Matthew was written in Greek, though we have reasons to believe that a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew once existed.
A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position
- Thread starter Moonwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Matthew was written in Greek, though we have reasons to believe that a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew once existed.
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that
Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
I show you evidence of Mattew was first written in Hebrew.
Show us your evidence Matthew was first written in Greek.
Last edited:
You don't need to send me a religious resume, just your arguments will do.
Last edited:
The web site clearly stated that all these are spiritual guides, draw us closer to GOD. Are you always rejecting things that draw you close to GOD?Here is a Catholic site with 15 prayers to Mary with their unbiblical pronunciations.
10 Powerful Prayers Every Catholic Must Say to the Virgin Mary Today
These prayers reflect the deep reverence and love that Catholics have for Mary, recognizing her unique role as the Mother of God and our spiritual mother.www.practicalfaiths.com
Something outside the Canon does not mean no reference value.
In Jude 1:14–15, the author explicitly cites 1 Enoch 1:9, writing: Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone...
Even Jesus quoted non-canonical texts in his teaching.
Jesus' teaching "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12) mirrors earlier ethical inversions found in Jewish wisdom literature, including Tobit 4:15 ("What you hate, do not do to anyone")
Martin Luther Iin the preface to his translation of the Apocrypha, Luther explicitly defended keeping them bound inside the Christian Bible,: "Cui bono? What good are such books? Even if they do not have the same authority as Holy Scripture, they are nevertheless useful and good to read."
You are too poisoned by 'sola scriptura'!
Last edited:
It's important that you understand that I'm quite familiar with Catholic teachings and practice.
Totally agree. But not infallible, as Scripture is. Just because something is in an old document doesn't make it true either.
I'm not going to write a dissertation on this but here's some lines of evidence:
- Matthew relies heavily on the Greek text of Mark, often using Mark's Greek phrasing.
- The Greek style of Mark is fluid and easy, and not clunky as is often the case when translating from Hebrew to Greek.
- Matthew often cites the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew.
- We haven't found any Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, but we have numerous Greek manuscripts of Matthew.
I rather prefer you to write a mini-dissertation than just a few simple lines without any supporting materials.
Just like firing blank shots to the air.
Why do you suspect we don't have any ancient manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, and that all the very earliest manuscripts of Matthew are in Greek?
We don't have any manuscripts of the Pentateuch written by Moses in proto-Sinaitic script does not mean there never have one.
You wrote:
"Clearly it's not stated specifically in the text..."
and:
"her question - given all the other available data - is best explained that for some reason in her mind, she thought he meant that she would be pregnant before consummating the marriage."
I understand that you think Mary inferred a pre-consummation conception. You've already acknowledged that Luke does not explicitly state this and that you're proposing it as the explanation that best accounts for why Mary asked the question.
My question, then, is why that should be considered the most natural inference. Gabriel merely says, "You will conceive and bear a Son," and you've already argued that Mary expected a normal marriage with Joseph, including ordinary marital relations.
So why wouldn't the more natural inference be that the announced conception would occur through those expected marital relations? In other words, why should Mary infer from Gabriel's announcement that the conception would occur before consummation rather than through the ordinary marital relations you say She expected with Joseph?
That is the point I keep coming back to.
If, as you've argued, Mary expected a normal marriage and future marital relations with Joseph, then future conception through Joseph was already an available explanation. Yet your interpretation requires Mary to set that expectation aside and instead infer that Gabriel was announcing a conception that would occur prior to those expected marital relations.
My question is simply: why should that be regarded as the more natural inference from Gabriel's words? He says only:
"You will conceive and bear a Son."
He does not say that the conception will occur immediately, nor does he say that it will occur before She comes together with Joseph.
That is why I continue to find the issue unresolved.
Similar threads
