Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10352 | ||
Greetings again, Tim! There's a friend of mine who has some 'evidence' that Matthew was written in Hebrew.. He writes, "HISTORIC EVIDENCE The historic evidence that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is abundant. a.. Papias (150-170 AD) said "Matthew composed in the words of the Hebrew dialect" b.. Irenius (circa 170 AD) said "Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect." c.. Origin (circa 210 AD) "The first gospel is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Jesus the Messiah, who having published for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew." d.. Eusebius (circa 315 AD) who wrote the most authoritative compilation of the history of the believers during the first 250-300 years, also added his voice to the fact that Matthew was originally published in Hebrew and cited how it was found in different parts of the world in Hebrew, like India. e.. Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329) claimed Matthew was originally written in Hebrew f.. Epiphanius (circa 370 AD) spoke of the Nazarene believers as saying "They have the gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for the gospel is still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters." g.. Jerome (circa 382 AD), son of historian Eusebius and a skilled translated in several languages Latin and Greek, also said Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek later. He said the original Hebrew copy was available in a library in Caesarea in his day. Jerome testified that he got a copy of the Hebrew version from the believers in Syria and used it as his basis for his Latin translation. In Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, (Book I, verse 13, circa 402 AD) he said he obtained help from a Jew in this translation. h.. Ishodad (circa 850 AD) also acknowledged how the original Hebrew copy of Matthew had been preserved in a library in his days. In 1553, Pope Julius III signed a decree banning the Talmud in Rome, resulting in the confiscation of not only the Talmud, but "anything that looked like the Talmud". Thus many Hebrew copies of Matthew were burned along with the Talmud. Today, only about 3 manuscripts in the original Hebrew still survive." Please tell me your thoughts! Blessings! Nolan |
||||||
2 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10531 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I am in the process of breaking down your detailed posts so that I can comment on them. I would like to begin with the historical evidence that Matthew was written in Hebrew originally. This has always been one of my pet peeves with modern critics. The historical evidence seems overwhelming that Matthew was originally written and Hebrew and was written first. Yet, because of the current documentary theories, the historical evidence is ignored. Everyone of the quotes above make it clear that the early church fathers all believed Matthew was written in Hebrew. It is theoretically possible that they could be mistaken, however that possibility seems remote given the fact that most of these writers were only a short time removed from the composition of the original Gospels. On of my favorite authors, Donald Guthrie, writes this in his New Testament Introduction: "This evidence points to an unbroken tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and advocates of any hypothesis which disagrees with this must suggest an adequate explanation of so consistent a tradition. The usual explanation is that later Church Fathers were merely reiterating Papias' original mistake, or at least confusion, over what Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic. But since Irenaeus and Origen were both Greek-speaking and both presumably possessed Matthew's Gospel only in Greek, it is strange that neither of them considered the tradition of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original to be at all suspicious." - Pg. 39. Futhermore, the quote your friend refered to from Irenaeus above even dates the composition of Matthew. He says, "Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church." (Adv. Haer. iii. I.I) So, my thoughts on this point are simple: We should make sure that our documentary theories line up with history, which many modern critics fail to do. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10549 | ||
Thank you Tim! I agree with you 100 percent! History is correct and the "modern critics" only promote theories which provide only doubt and confusion in light of History. So Matthew was the first of the Gospels written, and it was written in Hebrew. This definitely makes more sense and puts the history behind Matthew into a new light! Blessings my friend! Nolan |
||||||