What a lover of error you have revealed yourself to be. You can't even read properly. And you post useless tripe of things you don't even understand. I keep laughing at everything you try to throw out there hoping it will stick.
Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek?
- Thread starter EclipseEventSigns
- 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!
- Status
Yes. @Mr E and @Grailhunter are some of the worst harassers I've seen here. They twist everything around to mock and ridicule. Their behaviour is very unchristian and one wonders what they are really trying to accomplish.
I've already put @Jay Ross on 'ignore'. And these two will join them. I recommend others do the same.
Last edited:
Its that flesh; may God judge. Lets move forward though by the spirit and remain in Christ.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Me! Ya got to be kidding, I am a sweetheart! I just cannot believe how wrong you can be all the time. It is like you read the scriptures through a kaleidoscope.
I know…. Terribly inconvenient when you made an hour long video about the Assamani “Gospel” that the Vatican has secreted away in their library to hide it from humanity, then someone comes along and links images to every page of it.
Hey, I get it. You’re embarrassed. And you should be, but that doesn’t mean you have to lash out.
It would be enough if you just erased the Internet of your silly video.
Your posts prove to intelligent carbon life forms that you have no clue what you are talking about. So, lets look at more facts you will not like Brother, friend.
The Willoughby Papyrus, a manuscript fragment from the third or fourth century CE containing text from John 1:49–2:1. A Greek fragment is the first-known New Testament papyrus written on the front side of a scroll
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
A list of texts that can be found online to aid the study of textual criticism.
library.sebts.edu
List of New Testament papyri - Wikipedia
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org
Evangelical Textual Criticism
An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com
Greek Language and Linguistics: Manuscripts
Ancient Greek manuscripts, New Testament manuscripts
www.greek-language.com
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
A list of texts that can be found online to aid the study of textual criticism.
library.sebts.edu
8 Ancient Manuscripts Validate New Testament
Important early New Testament manuscripts validate that our modern Bible is a reliable representation of the original texts.
www.josh.org
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - DTS Voice
In a recent debate Dan Wallace mentioned the discovery of papyri that might date back to the first century.
voice.dts.edu
New Mark Manuscript Is Earliest Yet
Bible scholars have been waiting for the Gospel fragment’s publication for years.
www.christianitytoday.com
Where to find the four oldest New Testament manuscripts
From Egypt to the UK, these libraries are home to Christianity's oldest documents.
aleteia.org
Dating the Oldest New Testament Christian Manuscripts
The New Testament that we read today in many different translations is not based on one single manuscript of the original Greek text.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Christian Manuscripts
The New Testament that we read today in many different translations is not based on one single manuscript of the original Greek text.
The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100…
biblearchaeologyreport.com
Since the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts are in Greek, it common sense tells honest people that the NT was written in Greek. I will alow that an edition of Matthew may have been written in Hebrew and in Greek based on a report by a early church fathers.
]"
The Gospel of Matthew Was First Written in Hebrew
january 4, 2014 by matthew ervin 22 commentsThough no copies are extant, there is good historical evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew. Around 130 A.D., Church father Papias (a former student of the Apostle John) explained:
So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 3:39)
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. Around 170 A.D., Irenaeus confirms and elaborates upon Papias’ report:
Matthew also 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)
Not only did Irenaeus teach that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in the Hebrew dialect, he also provided the order in which all four of the Gospels were written. Note that the order is in harmony with how the Gospels are arranged in the Canon and not in line with modern liberal theories.
Origen Adamantius was a highly influential theologian who produced many works covering several areas of Christian thought, including textual criticism. Around the middle of the third century, Origen wrote:
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 publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language. (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History, 6:25)
Origen affirmed both the canonical order of the Gospels and that Matthew’s was first written in Hebrew. He says that he came to learn this through tradition. In combination with the other material provided it seems that this tradition was one that was consistently taught from the time of the Apostles.
During the early fourth century, preeminent church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
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. (Eusebius, Church History, 3:24)
Matthew first made disciples out of his fellow Hebrews. He later fulfilled the Great Commission by serving other races. According to Eusebius, before Matthew left his own people he wrote his Gospel in their native language. This was done out of necessity because an actual witness to the ministry of Jesus would no longer be with them. This makes sense given that Matthew has the greatest Jewish emphasis among the Gospels.
The historical evidence and the tradition of the Church strongly indicate that Matthew’s Gospel was indeed first written in Hebrew. This being the case, the question as to where the Greek version came from arises. The Greek copies of Matthew’s Gospel do not bear the marks of being a translation and were therefore written separately. Matthew was responsible enough to leave the first group of people he witnessed to a copy of his Gospel in their own language. It only follows that he did the same with a subsequent group (or groups) who read Greek.
Some desire to ignore or question the scholarship of the men quoted here out of a fear that a Hebrew copy of Matthew would undermine the reliability of Scripture. This fear is unfounded, for the Greek copy of Matthew was still written by an apostle. And it is the Greek rendition which God chose to preserve through the ages. While the once existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel changes nothing in regards to the Canon, it is nevertheless a fascinating thing to ponder."
The Gospel of Matthew Was First Written in Hebrew
Though no copies are extant, there is good historical evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew. Around 130 A.D., Church father Papias (a former student of the Apostle John) expla…
appleeye.org
Another proof for an original Matthew is the overwhelming number of church fathers who had stated that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:39]
Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Against Heresies 3:1]
Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. [Eccl. Hist. 3:24]
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] 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]
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew. [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5]
ancient-hebrew.org
Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:39]
Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Against Heresies 3:1]
Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. [Eccl. Hist. 3:24]
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] 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]
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew. [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5]
Semitic Origins of the Book of Matthew | AHRC
Overwhelming evidence proves that the Book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew.
ancient-hebrew.org
This is an interesting article, but much of it characterized as "new" is not new at all. I would agree completely with the positions that 1) Matthew's gospel is the first one, not Mark's; this is a standard conservative position; and 2) that Hebrew was widely spoken in Judea during the time of Christ – at least this is how I would put it. I would not say "the apostle spoke Hebrew instead of Aramaic" or insinuate anything of the kind. The truth is the apostles and our Lord doubtless spoke both (as I have opined before) in addition to Greek. As I have also pointed out before, it is not unusual at all in world history for peoples dwelling at a nexus of civilizations, geographical boundaries and political divisions to speak as many languages as necessary to get by (even today, everyone in Switzerland learns at least German, French and Italian, and most know several other languages besides these). It is only in places like the US where we see multi-lingualism as unusual. So the fact that Matthew was Jewish and spoke Hebrew (as well as Aramaic and Greek) in no way proves that he wrote his gospel in Hebrew.
As to the evidence in Eusebius, as I have also said many times, like all library historians, Eusebius is only as good as his sources. In my experience with ancient writers, when they attribute sources they are more likely to have a good one. What does Eusebius say about his source for this tradition of a Hebrew-language gospel? He says that he (i.e., Eusebius himself) has heard ("they say" – unknown source) that Pantaeus when in India found the Gospel of Matthew. Notice that in Eusebius HE 5.10 we are not actually told that Matthew wrote his gospel "in Hebrew"; merely that this particular copy of the gospel reportedly found in India was "in Hebrew". The article's author explains the reason for a trip to India as being the large number of ancient Jewish communities there. Whether there is any truth to the supposition that this supposed trip of Bartholomew's (or the one ascribed to Pantaeus) ever happened or happened for this reason, if this reconstruction of events long after the fact on slender evidence is correct, it would only explain why one would want a Hebrew as opposed to a Greek copy of Matthew in India, namely for the use of the Hebrew-speaking communities there. Bartholomew is also claimed by the Armenians as the one who brought Christianity to their country, and the Armenian version of the scriptures dates at least as far back as the 5th century. This is later than Pantaeus by some two centuries, it is true, but in contrast to him and his copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew, we actually have textual evidence for the ancient Armenian version. So Eusebius' report is not news (except if one has not before read this passage); it is third hand and unattributed, and it doesn't actually say that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, only that a copy of it in Hebrew existed – but this is precisely what we should expect if Bartholomew's mission (or anyone else for that matter) had been to make the Word accessible to the target population (assuming the thesis of Jewish colonies in India being the recipients).
I have dealt with the Origen, Irenaeus and Papias fragments on this tradition before, pointing out that they are all derivative of the same source (i.e., the same one used by Eusebius), and since they say the same thing in almost the same language, they obviously should not be considered independent evidence. It is difficult to say what to make of the Shem Tov "gospel", but as the article itself reports late Hebrew versions of parts of the New Testament are not unprecedented. There are a variety of reasons (scholarly and apologetic as well as evangelical) why the book of Matthew may have been translated into Hebrew in later centuries. But the existence of a 14th century translation doesn't seem to me to be particularly convincing evidence that Matthew wrote the book in Hebrew originally (or that this is it, even if he had).
Were I to be a proponent of the "Hebrew first" theory, I wouldn't be finding anything much here either new or terribly convincing for my case. As always, evidence must be weighted. The existence of Matthew in Greek in various forms and in incredible volume from the 2-3 century forward compared to the existence of not one line of a Hebrew gospel in any early manuscript or papyrus form is to me still decisive.
As to the evidence in Eusebius, as I have also said many times, like all library historians, Eusebius is only as good as his sources. In my experience with ancient writers, when they attribute sources they are more likely to have a good one. What does Eusebius say about his source for this tradition of a Hebrew-language gospel? He says that he (i.e., Eusebius himself) has heard ("they say" – unknown source) that Pantaeus when in India found the Gospel of Matthew. Notice that in Eusebius HE 5.10 we are not actually told that Matthew wrote his gospel "in Hebrew"; merely that this particular copy of the gospel reportedly found in India was "in Hebrew". The article's author explains the reason for a trip to India as being the large number of ancient Jewish communities there. Whether there is any truth to the supposition that this supposed trip of Bartholomew's (or the one ascribed to Pantaeus) ever happened or happened for this reason, if this reconstruction of events long after the fact on slender evidence is correct, it would only explain why one would want a Hebrew as opposed to a Greek copy of Matthew in India, namely for the use of the Hebrew-speaking communities there. Bartholomew is also claimed by the Armenians as the one who brought Christianity to their country, and the Armenian version of the scriptures dates at least as far back as the 5th century. This is later than Pantaeus by some two centuries, it is true, but in contrast to him and his copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew, we actually have textual evidence for the ancient Armenian version. So Eusebius' report is not news (except if one has not before read this passage); it is third hand and unattributed, and it doesn't actually say that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, only that a copy of it in Hebrew existed – but this is precisely what we should expect if Bartholomew's mission (or anyone else for that matter) had been to make the Word accessible to the target population (assuming the thesis of Jewish colonies in India being the recipients).
I have dealt with the Origen, Irenaeus and Papias fragments on this tradition before, pointing out that they are all derivative of the same source (i.e., the same one used by Eusebius), and since they say the same thing in almost the same language, they obviously should not be considered independent evidence. It is difficult to say what to make of the Shem Tov "gospel", but as the article itself reports late Hebrew versions of parts of the New Testament are not unprecedented. There are a variety of reasons (scholarly and apologetic as well as evangelical) why the book of Matthew may have been translated into Hebrew in later centuries. But the existence of a 14th century translation doesn't seem to me to be particularly convincing evidence that Matthew wrote the book in Hebrew originally (or that this is it, even if he had).
Were I to be a proponent of the "Hebrew first" theory, I wouldn't be finding anything much here either new or terribly convincing for my case. As always, evidence must be weighted. The existence of Matthew in Greek in various forms and in incredible volume from the 2-3 century forward compared to the existence of not one line of a Hebrew gospel in any early manuscript or papyrus form is to me still decisive.
Christians Beware: Internet Frauds and the Need for Spiritual Discernment (part 2)
Internet Frauds and the Need for Spiritual Discernment; false doctrines in cyber-space
ichthys.com
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Whatever method @EclipseEventSigns is using for biblical and Christian study.....it is not working at all for him.
He needs to start from scratch with someone that knows mainstream Christianity and Christian history. But studying alone is not working for him.
He needs to start from scratch with someone that knows mainstream Christianity and Christian history. But studying alone is not working for him.
1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel
The Church fathers quoted here lived in the second to third centuries. They are unanimous that Matthew wrote the first Gospel, and it was authoritative for them–so it should be for us too.
drjimsebt.com
Manuscript Evidence tells me it was mostly Greek with the exceptions of Matthew and Hebrews which was written to Jewish Christans. Those two books were also written in Greek. Hellenism was pushed on conquered Nations including the Greek language. The area of Jesus was a trade route. The warning sign in the temple was in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The aramic theory is very recent. It is well known by cerified Historians like myself that the area of Jesus was trilingual. Some if not most of the Apostles were not able to read and write beyond a basic level for trade. Scribes were used to record the Apostles dictations. "Mark acting as Peter’s scribe" Mark’s Relationship With Peter Was the Foundation for His Gospel | Cold Case Christianity
2 Thessalonians 3:17
J.B. Phillips New Testament
17 This is the farewell message of PAUL, written in my own writing—my “mark” on all my letters.
Hellenistic Buildins around the time of Christ.
www.ritmeyer.com
www.metmuseum.org
pressbooks.bccampus.ca
www.thattheworldmayknow.com
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the Hellenistic period
The four centuries between the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the Gospels are sometimes called the “Silent Years”. This time period is also known as the intertestamental or deuter…
www.ritmeyer.com
Art of the Hellenistic Age and the Hellenistic Tradition | Essay | The Metropolitan Museum of Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Hellenistic kings became prominent patrons of the arts, commissioning public works of architecture and sculpture, as well as private luxury items that demonstrated their wealth and taste.
www.metmuseum.org
Hellenistic Period – Art and Visual Culture: Prehistory to Renaissance
pressbooks.bccampus.ca
Hellenism: Center of the Universe
- Hellenism: Center of the UniverseSatan tempted the first humans in the Garden of Eden in a clever way. "Did God really say...?" (Gen. 3:1) he asked. Adam and Eve were faced with an earthshaking choice. Who or what is the ultimate source of truth in the universe. God's command, "you must not...
www.thattheworldmayknow.com
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Some if not most of the Apostles were not able to read and write beyond a basic level for trade?
It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.
...
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories.
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Lack of knowledge, either of fact or law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time or talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable.
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories.
- Status
Similar threads
