Tongues?

[GandalfTheWise]

There was another thread a bit ago where the Hebrew gospel of Matthew came up.   Here's a link to a post I wrote in that one.  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/259775-the-hebrew-yshua-vs-the-greek-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=3306272   It has a few links in it.

 

 

Two main points:

1. Basically, we do have some existing physical manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, but from what I could see, they tend to be from later dates.  Unlike Greek Matthew which can be attested to with high confidence back to the 4th century,  the oldest complete version of Matthew in Hebrew (referred to as the Shem-Tob) is from the 14th century.  It was part of an anti-Christian treatise by a Jewish author who may or may not have accurately reproduced the sources he was copying from and may have chosen sources with a similar outlook to his.  There's a good chance that some passages in these manuscripts do bear witness to an original Hebrew form of some type, but it's not clear how accurately they reflect an original that Matthew wrote. 

2. Any doctrinal diverge from Greek versions may or may not reflect Matthew himself, but rather a fringe group whose ideas were by and by rejected by most Christians.  It's not clear that the original Hebrew source of all passages and phrases in these manuscripts was Matthew himself or if it was taken from Matthew and edited and produced by an individual or group on the fringes of Christianity similar to the Jewish Christians mentioned in Acts and Galatians who believed all Christians must obey the Law of Moses.  

My observation is that a lot of the articles and comments about Matthew in Hebrew come from JWs who hold the existing manuscripts in very high regard and see them as superior to the Greek version.  In some of those articles, you have to look pretty closely to figure out the outlook of the writer.

I'd hesitate to draw doctrinal conclusions from them where they differ from the Greek version of Matthew.  We simply do not know if the views in them that differ from Greek are directly from Matthew who walked with Jesus or were edited later by groups who had different views.

 

 

 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

23 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

There was another thread a bit ago where the Hebrew gospel of Matthew came up.   Here's a link to a post I wrote in that one.  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/259775-the-hebrew-yshua-vs-the-greek-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=3306272   It has a few links in it.

 

 

Two main points:

1. Basically, we do have some existing physical manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, but from what I could see, they tend to be from later dates.  Unlike Greek Matthew which can be attested to with high confidence back to the 4th century,  the oldest complete version of Matthew in Hebrew (referred to as the Shem-Tob) is from the 14th century.  It was part of an anti-Christian treatise by a Jewish author who may or may not have accurately reproduced the sources he was copying from and may have chosen sources with a similar outlook to his.  There's a good chance that some passages in these manuscripts do bear witness to an original Hebrew form of some type, but it's not clear how accurately they reflect an original that Matthew wrote. 

2. Any doctrinal diverge from Greek versions may or may not reflect Matthew himself, but rather a fringe group whose ideas were by and by rejected by most Christians.  It's not clear that the original Hebrew source of all passages and phrases in these manuscripts was Matthew himself or if it was taken from Matthew and edited and produced by an individual or group on the fringes of Christianity similar to the Jewish Christians mentioned in Acts and Galatians who believed all Christians must obey the Law of Moses.  

My observation is that a lot of the articles and comments about Matthew in Hebrew come from JWs who hold the existing manuscripts in very high regard and see them as superior to the Greek version.  In some of those articles, you have to look pretty closely to figure out the outlook of the writer.

I'd hesitate to draw doctrinal conclusions from them where they differ from the Greek version of Matthew.  We simply do not know if the views in them that differ from Greek are directly from Matthew who walked with Jesus or were edited later by groups who had different views.

 

 

 

 

And still, we have solid evidence [IF] we choose to listen to our Church Fathers, who followed the very same Apostles we read about within the New Testament, claiming the [THE VERY FIRST GOSPEL OF THE FOUR GOSPELS EVER WRITTEN WAS THE HEBREW MATTHEW GOSPEL].

 

I think that is more than enough evidence that anyone promoting the Greek version should be looked upon as being incorrect and WRONG!

[Guest kingdombrat]

Just now, kingdombrat said:

And still, we have solid evidence [IF] we choose to listen to our Church Fathers, who followed the very same Apostles we read about within the New Testament, claiming the [THE VERY FIRST GOSPEL OF THE FOUR GOSPELS EVER WRITTEN WAS THE HEBREW MATTHEW GOSPEL].

 

I think that is more than enough evidence that anyone promoting the Greek version should be looked upon as being incorrect and WRONG!

If we CHOOSE to listen to our [Church Fathers] concerning CREEDS, we should not hesitate to listen to them concerning their PROOFS about the [Hebrew Matthew Gospel]!

[Guest kingdombrat]

Are we now selecting what we want to be [TRUE] when it pertains to the Church Fathers, or just when it [BENEFITS] our side of the topic?

Edited December 7, 2020 by kingdombrat

[David1701]

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

There was another thread a bit ago where the Hebrew gospel of Matthew came up.   Here's a link to a post I wrote in that one.  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/259775-the-hebrew-yshua-vs-the-greek-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=3306272   It has a few links in it.

 

 

Two main points:

1. Basically, we do have some existing physical manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, but from what I could see, they tend to be from later dates.  Unlike Greek Matthew which can be attested to with high confidence back to the 4th century,  the oldest complete version of Matthew in Hebrew (referred to as the Shem-Tob) is from the 14th century.  It was part of an anti-Christian treatise by a Jewish author who may or may not have accurately reproduced the sources he was copying from and may have chosen sources with a similar outlook to his.  There's a good chance that some passages in these manuscripts do bear witness to an original Hebrew form of some type, but it's not clear how accurately they reflect an original that Matthew wrote. 

2. Any doctrinal diverge from Greek versions may or may not reflect Matthew himself, but rather a fringe group whose ideas were by and by rejected by most Christians.  It's not clear that the original Hebrew source of all passages and phrases in these manuscripts was Matthew himself or if it was taken from Matthew and edited and produced by an individual or group on the fringes of Christianity similar to the Jewish Christians mentioned in Acts and Galatians who believed all Christians must obey the Law of Moses.  

My observation is that a lot of the articles and comments about Matthew in Hebrew come from JWs who hold the existing manuscripts in very high regard and see them as superior to the Greek version.  In some of those articles, you have to look pretty closely to figure out the outlook of the writer.

I'd hesitate to draw doctrinal conclusions from them where they differ from the Greek version of Matthew.  We simply do not know if the views in them that differ from Greek are directly from Matthew who walked with Jesus or were edited later by groups who had different views.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that, it's interesting.

I'd have to say, believing in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, that Church usage, through the ages, has always been of the Greek gospel of Matthew and that wherever the Hebrew version diverges doctrinally or historically, then I would trust the Greek version. If the Hebrew version supports legalism or is anti the deity of Christ, then it is definitely apocryphal and not to be trusted at all.

Edited December 7, 2020 by David1701
missing word

[Justin Adams]

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

And still, we have solid evidence [IF] we choose to listen to our Church Fathers, who followed the very same Apostles we read about within the New Testament, claiming the [THE VERY FIRST GOSPEL OF THE FOUR GOSPELS EVER WRITTEN WAS THE HEBREW MATTHEW GOSPEL].

 

I think that is more than enough evidence that anyone promoting the Greek version should be looked upon as being incorrect and WRONG!

Take great care with the 'church fathers'. Irenaeus wrote in 'Against heresies' that Yeshua/Jesus was over 50 years old... etc.

Be careful.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Thanks for that, it's interesting.

I'd have to say, believing in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, that Church usage, through the ages, has always been of the Greek gospel of Matthew and that wherever the Hebrew version diverges doctrinally or historically, then I would trust the Greek version. If the Hebrew version supports legalism or is anti the deity of Christ, then it is definitely apocryphal and not to be trusted at all.

Why trust the Greek Version that [clearly was the translated version] of the Hebrew version?

 

Proof the [original] Matthew was written by Matthew in Hebrew but [no one] knows who translated it into Greek.   Why would you trust a translation over the Original?

 

Papias: Matthew composed the sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as best as they could (Eusebius's Church History 3.39.16).

 

   Irenaeus: Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and founding the church in Rome (Against Heresies 3.1.1).

 

  Origen: The first Gospel was that according to Matthew, who was once a toll-collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. He published it for those who became believers from Judaism, since it was composed in the Hebrew language (Eusebius's Church History 6.25.4).

 

Jerome: Matthew – who was also (called) Levi – was an apostle and former tax-collector. He first composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and wrote for the Jews of Judea. It is not known who translated the Gospel into Greek. The Hebrew Gospel still exists, and Jerome claimed to have read it. (Illustrious Men 3)

 

We don't even know WHO translated the Hebrew Matthew into Greek.   Don't you think that is important to know who wrote the version you base your Salvation upon?

Edited December 7, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Take great care with the 'church fathers'. Irenaeus wrote in 'Against heresies' that Yeshua/Jesus was over 50 years old... etc.

Be careful.

His views concerning the Hebrew Matthew version are backed up by others not associated with him.   Should we just refute the other 3 over 1 concerning which Language version?

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Take great care with the 'church fathers'. Irenaeus wrote in 'Against heresies' that Yeshua/Jesus was over 50 years old... etc.

Be careful.

BTW, Thank You, and I read by those claiming to know Irenaeus is that he did not mean that Jesus was literally 50 years old but that His Wisdom/Knowledge made Him seem to be much older than He was.

[Duck]