Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
But wasn't Matthew written in Hebrew?
#1
No.

Firstly, The Greek words used by Papias are MATQAIOS MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TA LOGIA SUNETAXATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

The word highlighted in red, DIALEKTWi, means "dialect" and not "language." Obviously, as it would be redundant to have a "Hebrew dialect" of the Hebrew language, the only thing that can be meant is a "Hebrew Dialect" of Aramaic....in other words, the dialect the of Aramaic that was common to the Judeans, as opposed to the myriad of other dialects in the area.

Secondly, who would have been Matthew's intended audience? That the common Jewish folk no longer spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic, after their return from Babylon is well documented hundreds of years before Meshikha ( Neh. 8:8 ). Who would benefit, or be able to understand, a Hebrew Gospel?

Finally, if Matthew really composed his Gospel in Hebrew and not Aramaic, then his Gospel is merely a translation of the Aramaic words of Meshikha, and not a first-hand account of the actual words Meshikha spoke - not much better than the Greek translations.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Is it possible that Shem-Tob used Aramaic Hebrew dialect on his translation? I have not seen it but heard it was a translation from Hebrew.

Paul
Reply
#3
There is something in the genealogy presented by Mattai following the Peshitta manuscript that personally doesnt make sense to me. It seems obviously that Mattai formed and presented the genealogy of Yeshua in an structure based in the number 14, to show that Yeshua was the Mashiach son of David and the one that is able to sit in the throne of David. When you write David "Dalet, Vav, Dalet" the numerical value is 14, but the Peshitta follows the other form to write the name David like Dalet, Vav, Yod, Dalet, that has the numerical value of 24, which doesnt match with the structure presented by Mattai based in the number 14. I would like to know your opinion about this, personally i prefer the Peshitta instead of the greek texts, i like very much the Peshitta, and i always try to find more evidence to say that the Peshitta is the most original manuscript, but in this one its seems to me that there is something wrong.

Shalom
Reply
#4
Iejezquel Wrote:When you write David "Dalet, Vav, Dalet" the numerical value is 14, but the Peshitta follows the other form to write the name David like Dalet, Vav, Yod, Dalet, that has the numerical value of 24, which doesnt match with the structure presented by Mattai based in the number 14.

I found an interesting article talking about the differences between the Masoteric Text and Death Sea Scrolls and David was written in the same way was written in the Peshitta. I don't think that Mattai want to do that connection with the text <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/aht/0_about.html">http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/aht/0_about.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
(04-12-2004, 02:04 PM)Paul Younan Wrote: Secondly, who would have been Matthew's intended audience?  That the common Jewish folk no longer spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic, after their return from Babylon is well documented hundreds of years before Meshikha ( Neh. 8:8 ).  Who would benefit, or be able to understand, a Hebrew Gospel?

Shalaamu (Shlama) Paul,
     A very interesting conclusion; nevertheless, compare the preface to the book of Ben-Sira in the Greek Septuagint:


Quote: Wrote:"...the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them."

--Ben-Sira prologue (Brenton's translation)


Almost the complete Hebrew original of Ben-Sira has survived.

     Ben-Sira was written around the 2nd century BCE (therefore about 100+ years before the Messiah's birth). So Hebrew may not have been completely dead. So the possibility of people understanding Hebrew in the Second Temple Period is not too improbable.

Blessings.
Shalaamu (Shlama)

-- Seitz (הלתואם Hal-Tawʔam)
"We have no power at all against the truth, but for the truth." -- 2 Corinthians 13:8
Reply
#6
(04-12-2004, 02:04 PM)Paul Younan Wrote: ..., who would have been Matthew's intended audience?  That the common Jewish folk no longer spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic, after their return from Babylon is well documented hundreds of years before Meshikha ( Neh. 8:8 ).  Who would benefit, or be able to understand, a Hebrew Gospel?

Finally, if Matthew really composed his Gospel in Hebrew and not Aramaic, then his Gospel is merely a translation of the Aramaic words of Meshikha, and not a first-hand account of the actual words Meshikha spoke - not much better than the Greek translations.


There is a video and two PDFs in the following link that well attest to the fact that Hebrew was never a dead language as many suppose.  As there is plenty of evidence pointing out that the Hebrew people wrote, read, and spoke the Hebrew Language before during and well after Yehoshua The Anointed One walked this earth. To conclude other wise would be a stark denial of facts. And yes while the Hebrew people spoke Aramaic when they had returned from captivity the prophet made they start learning Hebrew and even go so far as to send the foreign wives away in order to get back to a pure Hebrew way in which did not include writing the Scripture any longer in the Aramaic tongue as they did while they where in captivity. 

And yes while the Gospels went east to where they where preferred to be in Aramaic they too went east where the preference was Greek. Funny how the western christans say it was originally written in Greek while the eastern christians lay claim that the Gospels where written in Aramaic, both in taking a stance that their preferred languages are the original whereby giving their written word more validity. But both sides not only ignore that the Hebrew language was alive but go so far as to lay claims that it was dead. We also know that a many of the Hebrew writings where destroyed which would have included any Hebrew copies of the Gospels. No body was burning the Greek or Aramaic texts and that is the very reason that the Aramaic targums where written so that they could read from them in the Synagogues each Shabbawth as it was outlawed to read from any Hebrew Scriptures. Most likely the Greek texts came about as the western christians wanted to distance themselves from any for of a Hebrew heritage to escape persecution from the Romans as well. 


And finally, to conclude that any Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospels would be but mere translations of Yehoshua The Anointed One's words would also be but a mere opinion based on partial evidence and not the whole sum of the facts strewn throughout history. 


(Video and PDfs are best veiwed downloaded, as the online veiwers have issues)
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/nd5o7ut...or_Aramaic 
May,
YHWH bless thee and keep thee;
YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee;
YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom.


Your brother in Yehoshua The Anointed One.

will
Reply
#7
I don't think that people who believe that the gospels were written in Aramaic think that Hebrew was a "dead" language in the first century CE.
It's just poisons the well to say so. After all the Hebrew bible was written in Hebrew. So people knew the language. But, the existence of translators in the synagogues must give us some kind of clue. Smile
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)