Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177187 | ||
BradK I'll quote what I posted some years ago on the Hebrew as the spoke language. ----------- "Can anyone still believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic? The most advanced research says He spoke Hebrew. Using one verse to show He spoke Aramaic, when most of the Gospel and Acts say Hebrew, Archeology says Hebrew, Josephus says Hebrew, the early church fathers say Hebrew, Rabbinic literature says Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls say Hebrew, and coins minted in the first century BC say Hebrew. You said, “We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he spoke it from the cross when he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is the Aramaic, not Hebrew, version of Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Matthew records this in Hebrew (same words). The people in Mark's version are thinking that Jesus is calling Elijah which is only possible if He spoke the words as Matthew records in Hebrew since in Hebrew the term "Eli" can be either "My God" or a shortened from of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. "Eloi" in Aramaic can only mean, "My God". For Matthew; "lama" (why) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Other Hebrew words in the Greek text; levonah, mammom, Wai, rabbi, Beelzebub, corban, Satan, cammom, raca, moreh, bath, kor, zuneem, Boarnerges, Mor, Sheekmah, amen. All archeological finds are 9 to 1 in favor of Hebrew over Aramaic including for those things used by the common man of the day. The Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew 9 to 1 over Aramaic (the common man’s rules for the community were in Hebrew.) … and on and on and on it goes. . . Oh, and a fun one to explain: Jerome says he translated the Latin Vulgate directly from Matthew’s original Hebrew text. Jerome was the most competent Hebrew scholar of all the early church fathers, living in the Land for many years, learning Hebrew from the people who spoke it every day. Then there is the linguistic research which is beyond the scope of this forum I think. MJH" ------ That was posted way back when and since that time the archeological evidence has only increased in favor of Hebrew. All of this evidence is admissible in a court of law. Some of it can be argued against with some good points, but it is the shear volume of evidence over the span of all of these scholarly fields that make the case for Hebrew. I do, however, understand that I am in the minority both on this forum and in Christendom. But I also believe that will change over time as these things often take a long time to do so. MJH |
||||||
2 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 177211 | ||
Hi MJH, This is a very interesting discussion to me, and I'd like to add a few thoughts. I, for one, believe that Hebrew was the common language of the Jews at the time of Jesus, for all the reasons you have said, plus many more. The most compelling reason to think this is the Bible itself: Luk 23:38 And also an inscription was written over Him, in Greek and Latin and Hebrew letters: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Joh 5:2 And at Jerusalem is a pool at the Sheep Gate which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. Joh 19:13 Then hearing this word, Pilate led Jesus out. And he sat down on the judgment seat, at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Joh 19:17 And He went out bearing His cross, to the place called Of a Skull (which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha), Act 21:40 And he allowing him, standing on the stairs, Paul signaled with his hand to the people. And much silence taking place, he spoke in the Hebrew dialect, saying, And there are more like this. Several times we are told that someone spoke in the Hebrew language, and many times the Bible writers added notes for the reader translating the Greek words used into the Hebrew. Why bother if none spoke Hebrew? And as always with Biblical reality, there is a wealth of historical and archeological evidence to back this up. I know there are those that say, "well, it says "Hebrew", but it actually means "Aramaic". But this is true of many doctrines, where people will say the same thing to defend any number of non-Biblical view. "It doesn't really mean that." I just can't agree. There is a small book called "The Language Jesus Spoke", by Doug Hamp, which gives very concise documentation that Jesus, and the Jews of His time, spoke Hebrew. He gives those evidences that you have presented, plus many more like them, of which I would not be surprised to find you were already aware. Regarding the so-called "Q" manuscript, or of a Hebrew predecessor to the Gospel of Matthew, I, for one, have no opinion if such documents existed or not, but neither do I care, and I will tell you why. It is the Greek Gospel of Matthew that was accepted into the Canon of Scripture. We need to remember what that actually means. As the Bible was written, and shared, the Holy Spirit affirmed within the readers that this was indeed the written Word of God, inspired by Him. There were certain other criteria as well. They were apostolic, although not all apostolic writings were considered canonnical. They were in full agreement with the rest of Scripture, although not all writings that agreed with Scripture were considered to BE Scripture. It was the moving of the Holy Spirit within the Church that set apart (sanctified) certain writings. As that experience was shared within the Church, it became commonly accepted to be true, and such books as were attested by all to be divinely inspired were gathered together into the Canon. But the point is, it was the Greek gospel of Matthew that was included, not a supposed "Hebrew original". Let's say that Matthew original composed in Hebrew. He could have done a rough draft, why not? The Holy Spirit could have preserved that document as the Inspire Holy Scripture, but He didn't. Let's say Jerome had access to that "rough draft", and used it instead of the Greek writing. Well, if that is true, Jerome went outside of the canon for his translation. Not everything Matthew might have written was divinely inspired. If we were to read his notes, we might be able to gain insights, as if we were reading a commentary, but this would not be equal to reading Scripture. We know that Luke gathered from other sources, yet that does not take away from the fact of divine inspiration of what he used and didn't use, and what parts of Jesus' life and ministry the Holy Spirit chose to present to us in Luke's gospel. So I will join you, at least partially, in your minority. I find that this is not an uncommon place to be! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177234 | ||
Thank you for allowing me the company of at least one other on the Hewbrew as common language. Also, in regard to the Greek of Matthew being the accepted book into the canon, I completely agree with you. All the other stuff is interesting at best, but in the end, it is the Greek that is what has been preserved and accepted into the canon and that is what holds authority. MJH |
||||||