Hmmmm

PastorAIO:


There is a dude called Nehemiah Gordon who has gone deep in this and does lectures discussing his research.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmAY-vJGPhc

Very interesting lecture. His explanations of the Hebrew version of Mat 23v3 is a peach. I don't get why Christians have such a hang-up about the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew.

GuyFawkes:
......... I think Matthew and Luke basically copied and revised his version, the book of John looks like someone's imagination ran wild.

I agree with this.

Sarassin:


Ok, let us lay this issue of the Gospel’s authorship to bed once and for all, here is the Catholic Encyclopaedia and within context.

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

I never said that the writers added there names as we see today - "according to, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John". Nope. I already know they were anonymous. It however, does not mean that they were not the writers. Even most books in the OT were anonymous. But others, apart from the writers, identified who wrote them.

So we know the writers.

Noted.

Good.

I have no idea what "three titles" you say some are referring to, kindly elaborate.

That is the argument advanced by the adherents of the theory you presented. But the issue is that the verse you are talking about is found in the trusted manuscripts available.

It is not clear who conducted a first translation into Greek but it could not have been the author of Matthew, Jerome makes it clear the book was composed in Hebrew characters

“which we recently translated from a Hebrew sermon into Greek and which by many has been declared to be the authentic Matthew” (Comm. to Matthew, II, xii, 13).

Matthew is most likely the translator.

The book translated by Jerome is unlikely the real gospel by Matthew. He mentioned a book by Ebionites and Nazarenes. That was a different book. The words Jerome used showed that he is not certain of the authenticity of the book he translated.

On this subject, McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia says:

"he never quotes the Nazarene Gospel as a work of canonical authority, but only in such terms as "quo utuntur Nazareni," "quod lectitant Nazaruei," "quod juxta Heb. Nazar. legere consueverunt," and still more doubtingly, "qui crediderit evangelio, quod secundum Hebrueos editum nuper transtulimus;" language inconsistent with his having regarded it as canonical Scripture."

I have not quoted Jerome out of context, I did make an error though, in my previous quote referring to Manichaeus, Jerome was referring to the Book of Matthew not Luke. I will clarify, the Gospel of Matthew was published by the named Seleucus which as you know was rejected by Jerome, it was however, the original version. Jerome has obviously taken an axe to the original version and amended it to his own liking. Here is an example of what he did, I am quoting from Jerome's book titled "Dialogue against Pelagianos"

"In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find, “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?"

As you are aware, this verse is nowhere to be found in the present day book of Matthew. Jerome practically rewrote the Gospel.

Like I said above, the book Jerome translated is unlikely the real gospel by Matthew. There were three Jewish Christian gospels according to one scholar, P. Vielhauer That of Ebionites, Nazarenes and the Hebrews. Jerome may not have known this or it was not easy for him to distinguish.

Other scholars has these to say about the account Jerome quoted:

"Grabe conceived this gospel to have been composed by Jewish converts soon after our Lord's. ascension, before the composition of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Baronius, Grotius, father Simon, and Du Pin look upon it as the Gospel of Matthew interpolated, however, by the Nazarenes. Baronius and Grabe think that it was cited by Ignatius, or the author of the epistles ascribed to him."
from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia.

A face-saving gesture by the Church perhaps?

I dont agree.

What document is this ?

Manuscript Number P66.

GuyFawkes:
Wasn't the Book of Mark the first Gospel written and it was like 100 years after the Christ's death. I think Matthew and Luke basically copied and revised his version, the book of John looks like someone's imagination ran wild.

All of it, from Genesis onward, is someone's imagination running wild.

EnlightenedSoul:


All of it, from Genesis onward, is someone's imagination running wild.

Surely.

JMAN05:


I never said that the writers added there names as we see today - "according to, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John". Nope. I already know they were anonymous. It however, does not mean that they were not the writers. Even most books in the OT were anonymous. But others, apart from the writers, identified who wrote them.

So we know the writers.

The Church has stated that the NT writings are anonymously written and not traceable to apostolic sources, you insist somehow you know otherwise because others identified the writers, why doesn’t the church state this ? We know already that books in the OT are anonymous, it is Christians who insist they are written by their named authors.

Matthew is most likely the translator.

The book translated by Jerome is unlikely the real gospel by Matthew. He mentioned a book by Ebionites and Nazarenes. That was a different book. The words Jerome used showed that he is not certain of the authenticity of the book he translated.

And why would the author of Matthew write a gospel in Hebrew and then do a Greek translation? His target audience were Christian Jews. Jerome makes it absolutely clear the Gospel was written in the Hebraic, he goes out of his way to specify it was the Gospel of Matthew and there was a copy at the library in Caesaria, there was no mistake!

Like I said above, the book Jerome translated is unlikely the real gospel by Matthew. There were three Jewish Christian gospels according to one scholar, P. Vielhauer That of Ebionites, Nazarenes and the Hebrews. Jerome may not have known this or it was not easy for him to distinguish.

There should be no doubt that Jerome translated the Hebrew Matthew, he said so himself, it is orthodox Christianity simply trying to muddy the waters. What we can see is that Jerome altered the texts as he saw fit in his latin Vulgate translation, what is more, he has previous. Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch intellectual compiled the first Greek NT from the ancient manuscripts in comparison with the Jerome’s latin vulgate, amongst others he could not find the “Johannine Comma” in the Greek manuscripts.

Just think about it, if it had been realised a century ago that the last eight verses in the Gospel of Mark were interpolations, the world would not have to endure the spectacle of Pentecostals practising tongue-twisting and demon loosening and binding as doctrine, nor would we have to put up with Trinitarianism, doctrine is made up on the hoof!

Christians believe that Jesus resurrected, and that is fine. But there is a gulf between what you believe and what you can claim as a historical fact. The attestations to the resurrection are incompatible accounts by believers recorded decades after the passing of Jesus, through stories transmitted orally, subject to inherent bias, unreliability and with scope for embellishment. You would think that if the corner piece of Christianity are to be the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth then there should be no room for any doubts whatsoever that the man did indeed resurrect.

For me the accounts of post resurrectional appearances and the ascension are dubious, spurious and quite frankly damaging.

ace1:
Considering the close relationship between Jesus and Peter, why is there no gospel account of Peter in the bible?

He wrote 1pet and second pet

Sarassin:


The Church has stated that the NT writings are anonymously written and not traceable to apostolic sources, you insist somehow you know otherwise because others identified the writers, why doesn’t the church state this ? We know already that books in the OT are anonymous, it is Christians who insist they are written by their named authors.

The encyclopedia did not state that the gospels are not traceable to the writers, but that the titles it bore was not inserted by the writers. Christians know that the accounts in the gospel happened, but who wrote those gospels were not categorically indicated therein, that is the point. But early Christians who knew those who know the apostles helps us know those who wrote what. It is good to note that the issue of given the writings title came because some dubious guys wanted to corrupt the writings of these apostles. Now those who knew who wrote what, and those who know who wrote what came up to show what the Christians view as canonical.

Catholic do not disagree with that the gospels were written by those whom the early christians said wrote them.

And why would the author of Matthew write a gospel in Hebrew and then do a Greek translation? His target audience were Christian Jews. Jerome makes it absolutely clear the Gospel was written in the Hebraic, he goes out of his way to specify it was the Gospel of Matthew and there was a copy at the library in Caesaria, there was no mistake!

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel under the name of "The Gospel according to the Nazarenes", regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew. But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, it has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels

There should be no doubt that Jerome translated the Hebrew Matthew, he said so himself, it is orthodox Christianity simply trying to muddy the waters. What we can see is that Jerome altered the texts as he saw fit in his latin Vulgate translation, what is more, he has previous. Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch intellectual compiled the first Greek NT from the ancient manuscripts in comparison with the Jerome’s latin vulgate, amongst others he could not find the “Johannine Comma” in the Greek manuscripts.

Just think about it, if it had been realised a century ago that the last eight verses in the Gospel of Mark were interpolations, the world would not have to endure the spectacle of Pentecostals practising tongue-twisting and demon loosening and binding as doctrine, nor would we have to put up with Trinitarianism, doctrine is made up on the hoof!

The Pentecostals could find the account for there speaking in tongues in other bible books apart from book of Mark, That would still not end the act.

Christians believe that Jesus resurrected, and that is fine. But there is a gulf between what you believe and what you can claim as a historical fact. The attestations to the resurrection are incompatible accounts by believers recorded decades after the passing of Jesus, through stories transmitted orally, subject to inherent bias, unreliability and with scope for embellishment. You would think that if the corner piece of Christianity are to be the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth then there should be no room for any doubts whatsoever that the man did indeed resurrect.

For me the accounts of post resurrectional appearances and the ascension are dubious, spurious and quite frankly damaging.

It is not possible that the gospels about the ressurection could be written in such a way that it wont be in doubt. No matter how authentic and good the writing is, some, if not many will still choose to doubt it.

Again, Satan is not asleep. If not this way, he will move people to question it another way. 2Cor 4:4

2. You are certainly free to have a personal stand on this matter. The post resurrection appearances may not make any sense to you, but it does to me and other billions of people.

JMAN05:


The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel under the name of "The Gospel according to the Nazarenes", regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew. But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, it has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels

The quote above is a fantastic example of orthodox church dissembling and double-speak. The simple fact is that NONE of the Gospels have Apostolic authority, there is no evidence that any of the Apostles wrote eyewitness accounts (indeed they were illiterate fishermen)and despite your best efforts you can only make such assumptions that “those who knew the apostles help tell who wrote what……” which amounts to nothing. Ultimately, you simply cannot know with any certainty who wrote them.

You see, the earliest Greek Book of Matthew cannot predate the Hebrew Matthew, now whether it be Ebionite, Nazarene or Marcionite it still remains the original Hebrew text attributed to Matthew, it should have been left “as is” and translated in its entirety, However, simply because some of its content were not orthodox, Jerome evidently altered the book. This is what I mean when I say the Gospels were altered.

Now the Catholic Church in its infinite wisdom has simply held up Jerome’s Greek translation against the Hebrew original and declared the Hebrew version…..non-Apostolic, a classic bait and switch tactic, (not for the first time) it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

Sarassin:


The quote above is a fantastic example of orthodox church dissembling and double-speak. The simple fact is that NONE of the Gospels have Apostolic authority, there is no evidence that any of the Apostles wrote eyewitness accounts (indeed they were illiterate fishermen)and despite your best efforts you can only make such assumptions that “those who knew the apostles help tell who wrote what……” which amounts to nothing. Ultimately, you simply cannot know with any certainty who wrote them.

You just want to believe what you like. When you quoted Catholic encyclopedia, you used it to support your point, but when the same page is used to refute your stand, you make a U turn and term it "dissembling and double-speak[ing]". The NT was finished towards the end of the first century and John died about 100 CE. Now, in the 2nd century, those who knew these writers said who wrote what. Not just that the writings were kept in their closet, but these were books that were circulated in different congregations back then. You now want to state that these people do not know who wrote letters to them? I mean the same people who brought the good news to them and gave sent the books to different congregations? Sorry, that is an evidence, not just for me, but for billions of people. Maybe not for you, that opinion you are entitled to.

You see, the earliest Greek Book of Matthew cannot predate the Hebrew Matthew, now whether it be Ebionite, Nazarene or Marcionite it still remains the original Hebrew text attributed to Matthew, it should have been left “as is” and translated in its entirety, However, simply because some of its content were not orthodox, Jerome evidently altered the book. This is what I mean when I say the Gospels were altered.

Thats your theory. Evidence has it that gospel of the hebrews is not the same as the gospel of Matthew. The Matthew we have is not an alteration. It is the real one. It is not just stated by Catholic Encyclopedia, but by many scholars.

Now the Catholic Church in its infinite wisdom has simply held up Jerome’s Greek translation against the Hebrew original and declared the Hebrew version…..non-Apostolic, a classic bait and switch tactic, (not for the first time) it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

I dont know why you keep fighting catholic. I quoted them because you first used them as your authority, not that the evidence found in there encyclopedia are not found in other scholarly works.

There were some other gospels - by Ebionites, Nazarens, by the hebrews and even more. The three were all mentioned by Jerome, and we know such writings existed (maybe it wasnt clear as to the difference back then), but we also know that it was not matthew that wrote them. By Jerome attributing it to Matthew means he may not have understood the difference btwn them and that of matthew, though he spoke of them with doubt as to its authenticity. And by combining them together, it further shows that he may not have known the difference.

JMAN05:


You just want to believe what you like.

Thats your theory. Evidence has it that gospel of the hebrews is not the same as the gospel of Matthew. The Matthew we have is not an alteration. It is the real one. It is not just stated by Catholic Encyclopedia, but by many scholars.

I dont know why you keep fighting catholic. I quoted them because you first used them as your authority, not that the evidence found in there encyclopedia are not found in other scholarly works.

There were some other gospels - by Ebionites, Nazarens, by the hebrews and even more. The three were all mentioned by Jerome, and we know such writings existed (maybe it wasnt clear as to the difference back then), but we also know that it was not matthew that wrote them. By Jerome attributing it to Matthew means he may not have understood the difference btwn them and that of matthew, though he spoke of them with doubt as to its authenticity. And by combining them together, it further shows that he may not have known the difference.

My argument is that the NT Gospel of Matthew is not a literal reproduction of Matthew's original writings, but rather the production of an unknown redactor, composed in Greek posthumous to Matthew.

This aligns perfectly with Jerome's assessment, in which he stated, "Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetime 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."(Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 3)

Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis) also states in his Panarion that Matthew alone expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew among the New Testament writers: "For in truth, Matthew alone of the New Testament writers expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." (Panarion 30.3.7)

Origen adds to this by stating that, among the four gospels, Matthew, the one-time tax collector who later became an apostle of Jesus Christ, first composed the gospel for the converts from Judaism, published in the Hebrew language.(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 6.25)

Hegesipus and Eusebius attest that that the Aramaic Gospel and the Gospel of the Nazarene's were....identical!

Were all of the above WRONG ?


Edward Nicholson (1879), Bodley's Librarian. (Oxford University main library) gives this conclusion which sums it all up.

"We find that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew characters. Its authorship was attributed by some to the Apostles in general, but by very many or most — including clearly the Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves — to Matthew."

"The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel according to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence: some of them unhesitatingly accepted it as being what tradition affirmed it to be — the work of Matthew — and even those who have not put on record their expression of this opinion have not questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with the supposition that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a work of heretical tendencies? This applies with tenfold force to Jerome. After copying it, would he, if he had seen heresy in it, have translated it for public dissemination into both Greek and Latin, and have continued to favor the tradition of its Matthaean authorship? And Jerome, be it observed, not only quotes all three of these passages without disapprobation; he actually quotes two of them with approval."

Nicholson's position that The Gospel of the Hebrews was the true Gospel of Matthew is still the subject of heated debate. However most scholars now agree that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was not written by Matthew, but composed posthumous to him.

Do you still believe Jerome made a mistake ?

Sarassin:


My argument is that the NT Gospel of Matthew is not a literal reproduction of Matthew's original writings, but rather the production of an unknown redactor, composed in Greek posthumous to Matthew.

This aligns perfectly with Jerome's assessment, in which he stated, "Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetime 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."(Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 3)

Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis) also states in his Panarion that Matthew alone expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew among the New Testament writers: "For in truth, Matthew alone of the New Testament writers expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." (Panarion 30.3.7)

Origen adds to this by stating that, among the four gospels, Matthew, the one-time tax collector who later became an apostle of Jesus Christ, first composed the gospel for the converts from Judaism, published in the Hebrew language.(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 6.25)

Hegesipus and Eusebius attest that that the Aramaic Gospel and the Gospel of the Nazarene's were....identical!

Were all of the above WRONG ?


Edward Nicholson (1879), Bodley's Librarian. (Oxford University main library) gives this conclusion which sums it all up.

"We find that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew characters. Its authorship was attributed by some to the Apostles in general, but by very many or most — including clearly the Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves — to Matthew."

"The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel according to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence: some of them unhesitatingly accepted it as being what tradition affirmed it to be — the work of Matthew — and even those who have not put on record their expression of this opinion have not questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with the supposition that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a work of heretical tendencies? This applies with tenfold force to Jerome. After copying it, would he, if he had seen heresy in it, have translated it for public dissemination into both Greek and Latin, and have continued to favor the tradition of its Matthaean authorship? And Jerome, be it observed, not only quotes all three of these passages without disapprobation; he actually quotes two of them with approval."

Nicholson's position that The Gospel of the Hebrews was the true Gospel of Matthew is still the subject of heated debate. However most scholars now agree that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was not written by Matthew, but composed posthumous to him.

Do you still believe Jerome made a mistake ?

It appears that these gospel held by the Ebionites and Nazarenes looks like the one written by Matthew, which made it hard for some to differentiate it from the one written by Matthew, and which led Jerome to translate it viewing it as the original work of Matthew. It however wise to state that Jerome later cast doubt as to the authenticity of that account. I have stated some of his words above.

We still cannot say that any who translated (ie if we can even call it a translation) the book of Matthew was posthumorous to Matthew. If that was the case the writing would not get the reputation it hard as an authoritative account. This whole drama seem to be solved by this:

Mcclintock and Strong's encyclopedia:

"We think that Mr. Westcott — to whom the study of the Gospels owes so much-has pointed out the road to a still better solution. Not that the difficulties which beset this matter can be regarded as cleared up, or the question finally and satisfactorily settled, but a mode of reconciling the inconsistency between testimony and fact has been indicated, which, if pursued, may, we think, lead to a decision. "It has been shown," says Mr. Westcott (Introd. p. 208, note), "that the oral Gospel probably existed from the first both in Aramaic and in Greek, and in this way a preparation for a fresh representative of the Hebrew Gospel was at once found. The parts of the Aramaic oral Gospels which were adopted by Matthew already existed in the Greek counterpart. The change was not so much a version as a substitution; and frequent coincidence with common parts of Mark and Luke, which were derived from the same oral Greek Gospel, was a necessary consequence. Yet it may have happened that, as long as the Hebrew and Greek churches were in close connection, perhaps till the destruction of Jerusalem, no authoritative Greek Gospel of Matthew — i.e. such a version of the Greek oral Gospel as would exactly answer to Matthew's version of the Aramaic-was committed to writing. When, however, the separation between the two sections grew more marked, the Greek Gospel was written, not indeed as a translation, but as a representation of the original, as a Greek oral counterpart was already current." This theory of the origin of the Greek Gospel, it appears to us, meets the facts of the case, and satisfies its requirements more fully than any other. We have seen above that the language of Papias indicates that, even in his day, the Gospel of Matthew existed substantially in Greek, and its universal diffusion and general authority in the earliest ages of the Church prove that its composition cannot be placed much after the times of the apostles. May it not have been then that the two — the Aramaic and the Greek Gospel — existed for some time in their most important portions as an old tradition side by side — that the Aramaic was the first to be committed to writing, and gained a wide though temporary circulation among the Hebrew Christians of Syria and Palestine? that when, as would soon be the case, the want of a Greek Gospel for the use of the Hellenistic Jews was felt, this also was published in its written form, either by Matthew himself (as is maintained by Thiersch, Olshausen, and Lee), or by those to whom, from constant repetition, the main portions were familiar; perhaps under the apostle's eye, and with the virtual, if not the formal sanction of the Church at Jerusalem? As it supplied a need widely felt by the Gentile Christians, it would at once obtain currency, and as the Gentile Church rapidly extended her borders, while that of the Jewish believers was continually becoming confined within narrower limits, this Greek Gospel would speedily supplant its Hebrew predecessor..."
(from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia)

JMAN05:


It appears that these gospel held by the Ebionites and Nazarenes looks like the one written by Matthew, which made it hard for some to differentiate it from the one written by Matthew, and which led Jerome to translate it viewing it as the original work of Matthew. It however wise to state that Jerome later cast doubt as to the authenticity of that account. I have stated some of his words above.

In my view it should be obvious to all that the Gospel held by the Ebionites and the Nazarene’s (which were identical) was indeed that of Matthew. Why would there be a problem differentiating it......it was in Hebrew....the other was in Greek ! You state Jerome later cast doubt on the Gospel, I have found no direct quotes from Jerome casting such doubts, rather it is others trying to put words in the mouth of Jerome.

Similarly it should be obvious that the Greek Matthew was posthumous to Matthew, it only got authoritative reputation because it was in Greek and carefully formatted to fit orthodox belief.

As for the article in Mcclintock & Strong’s, the less said the better, when I say the Church dissembles you accuse me of cherry picking sources.

Here are the words of Papias himself concerning the Gospel of Matthew

“Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew Language, but each person interpreted them as best he could"
Eusebius, "History of the Church" 3.39.14-17

The only true statement in that article is the following,
"........this Greek Gospel would speedily supplant its Hebrew predecessor..."

I hope we can put this to bed.

Sarassin:


In my view it should be obvious to all that the Gospel held by the Ebionites and the Nazarene’s (which were identical) was indeed that of Matthew. Why would there be a problem differentiating it......it was in Hebrew....the other was in Greek ! You state Jerome later cast doubt on the Gospel, I have found no direct quotes from Jerome casting such doubts, rather it is others trying to put words in the mouth of Jerome.

Similarly it should be obvious that the Greek Matthew was posthumous to Matthew, it only got authoritative reputation because it was in Greek and carefully formatted to fit orthodox belief.

As for the article in Mcclintock & Strong’s, the less said the better, when I say the Church dissembles you accuse me of cherry picking sources.

Here are the words of Papias himself concerning the Gospel of Matthew

“Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew Language, but each person interpreted them as best he could"
Eusebius, "History of the Church" 3.39.14-17

The only true statement in that article is the following,
"........this Greek Gospel would speedily supplant its Hebrew predecessor..."

I hope we can put this to bed.

Of course, the hebrew Matthew came first. Matthew evidently wrote it as a reminder to his Jewish brothers. However, he later composed a greek Matthew for the gentile Christians, as koine greek was well known, and his other counterparts had their's in greek. If he was not the direct composer, then it must be someone close to him - a secretary perhaps. The posthumorous theory is not possible cos the writing has been available at an early stage when it could be questioned as others were, but we never see such happen.

Such works are not just accepted because they were written in Greek. There were other works in greek that were not accepted. That its agreeing with the church belief at the time is quite hilarious. I wonder why they would want to embark on a translation from Hebrew when the church-doctored Matthew was already in greek.

You should remember that these is a time when heretic writings were in circulation, yet no one questioned the work of Matthew in greek. The authority it possesses cant allow for your claim.

As Olshausen remarks (Clark's ed., 1, 28), "while all the fathers of the Church assert the Hebrew origin of the Gospel, they without exception make use of the existing Greek text as canonical Scripture, and that without doubt or question, or anything that would lead to the belief that they regarded it as of less authority than the original Hebrew, or possessed it in any other form than that in which we now have it."

There is a big doubt as to that statement by Papias. see koster 2000, p. 207

Those Ebionites were heretics, even Epiphanius said so.

But we can agree to disagree on this issue. The evidence make sense to me, maybe not for you.

JMAN05:


Of course, the hebrew Matthew came first. Matthew evidently wrote it as a reminder to his Jewish brothers. However, he later composed a greek Matthew for the gentile Christians, as koine greek was well known, and his other counterparts had their's in greek. If he was not the direct composer, then it must be someone close to him - a secretary perhaps. The posthumorous theory is not possible cos the writing has been available at an early stage when it could be questioned as others were, but we never see such happen.

Such works are not just accepted because they were written in Greek. There were other works in greek that were not accepted. That its agreeing with the church belief at the time is quite hilarious. I wonder why they would want to embark on a translation from Hebrew when the church-doctored Matthew was already in greek.

You should remember that these is a time when heretic writings were in circulation, yet no one questioned the work of Matthew in greek. The authority it possesses cant allow for your claim.

As Olshausen remarks (Clark's ed., 1, 28), "while all the fathers of the Church assert the Hebrew origin of the Gospel, they without exception make use of the existing Greek text as canonical Scripture, and that without doubt or question, or anything that would lead to the belief that they regarded it as of less authority than the original Hebrew, or possessed it in any other form than that in which we now have it."

There is a big doubt as to that statement by Papias. see koster 2000, p. 207

Those Ebionites were heretics, even Epiphanius said so.

But we can agree to disagree on this issue. The evidence make sense to me, maybe not for you.

So, you accept now that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. But there is not a shred of evidence (such as there may be) that Matthew composed TWO gospels, and where would Matthew have learnt the high quality Koine Greek the book is composed of?
We can be sure that whosoever composed the Greek Matthew was a diasporan Jew, what is more, there are stories contained within the gospel that indicate the Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed at its earliest, under the reign of Emperor Domitian 81CE to 96CE

There is nothing wrong with the statement of Papias, it was properly attested by Eusebius. What you meant to say was that according to Koster, the statement of Papias raised the perplexing question, “Who wrote the Greek Matthew?”

You have the words of Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, Hegesipus Eusebius and Papias all attesting the Hebrew Gospel composed by Matthew. There are no attestations for the Greek Matthew.

Even though the Church declared the Ebionites heretical, the fact is One man’s heresy is another man’s orthodoxy, apparently it is all a matter of opinion, we agree to disagree.

Sarassin:


So, you accept now that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. But there is not a shred of evidence (such as there may be) that Matthew composed TWO gospels, and where would Matthew have learnt the high quality Koine Greek the book is composed of?
We can be sure that whosoever composed the Greek Matthew was a diasporan Jew, what is more, there are stories contained within the gospel that indicate the Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed at its earliest, under the reign of Emperor Domitian 81CE to 96CE

There is nothing wrong with the statement of Papias, it was properly attested by Eusebius. What you meant to say was that according to Koster, the statement of Papias raised the perplexing question, “Who wrote the Greek Matthew?”

You have the words of Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, Hegesipus Eusebius and Papias all attesting the Hebrew Gospel composed by Matthew. There are no attestations for the Greek Matthew.

Even though the Church declared the Ebionites heretical, the fact is One man’s heresy is another man’s orthodoxy, apparently it is all a matter of opinion, we agree to disagree.

Mark, Luke and John, Paul, Peter, wrote in which language? How learned were they? Is it also possible they can have a companion do it? I leave the answer to you.

While we know that what one calls heretic, may be viewed as truth by another, true christians, and as other gospels and as the epistle by Paul says, we can confidently say they were not in line with the truth. A reading of there doctrine proves this.

Nope, Papias words you quoted are in doubt. Like i said previously, even Jerome's words as regards these Hebrew Matthew shows doubt. I dont think we should be going round and round again. I have made my input and no valid point has been made to doubt this gospels for me, and for millions more.

It will be best for each of us to ruminate on all these and make his decision.

Peace!

Sarassin:


So, you accept now that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. But there is not a shred of evidence (such as there may be) that Matthew composed TWO gospels, and where would Matthew have learnt the high quality Koine Greek the book is composed of?
We can be sure that whosoever composed the Greek Matthew was a diasporan Jew, what is more, there are stories contained within the gospel that indicate the Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed at its earliest, under the reign of Emperor Domitian 81CE to 96CE

There is nothing wrong with the statement of Papias, it was properly attested by Eusebius. What you meant to say was that according to Koster, the statement of Papias raised the perplexing question, “Who wrote the Greek Matthew?”

You have the words of Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, Hegesipus Eusebius and Papias all attesting the Hebrew Gospel composed by Matthew. There are no attestations for the Greek Matthew.

Even though the Church declared the Ebionites heretical, the fact is One man’s heresy is another man’s orthodoxy, apparently it is all a matter of opinion, we agree to disagree.

1. Did I ever doubt that Matthew first wrote in hebrew?

2. Mark, Luke and John, Paul, Peter, wrote in which language? How learned were they? Is it also possible they can have a companion do it? I leave the answer to you.

Even if were to accept that it was written in 81 AD, it cant be widely accepted by many xtian without a doubt if it never came thru apostoliç authority. And this book really had a wide circulation in the church. A time when John, who was then alive could have written against its use. Or even his close associate. Sorry, but I dont any reason to accept your point.

3. While we know that what one calls heretic, may be viewed as truth by another, true christians, and as other gospels and as the epistle by Paul says, we can confidently say they were not in line with the truth. A reading of there doctrine proves this.

4. Nope, Papias words you quoted are in doubt. Like i said previously, even Jerome's words as regards these Hebrew Matthew (according to Hebrews) shows doubt. I dont think we should be going round and round again. I have made my input and no valid point has been made to doubt this gospels for me, and for millions more.

It will be best for each of us to ruminate on all these and make his decision.

Peace!

JMAN05:


Mark, Luke and John, Paul, Peter, wrote in which language? How learned were they? Is it also possible they can have a companion do it? I leave the answer to you.

While we know that what one calls heretic, may be viewed as truth by another, true christians, and as other gospels and as the epistle by Paul says, we can confidently say they were not in line with the truth. A reading of there doctrine proves this.

Nope, Papias words you quoted are in doubt. Like i said previously, even Jerome's words as regards these Hebrew Matthew shows doubt. I dont think we should be going round and round again. I have made my input and no valid point has been made to doubt this gospels for me, and for millions more.

It will be best for each of us to ruminate on all these and make his decision.

Peace!

I'm very much enjoying these exchanges.

Please jman05, What is doubtful about the words of Papias and Jerome that he quoted?

[quote author=JMAN05 post=39451568]

1. Did I ever doubt that Matthew first wrote in hebrew?

JMAN05
There were some other gospels - by Ebionites, Nazarens, by the hebrews and even more. The three were all mentioned by Jerome, and we know such writings existed (maybe it wasnt clear as to the difference back then), but we also know that it was not matthew that wrote them. By Jerome attributing it to Matthew means he may not have understood the difference btwn them and that of matthew, though he spoke of them with doubt as to its authenticity. And by combining them together, it further shows that he may not have known the difference.

Its Ok to change your mind. I have refreshed your memory

2. Mark, Luke and John, Paul, Peter, wrote in which language? How learned were they? Is it also possible they can have a companion do it? I leave the answer to you.

The authors of the Gospels of Mark, Luke, John and the Pauline epistles wrote in Greek, that is a far cry from saying Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels…much less in Greek. I think you can also scratch out the thought that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by a companion, the Greek Gospel of Matthew is not a [b]We[/b]document.

Sarassin:

The authors of the Gospels of Mark, Luke, John and the Pauline epistles wrote in Greek, that is a far cry from saying Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels…much less in Greek. I think you can also scratch out the thought that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by a companion, the Greek Gospel of Matthew is not a [b]We[/b]document.

Please o, what is a 'we' document?

JMAN05:

3. While we know that what one calls heretic, may be viewed as truth by another, true christians, and as other gospels and as the epistle by Paul says, we can confidently say they were not in line with the truth. A reading of there doctrine proves this.

Peace!

With all these documents produced by the early christians, how do we know the ones in line with the truth? Where did we get the truth that we use to compare them? Is it from the Church Fathers? In that case it is the doctrines of the Church Fathers that have the highest authority in Christianity. Even the bible must fall in line with it or the offending passage will be removed from the bible.

PastorAIO:


Please o, what is a 'we' document?

A “we” document is a narrative in the “first person plural” in which the writer documents events in which he was a participant or a co-participant as opposed to a “third person” account as obtains throughout the Gospel of Matthew. If as surmised by JMAN05 the Gospel was compiled by a companion who was privy to events we would expect to read the accounts in the "first person plural"

A good example is the second part of the Book of Acts, there are three passages consisting of ninety-seven verses in which Luke uses the first person plural.

Sarassin:
Its Ok to change your mind. I have refreshed your memory

There are gospels by the ebionites, Nazarenes and gospel according to the Hebrews. Those are not the Matthew's Hebrew gospel. I have never mentioned that Matthew didn't first write his gospel in Hebrew.

The authors of the Gospels of Mark, Luke, John and the Pauline epistles wrote in Greek, that is a far cry from saying Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels…much less in Greek. I think you can also scratch out the thought that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by a companion, the Greek Gospel of Matthew is not a [b]We[/b]document.

I leave u with any conclusion you like to reach. Your point about "we" document shows you have a long way to go, and I don't have such time now. The truth is that the Greek Matthew has a great authority long time ago. No evidence so far to show that this document was written by another post humorous to Matthew. None. I believe Mark, Luke and John wrote there account. If u don't, then that is another discussion. The point is, Matthew can write/translate his account in koine Greek. Koine was a simple form of greek. A companion can still help(assuming he can't write koine gk) him while he supervises, but there is no reason to say it is the work of another. The doc evidently has apostolic authority.

PastorAIO:

With all these documents produced by the early christians, how do we know the ones in line with the truth? Where did we get the truth that we use to compare them? Is it from the Church Fathers? In that case it is the doctrines of the Church Fathers that have the highest authority in Christianity. Even the bible must fall in line with it or the offending passage will be removed from the bible.

TheThe apostles had a congregation to preached to while they were alive. They also had companions who never toiled with there writing. Stephen, Paul, Peter and others were preachers of the goodnews in many countries. Paul, Peter, James, Jude and others wrote letters to congregations and individuals. These congregations they formed, read this letters and sent copies to other congregations. In short, there activities were piloted from Jerusalem by the apostles and the older men, (acts 16:4,5).

These congregations were still in existence after the apostles demise, and there letters were still observed by those different Congs. As such, you need not go to those who are not known to have followed the teaching of these apostles/disciples to obtain what is true teachings of Christ. Ebionites are heretics as the scriptures indicate.

JMAN05:


There are gospels by the ebionites, Nazarenes and gospel according to the Hebrews. Those are not the Matthew's Hebrew gospel. I have never mentioned that Matthew didn't first write his gospel in Hebrew.

This is a flip-flop. The Ebionites and Nazarene's[b] had[/b] a Gospel, they didn't write it. It was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in identical forms they possessed. St. Jerome in his letter to Pope Damasus who commissioned him to carry out the translations remarked that (i am paraphrasing) 'he was reluctant to translate the Hebrew Matthew because it had been written in obscure Hebrew in order to preserve certain doctrines from the eyes of others' which were not intended to be made for public consumption.

I leave u with any conclusion you like to reach. Your point about "we" document shows you have a long way to go, and I don't have such time now. The truth is that the Greek Matthew has a great authority long time ago. No evidence so far to show that this document was written by another post humorous to Matthew.

My point about the "We"document stands, it's painfully obvious. The fact that you say the Greek Matthew "has a great authority long time ago" is not in itself evidence of authenticated authorship. I will give you an example of a near miss.

Did you know that the church father Eusebius claimed he discovered a hand written letter by Jesus delivered to the king of Edessa who was asking for a cure?. For many years this letter was accepted as authentic and the only actual surviving script of the Christ, that is until it was found that the paper the letter was written on was a 3rd century parchment. These are the fine margins by which scriptures were accepted or discarded.

Sarassin:


This is a flip-flop. The Ebionites and Nazarene's[b] had[/b] a Gospel, they didn't write it. It was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in identical forms they possessed. St. Jerome in his letter to Pope Damasus who commissioned him to carry out the translations remarked that (i am paraphrasing) 'he was reluctant to translate the Hebrew Matthew because it had been written in obscure Hebrew in order to preserve certain doctrines from the eyes of others' which were not intended to be made for public consumption.

I said above;

ike I said above, the book Jerome translated is unlikely the real gospel by Matthew. There were three Jewish Christian gospels according to one scholar, P. Vielhauer That of Ebionites, Nazarenes and the Hebrews. Jerome may not have known this or it was not easy for him to distinguish.

My point about the "We"document stands, it's painfully obvious. The fact that you say the Greek Matthew "has a great authority long time ago" is not in itself evidence of authenticated authorship. I will give you an example of a near miss.

Did you know that the church father Eusebius claimed he discovered a hand written letter by Jesus delivered to the king of Edessa who was asking for a cure?. For many years this letter was accepted as authentic and the only actual surviving script of the Christ, that is until it was found that the paper the letter was written on was a 3rd century parchment. These are the fine margins by which scriptures were accepted or discarded.

And many early xtians accepted this dociment as a book written by Jesus?

Let the matter slide oga

GuyFawkes:


Surely.

Happy belated birthday, Fawkes

ace1:


I'd like to read his own accout. Assuming what you have said is true

download the app 'the Lost book of the Bible' to read other books and the gospel of Peter

EnlightenedSoul:


Happy belated birthday, Fawkes

Oops I forgot my birthday!
Well it's my birthday and it isn't,tanx anyway.
How you doin?

GuyFawkes:


Oops I forgot my birthday!
Well it's my birthday and it isn't,tanx anyway.
How you doin?

Ha. Well, aren't you mystery itself, lol. I thought I might check up what with that match. In that case, lets just go with it isn't
I'm doing OK. Just rustling through some changes.

EnlightenedSoul:


Ha. Well, aren't you mystery itself, lol. I thought I might check up what with that match. In that case, lets just go with it isn't
I'm doing OK. Just rustling through some changes.

Arsenal got Blitzed 5-1

GuyFawkes:


Arsenal got Blitzed 5-1

Believe me, I know. IDK that I've told you, but my SO is an avid Arsenal supporter. He usually doesn't too over-worked, but man did he fly off the handle in a major way, lol. My condolences