11-05-2013, 06:27 AM
The Shem Tov hebrew, is certainly not in authentic form.
It contains 'edits' for Jewish reasons, it was used by Jews in the time of Shem tov in Spain to defend against the spanish inquisition who wanted to force the idea of trinity for instance.
It might contain Greek and Latin edits, but to make a long story short, it is not authentic. None of the 3 copies of Matthew which are in Hebrew.
I do not think that Matthew wrote Matthew using paleo Hebrew , using caraitic square script, but he wrote his gospel using Aramaic Jewish dialect. This was called 'Hebrew' in the first century. Somebody on this forum quoted Josephus, who called his own language Hebrew, but the 'holy language' was the language of the OT. So, to use Josephus style, Matthew was not written in 'the holy language' but in Hebrew, which is Jewish Aramaic.
It contains 'edits' for Jewish reasons, it was used by Jews in the time of Shem tov in Spain to defend against the spanish inquisition who wanted to force the idea of trinity for instance.
It might contain Greek and Latin edits, but to make a long story short, it is not authentic. None of the 3 copies of Matthew which are in Hebrew.
I do not think that Matthew wrote Matthew using paleo Hebrew , using caraitic square script, but he wrote his gospel using Aramaic Jewish dialect. This was called 'Hebrew' in the first century. Somebody on this forum quoted Josephus, who called his own language Hebrew, but the 'holy language' was the language of the OT. So, to use Josephus style, Matthew was not written in 'the holy language' but in Hebrew, which is Jewish Aramaic.