Subject: MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? |
Bible Note: 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 |