# Hebrew original of Mathew



## Eoghan (Sep 10, 2009)

I am hearing a lot about an original Hebrew text for Mathew.  To support this the following are quoted:


Papius Bishop of Heirapolis
Iraneus Bishop of Lyons
Origen
Eusebius Bishop of Caeserea
Epiphanius
Jerome

I have no detailed knowledge of these characters so fill me in. How reliable is our record of what they say? How reliable are they?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 11, 2009)

The problem with the theory, even if true, is...

we don't have such a work.

In other words,, God was pleased to preserve Matthew in Koine, and not in Aramaic (or Hebrew, even less likely since it wasn't the language used in everyday discourse in 1st cent. Judea or Galilee).

If Mark is, actually, chronologically prior to Matthew, then a Hebrew original of Matthew is even more far-fetched.

If Matthew is the first Gospel written, it could have been preceded by scraps of Hebrew writing, as Christians all over Judea and Galilee (and beyond) might record the Apostle's preaching in bits and pieces (probably in Aramaic).

However, at some point the standard version was penned, practically without question by Matthew, and that version was Greek. Attempting to scrounge for pre-inscripturated revelation, by trying to get "behind" the text that was given to us, is speculative at best. It is trying to be wiser than God.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 11, 2009)

This theory of a Hebrew Matthew does not explain why the vantage point of Matthew is Greek, since when quoting Aramaic or Hebrew words, the Holy Spirit inspired the author to translate such phrases into Greek, for the sake of the Greek speaking audience.

Cheers,


----------



## Eoghan (Sep 11, 2009)

I think what annoys me is the suggestion that Papius et al. were overlooked by scholars and the matter was not addressed.

Just before I got up this morning I went back to bed with Donald Guthrie. Starting at the bottom of page 33 of "Introduction to the New Testament" he discusses the tradition of the Hebrew text reputed to be the "original" and continues through to page 43. It was a fair treatment I thought although indecisive. 

What annoys me in the Hebrew text scholars is that they do not give the counter arguments of 
1. Aramaic sayings / quotations
2. the universal (?) quoting of the LXX
3. examples of 1st century Greek (koinone?)and Aramaic 

They do produce examples of Hebrew and Hebrew idioms in the gospels but one swallow doth not a summer make.

Can you redirect me to a discussion of the Greek/Aramaic idioms and language in the NT? I have the afformentioned Intro to the NT by Donald Guthrie, The Canon of Scripture and Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity both by FF Bruce. 

Is there a small, popular (I need something not overtly scholarly - FF Bruce type?) paperback giving the influence of Greek thought and idiom on the NT, Something to serve as a counterbalance to "Yeshua" by Ron Moseley who trys to show the numerous Jewish (i.e. _Hebrew_) idioms in the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Eoghan (Sep 24, 2009)

*Exegetical Fallacies - D.A. Carson*

This (book above) has helped a lot. It explains a lot about caution in exegesis and the priority you have to give to context.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 24, 2009)

If a Hebrew Matthew were found, would we need to take it into account as a new textual variant? Maybe refer to it in footnotes of Bible translations? This is assuming it isn't just the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or another lost apocryphal work.


----------

