeared you made an error in swearing in the words "I'll check". You may look below at part of The New Testament so you may see how.

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5

New International Version (NIV)

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

seeingeyes,

More from one known as an Early Church Father, Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

NPNF1-06. St. Augustine: Sermon on the Mount; Harmony of the Gospels; Homilies on the Gospels

Part of

Sermon XLII.
[XCII. Ben.]

On the same words of the Gospel, Matt. xxii. 42

How did He “empty Himself”? By taking that which He was not, not by losing that which He was. He “emptied Himself,” He “humbled himself.” Though He was God, He appeared as man. He was despised as He walked on earth, He who made the heaven. He was despised as though a mere man, as though of no power. Yea, not despised only, but slain moreover. He was that stone that lay on the ground, the Jews stumbled against it, and were shaken. And what doth He Himself say? “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be shaken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” First, He lay low, and they stumbled against Him; He shall come from above, and He will “grind” them that have been shaken “to powder.”

Reference numbers taken out.

For anyone else who looks at this, for some knowledge of how to use Christian Classics Ethereal Library website, also known as CCEL, you may look in page 1 of this thread at post #7.

 

[childofdust]

In what way do you think the disjunctive or coordinating meaning changes the meaning of the verse (if at all)?

I'm not quite sure. Let me look at the wider context...

Perhaps this conclusion speaks back onto the conclusion of the previous saying: “Truly I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God.” --LITV

That would be exactly like telling some Conservative Christians in the US today that homosexuals will get into God's kingdom before them!

Certainly a “hard” thing to hear. Certainly a truth that would either “break” them or by which they would learn the horrid truth one day when everything they thought and believed was “shattered.”

And perhaps there is some kind of parallel with the people's own reaction to his parable: “They said to Him, Bad men! He will miserably destroy them, and he will rent out the vineyard to other vinedressers who will give to him the fruits in their seasons.” --LITV

Notice how they mention two things: 1. destruction and 2. a transfer from one people to another. Now notice how Yeshua's response includes both those points as well: “Because of this I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and it will be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. And he who falls on this Stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” --LITV

Yeshua is telling them that the very two things they said should be done to those in the parable are the same two things that will be done to them—but only if both those verses are included in Matthew. So in that sense, it would have more of the “and” meaning instead of the “but” meaning, by which it means to communicate that destruction will come to them in more than one manner. Kind of like saying “those who escape one fall will be felled by another.” It would carry a “but” connotation in terms of the different ways the two are destroyed. Your reference to Isa 8 is probably exactly what Yeshua had in mind.

The person falling on the stone speaks one willfully coming to the Word of God and being humbled by it.

Yeshua is saying all this stuff to the chief priests and elders who came to him asking him by whose authority he did the things he did and Yeshua's response to them is that harlots will get in before them and that the kingdom will be taken away from them, and they're response is to try to take hold of him (for violence). In fact, they want to do the very thing he tells about in the parable (take the Son and throw him out and kill him). There is no hint of humbleness in them and nothing from Yeshua that they might later turn around and follow him, but rather condemnation. So I doubt very much that there is anything at all about being humbled by the fall in what Yeshua says to them. Perhaps it is true generally speaking that someone can be humbled, but it is not in this verse—InSpiritInTruth has eisegetically read it into the text where it doesn't exist (a pattern I'm starting to see with this one).

 

[seeingeyes]

seeingeyes,



Amen.

It appeared you made an error in swearing in the words "I'll check". You may look below at part of The New Testament so you may see how.

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5

New International Version (NIV)

I said "I'll do it" and then, I did. My "yes" was "yes". No oath swearing. No promises.

God bless

 

[seeingeyes]

I'm not quite sure. Let me look at the wider context...

Perhaps this conclusion speaks back onto the conclusion of the previous saying: “Truly I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God.” --LITV

That would be exactly like telling some Conservative Christians in the US today that homosexuals will get into God's kingdom before them!

Certainly a “hard” thing to hear. Certainly a truth that would either “break” them or by which they would learn the horrid truth one day when everything they thought and believed was “shattered.”

And perhaps there is some kind of parallel with the people's own reaction to his parable: “They said to Him, Bad men! He will miserably destroy them, and he will rent out the vineyard to other vinedressers who will give to him the fruits in their seasons.” --LITV

Notice how they mention two things: 1. destruction and 2. a transfer from one people to another. Now notice how Yeshua's response includes both those points as well: “Because of this I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and it will be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. And he who falls on this Stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” --LITV

Yeshua is telling them that the very two things they said should be done to those in the parable are the same two things that will be done to them—but only if both those verses are included in Matthew. So in that sense, it would have more of the “and” meaning instead of the “but” meaning, by which it means to communicate that destruction will come to them in more than one manner. Kind of like saying “those who escape one fall will be felled by another.” It would carry a “but” connotation in terms of the different ways the two are destroyed. Your reference to Isa 8 is probably exactly what Yeshua had in mind.

Thanks for yet another thorough response.

The larger context is a bit different in Luke, but the immediate context is still the parable of the tenants. One thing I find interesting about the parable is the two different reactions to it:

Matthew: There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."

Here 'they' gave the answer to Jesus' question about the owner, and 'they determined that vengeance should be served. It appears from the context that 'they' are the chief priests/elders/Pharisees.

Luke: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

In this version, we see the response of the people (rather than the priests). The people hear the declaration of vengeance and say: "may it never be!"

By and large, crowds are not in the habit of cheering for the bad guys. They cheer for the one who has been stolen from, not for the thief. They cheer for a proper comeuppance, not injustice. So why would the crowd be feeling bad for the bad guy?

One possibility is that they recognized the Isaiah 8 reference properly as a prophecy about the destruction of Israel, and didn't want that particular hammer to drop. But if that is the case, why wouldn't the chief priests, who surely knew the scriptures better than the common folk, make the same connection and opt for a more merciful answer?

I'm beginning to see a grace vs. retribution vibe happening in this parable and the response to it. What do you think?

 

[Radagast]

I'm having some trouble with this passage:

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:43-44)

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek (The DuTillet manuscript mentioned above is an anti-Christian Jewish text from the Middle Ages). The Greek text reads:

Verse 44 is in most ancient manuscripts. Some people think it was copied from Luke 20:18, which has almost the same wording:

The new NIV has got the Greek about right with: "Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." The conjunction δ’ can mean both "but" and "and" -- the latter is more appropriate here (as in the ESV reading), but the semicolon does the job nicely.

 

[childofdust]

seeingeyes, I've actually been working with the DuTillet manuscript for some time and I see no evidence whatsoever of it being anti-Christian. If you want to believe someone about it, believe someone who actually knows the text and not someone who never saw it before I mentioned it, who's mind was made up about it before he even looked at it, and whose source of information is Wiki. Also, the translation Radagast provides appears to be from Luke, not Matthew. There is no “anyone” in the first part of the Matthew passage. There may also be confusion arising from the δ’ - but no worries, that is nothing more than the δε I already mentioned. The epsilon (&#949 has been elided (turned into ’) because the next word begins with a vowel. Just wanted to clear up those possible confusions.

 

[seeingeyes]

seeingeyes, I've actually been working with the DuTillet manuscript for some time and I see no evidence whatsoever of it being anti-Christian. If you want to believe someone about it, believe someone who actually knows the text and not someone who never saw it before I mentioned it, who's mind was made up about it before he even looked at it, and whose source of information is Wiki. Also, the translation Radagast provides appears to be from Luke, not Matthew. There is no “anyone” in the first part of the Matthew passage. There may also be confusion arising from the δ’ - but no worries, that is nothing more than the δε I already mentioned. The epsilon (&#949 has been elided (turned into ’) because the next word begins with a vowel. Just wanted to clear up those possible confusions.

Don't worry about me. I'm not new.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

seeingeyes

I said "I'll do it" and then, I did. My "yes" was "yes". No oath swearing. No promises.

God bless

Amen.

Maybe another part of The New Testament will reveal.

3 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”

James 4

New International Version (NIV)

 

[Radagast]

seeingeyes, I've actually been working with the DuTillet manuscript for some time and I see no evidence whatsoever of it being anti-Christian.

The du Tillet manuscript is well known to be an anti-Christian polemic. See, for example, William Horbury's book Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Continuum, 1999), page 125: "the text published by du Tillet and Mercier is unambiguously polemical, although in their case the gospel text is continuous and the sceptical questions concerning it come only at the end." Similarly, this manuscript is well known to be written in the Middle Ages, many centuries after the Greek gospels were written.

In any case, there never was a Hebrew original of Matthew: the gospel we have was written originally in Greek, based partly on the already-existing Gospel of Mark (in Greek) and partly on records of what Jesus had said (according to tradition, Matthew recorded what Jesus said in Aramaic, and these records were translated into Greek). Jesus did not, of course, speak Hebrew to his followers, just as people in Italy today do not speak Latin.

Also, the translation Radagast provides appears to be from Luke, not Matthew.

Wrong. See this link.

Although I don't actually like the new NIV much, it's good here. In particular, ὁ πεσὼν is literally "the one falling" or "the one who falls" or "he who falls," but "anyone who falls" is a good translation into modern English.

The only differences between the Luke and Matthew verses are three minor things:

(1) Matthew starts with "and," although this word is not always translated.

(2) Matthew says "the one who falls" or "anyone who falls," while Luke says "everyone who falls."

(3) Matthew says "this stone," while Luke says "that stone."

1 Peter 2:4-8 may help to interpret this passage:

As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16)

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,” (Psalm 118:22)

and,

“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” (Isaiah 8:14)

They stumble because they disobey the message — which is also what they were destined for.