What Version of the Bible do you read

[franklinmonroe]

... He was talking about the hebrew letters. Matthew was first recorded in Hebrew. ...

Yes, Jesus may have been referring to Hebraic characters based upon the context (NOTlanguage); Jesus mentions the Hebraic "law" and the Hebraic "prophets" (but no Psalms or Ketuviim here). Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV) --

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ​

There is virtually no evidence to suggest that Matthew was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). You are welcome to your minority opinion, but it is just that: an unsubstantiated theory. This unconventional sentiment may be indicative of some of your other views which seem to lack much credibility.

 

[Eliyahu]

There is virtually no evidence to suggest that Matthew was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). You are welcome to your minority opinion, but it is just that: an unsubstantiated theory. This unconventional sentiment may be indicative of some of your other views which seem to lack much credibility.

There are many literatures about the language of NT, especially Matthew.
At least some part of NT were written in Hebrew, though some may have been written in Greek. Then all the NT were preserved in Greek later.
Paul delivered the address in Jerusalem in Hebrew. Why? Because Hebrew was the language spoken by the people of Israel at that time.

The first evidence for Mattean authorship was believed to be Papias, a second century Bishop of Hierapolis. His findings are stated in Eusebius H.E. 3.39, that says, ‘Matthew made and ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew (or: Aramaic) language, and each one translated (or: interpreted) it as he was able’” (Allison and Davies 2004, xi). Although because Matthew is not stated as the author in the actual book modern scholars have rejected the claims that Matthew wrote this gospel.

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters and in the "Hebrew dialect", which is thought to refer to Aramaic.

( Aramaic was mentioned neither by Eusebius nor by Papias, nor by Irenaeus. But the author of this article added such note in bracket)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Matthew




Baptist College Report

1.2.2. There are other early sources that also claim that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.
A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.
B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language."
C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).
D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew's gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew's gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence" (H.E. 3.24.6).
E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill. 3; see Ad Damas. 20; Ad Hedib. 4). Jerome sometimes refers to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in order to clarify the meaning of the Greek text.
F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Panarion 29.9.4). It seems that he is referring to the same Hebrew version of Matthew known to Jerome.
If Papias means by logia "gospel," then there exist seven relatively early testimonies to the fact that Matthew the tax collector wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. What might you conclude about the composition of the Gospel of Matthew from this evidence?
( Again, in the ancient record, Aramaic was not mentioned, but they said “ in their language”, and Paul delivered the address in Hebrew)
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm



Manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, were used by Jewishpolemicists during the Middle Ages. The most important are described briefly, below.
Some scholars have argued that these medieval Hebrew manuscripts may have been descended (without any intervening translation) from ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, which were used by early Christians in the first or second century, but were nearly extinct by the time of Jerome, late in the fourth century (Howard 1995).
Other scholars reject this theory, and argue that the medieval Hebrew manuscripts were instead descended (by translation) from medieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore that it is extremely unlikely that any of the unique readings found in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could be ancient (Petersen 1998). These scholars believe that the ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, if they ever existed, are lost and have no extant untranslated descendants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew#CITEREFPetersen1998

 

[franklinmonroe]

I am in awe of your ability to 'google' and copy-n'-paste.

Why won't you admit you were wrong to suggest that Jesus read from a sequentially ordered 'Bible'? Why won't you admit that it was ridiculous to suggest that one Masoretic Text could be superior to another merely because of the order of its books?

 

[Eliyahu]

Messianic Jews know this matter quite well. Matthew was a Levite, His name in Hebrew was Matityahu, and the Hebrew language was dominant among the Jews, though they used Latin for the Politics, and Greek for the commerce and culture, Aramaic in the region of Decapolis.

These are Hebrew words used in the Gospel.

1. "Korban" is a technical term of Hebrew origin.
2. Shiloam in John 9 is from Shiloach
3. "Rabbi" is Hebrew .
4. "Raca" again from a Hebrew word (See 1K22:16 where RQ means "nothing".)
5. Bethesda ( Jn 5) is from Bet Heseda.
6. Bethany from Bet- Hanany
7. Golgota from Golgolta
8. Gethshemane from Gat Shemane in Hebrew

The main language used in Israel at that time was Hebrew.

Jesus spoke in Hebrew, Paul spoke in Hebrew.
Aramaic was not understood very well by the people at the time when Jesus cried, " Eli, Eli, Lama, Sabachtani"

 

[Eliyahu]

I am in awe of your ability to 'google' and copy-n'-paste.

Why won't you admit you were wrong to suggest that Jesus read from a sequentially ordered 'Bible'? Why won't you admit that it was ridiculous to suggest that one Masoretic Text could be superior to another merely because of the order of its books?

I do have the literatures about this. But I cannot copy them and paste them here, and these are quite well known fact which you may have not known yet.

The Masoretic in the order of LXX must have been compiled to correspond to LXX later. There was no reason for the MT to follow LXX.

 

[Keith M]

I checked it recently and found that many sites said 12, but I FOUND one site disagreeing with them.

So you admit it was you and not me who chose a site that agrees with your POV.

 

[Keith M]

I don't defend the 17 century KJV either, but what I say is that KJV 1611 containing AP is understandable, for that situation.

So, are you happy with the current KJV now? or did you bring up that issue just for arguing?

Personally, I don't believe the Apocrypha is the word of God, so I have no problem with later KJVs and most modern translations not including those books. I feel the Apocrypha is good reading material - just like many other Christian writings that aren't the word of God.

 

[EdSutton]

Sorry, Askjo. I didn't realize your primary language is ASL.

That is ok.

FTR, I did know this, re Askjo, and that is the primary reason you have not seen Language Cop on your case (as well as that of DeafPosttrib) for the sentence structure, unlike he gets on some others.

However, I do have one question. As one who, of necessity, has to 'translate' into and out of the English (or another) language, on a regular basis, in some of your own communicating, why do you simultaneously advocate ONLY one English version that also had to be translated (from three other Biblical languages into whatever language is under consideration), above all others? Why would you, in your communicating in your own primary language, advocate ONLY one translation of a translation of a translation to a particular edition, into another language, which also would need to be "back translated" again, making at least four chances of erroneous understanding?

Remember, I actually prefer a particular study edition of the KJV (a 1967 KJV edition) and a particular study edition of the NKJV (a 1989 NKJV edition) myself (among other things, primarily because I am familiar with the location of some verses I fairly often refer to on the pages, hence I can, as of now anyway, replace a worn edition with an exact replica), because I believe that the identical textual bases that lay behind these two is generally superior to those of most other of the better known newer versions that are generally available, so I cannot be accurately 'charged' with being any anti-KJV.

As to the NT textual basis, I am definitely a 'majority textist' which is not exactly equal to a TR advocate, which I am not.

FTR, I eagerly await a readily available 'solid' translation of the MT of the NT, that is generally done more in the manner of 'formal equivalence' such as is the basic 'style' of the NKJV, KJVs, and NASB, and not that of the NIVs, NLT, or others along that general line.

Ed

 

[Askjo]

DeafPosttrib)

I know who he is. I met him at a Baptist conference a few years ago.

 

[Eliyahu]

Personally, I don't believe the Apocrypha is the word of God, so I have no problem with later KJVs and most modern translations not including those books. I feel the Apocrypha is good reading material - just like many other Christian writings that aren't the word of God.

That's what KJV 1611 indicated.

 

[Keith M]

Eliyahu, obviously you believe the location of the apocryphal books indicates whether a particular Bible translation is right or wrong in including those books. I don't think it matters where those books are printed in the translation. I believe the inclusion of those books is adding to the word of God. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, obviously you believe the location of the apocryphal books indicates whether a particular Bible translation is right or wrong in including those books. I don't think it matters where those books are printed in the translation. I believe the inclusion of those books is adding to the word of God. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Keith, obviously you believe Apocrypha was a problem because KJV contained it, regardless of the situation at that time, even if you can tolerate that any information like maps can be included in the Bible.
Of course I know you disagree with me on this. It is OK for me too.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

20 page limit reached