Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Not in that source.

Can you cite some specific ones then? If you can't, can you tell me where to find those Aramaisms or Hebraisms ? (as in a source?)

According to the text, the assistants also helped translate. As they were teachers and "professional" speakers, one can safely assume that Hebraisms or Aramaicisms were greatly reduced. There's a reason for that: Josephus was writing to persuade a Greek-speaking audience, and at that time "barbarian" or "provincial" speech was looked down upon. Having more eyes (especially from people who make their living by their use of the language) would mean a far more professional translation than normal.

Not so sure about that. He says he learned the language from them. What are "these means"? Them, or them helping him to learn the language?

[Outis]

Can you cite some specific ones then? If you can't, can you tell me where to find those Aramaisms or Hebraisms ? (as in a source?)

Not off the top of my head. As I've noted before, I have barely any of the requisite languages.

Not so sure about that. He says he learned the language from them. What are "these means"? Them, or them helping him to learn the language?

The sentence seems fairly clear to me.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Not off the top of my head. As I've noted before, I have barely any of the requisite languages.



The sentence seems fairly clear to me.

Ok now that I checked another translation, it seems legit.

[Outis]

Ok now that I checked another translation, it seems legit.

Fair enough.

So, to sum it all up. You have the vast majority of scholars who hold to Greek for the original text of Matthew. These are the folks who (unlike you or I) have enough of a command of the language to be able to analyze the text to a far greater degree than we can do. These scholars are of multiple religious backgrounds, with most being Christians of one stripe or another.

Against that, you have a small minority who feel that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Having had at least some of your questions answered, and at least some of your objections responded to, which way do you choose, and why? What evidence do you base your assessment on?

[The Pixie]

Well what reasons do they cite besides that one?

I have to admit to struggling to find much. This is what I found:

soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/matthew.pdf



http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...peed/ch11.html
This cannot possibly mean our Gospel of Matthew, for the identities of Greek expression between it and Mark and Luke cannot be reconciled with the idea that it is a translation; the Greek relationship between the three must have come through Greek and could not have survived independent translation, which always breeds variation in abundance.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ew-cathen.html


http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=1116&C=1229

[Paprika]

I have to admit to struggling to find much. This is what I found:

I do not have the capability to evaluate the other points. But for the first, the following question naturally arises: if Matthew was not a translation, then why did he not quote consistently from the Septugaint? That point cuts both ways. (The link is broken so I can't check to see what might have been said to address these points).

[Quantum Weirdness]

Fair enough.

So, to sum it all up. You have the vast majority of scholars who hold to Greek for the original text of Matthew. These are the folks who (unlike you or I) have enough of a command of the language to be able to analyze the text to a far greater degree than we can do. These scholars are of multiple religious backgrounds, with most being Christians of one stripe or another.

Against that, you have a small minority who feel that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Having had at least some of your questions answered, and at least some of your objections responded to, which way do you choose, and why? What evidence do you base your assessment on?

The objections that weren't answered still suggest to me that the Gospel was written in Hebrew. Nice talking with you though.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I have to admit to struggling to find much. This is what I found:

soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/matthew.pdf

He was influenced by the Septuagint? The culture that they lived in was more oral anyways (which would account for him using the Septuagint well)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...peed/ch11.html
This cannot possibly mean our Gospel of Matthew, for the identities of Greek expression between it and Mark and Luke cannot be reconciled with the idea that it is a translation; the Greek relationship between the three must have come through Greek and could not have survived independent translation, which always breeds variation in abundance.

Greek Matthew was translated once from Hebrew and this was what was then copied in my view.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ew-cathen.html

I think that the Greek was a modified version of the Hebrew (to an extent). How does the repetition of same words and expressions indicate that it was originally Greek?

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=1116&C=1229

Are the puns as prevalent as in the Hebrew? If they are, then I will reconsider my position. My opinion here is that Matthew saw the opportunity for a pun and used it. I don't think it balances 1:21 though which I think suggests some sort of linguistic relationship (i.e. call his name Jesus because??)

[Outis]

The objections that weren't answered still suggest to me that the Gospel was written in Hebrew. Nice talking with you though.

Which objections are still unanswered? At this point, I'm not trying to argue you out of them, I just want to see what you're placing on the scale that outweighs the majority scholarship position.

[The Pixie]

I do not have the capability to evaluate the other points. But for the first, the following question naturally arises: if Matthew was not a translation, then why did he not quote consistently from the Septugaint? That point cuts both ways. (The link is broken so I can't check to see what might have been said to address these points).

There is something weird about the URL, but do a Google search for "Dr. Constable's Notes on Matthew", it is the first link, at Sonic Light.

The article offers no reason, but a possibility springs to my mind. The Hebrew Bible is the original, so it may be that the author referred to this one when he was able to or felt it was more important to. He used the LXX at other times just because that was the one he was familiar with and had to hand. If the Hebrew version was readily to hand, I would expect him to use that exclusively.

[Outis]

There is something weird about the URL

For some reason, there are a few extra characters at the end. Delete those characters, and it comes right up.

The Hebrew Bible is the original, so it may be that the author referred to this one when he was able to or felt it was more important to. He used the LXX at other times just because that was the one he was familiar with and had to hand. If the Hebrew version was readily to hand, I would expect him to use that exclusively.

A better reason, IMO: most of the citations are from the LXX, some are closer to the Hebrew, but there is a third category. Some of the citations are freely quoted, omitting or changing words to suit the interests or theological point the author was trying to make. The variance is easiest explained by one phrase: the author used what suited his interests.

[Paprika]

A better reason, IMO: most of the citations are from the LXX, some are closer to the Hebrew, but there is a third category. Some of the citations are freely quoted, omitting or changing words to suit the interests or theological point the author was trying to make. The variance is easiest explained by one phrase: the author used what suited his interests.

This explanation also works for a translated Matthew.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Which objections are still unanswered? At this point, I'm not trying to argue you out of them, I just want to see what you're placing on the scale that outweighs the majority scholarship position.

The ones about Matt 1:21 and 2:23. I don't think that the puns one was answered well. 1 or 2 puns definitely don't make a good case but when they are about 5-6 and beyond, it does begin to make me think.

[Quantum Weirdness]

For some reason, there are a few extra characters at the end. Delete those characters, and it comes right up.



A better reason, IMO: most of the citations are from the LXX, some are closer to the Hebrew, but there is a third category. Some of the citations are freely quoted, omitting or changing words to suit the interests or theological point the author was trying to make. The variance is easiest explained by one phrase: the author used what suited his interests.

That seems to be correct.

[Quantum Weirdness]

One more thing I would like to note Outis. There was still a translation of Aramaic material (War) to Greek which left little linguistic evidence of translation regardless of whether or not it was translated by more than one person.