Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:55 am
I am pretty sure that "this account" is all Clement and that Eusebius' saying that Papias agrees with him is in an overall sort of sense. And I am suspicious of the details in Cassiodorus; I think that Cassiodorus could be a bit expansionist. But I have more to study on that topic before committing to anything.

I've gathered that Cassiodorus is a bit expansionist, but that wouldn't matter in this case since Eusebius' summarization also has more details than Ireneaus mentions (at least in AH 3.1.1).

Something else has been nagging me though, and I wonder if you might be able to help. I've been thinking that if Eusebius (or Irenaeus, and maybe Clement) knew that Papias said there were multiple translations of the Hebrew Matthew then they could have thought that the NT Matthew was one of them, but perhaps, even though they were aware that Papias said there were translations, they instead thought that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then wrote the NT version in Greek (not as a translation). Is there anything that suggests this possibility in Irenaeus or Eusebius?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:11 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:55 am
I am pretty sure that "this account" is all Clement and that Eusebius' saying that Papias agrees with him is in an overall sort of sense. And I am suspicious of the details in Cassiodorus; I think that Cassiodorus could be a bit expansionist. But I have more to study on that topic before committing to anything.

I've gathered that Cassiodorus is a bit expansionist, but that wouldn't matter in this case since Eusebius' summarization also has more details than Ireneaus mentions (at least in AH 3.1.1).

Something else has been nagging me though, and I wonder if you might be able to help. I'm thinking that if Eusebius (or Irenaeus, and maybe Clement) knew that Papias said there were multiple translations of the Hebrew Matthew then they could have thought that the NT Matthew was one of them, but perhaps, even though they were aware that Papias said there were translations, they instead thought that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then wrote it in Greek (not as a translation). Is there anything that suggests this possibility in Irenaeus or Eusebius?
Not directly. I mean, they all seem to be referring to our canonical Greek Matthew when they quote from Matthew; yet they do not explicitly say that Matthew translated his own work, and Eusebius appears to assume it was someone else in one passage (see below).

It might be presumed in the following:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2-3: 2 For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, [112-113] being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they-for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians-sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,-He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation. 3 Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared-for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;-[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements] just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.

This is the legend of the Seventy, of course. The Seventy translators each translated the entire Pentateuch into Greek, and miraculously their translations all matched, word for word, upon comparison. Irenaeus then suggests that the apostles, including Matthew, all agreed with the LXX translation. This agreement would have to be in Greek, would it not? If so, then Irenaeus is indirectly saying that Matthew (and the rest) wrote in Greek.

Origen appears to believe that Matthew wrote the Greek gospel in one of his lesser known works:

From Origen, On Prayer: Let us now consider what the word epiousion, needful, means. First of all it should be known that the word epiousion is not found in any Greek writer whether in philosophy or in common usage, but seems to have been formed by the evangelists. At least Matthew and Luke, in having given it to the world, concur in using it in identical form. The same thing has been done by translators from Hebrew in other instances also; for what Greek ever used the expression enotizou or akoutisthete instead of eistaota dexai or akousai poice se.

Matthew and Luke seem to have given the world the same Greek word, according to Origen.

Here is Eusebius, however:

Eusebius, To Marinus, on Matthew 28.1: The wording “late of the sabbath” is that of the translator of the scripture; now [ὁ μέν], the evangelist Matthew handed down the gospel in Hebrew, and the person [ὁ δέ] who turned it into Greek called the time dawning towards the Lord’s day “late of sabbaths”.

ὁ μέν versus ὁ δέ. That is a change of subject in Greek: two different people. But of course here Eusebius is desperate to acquit the gospels of contradiction.

Hope this helps (?).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:22 pm
Eusebius, To Marinus, on Matthew 28.1: The wording “late of the sabbath” is that of the translator of the scripture; now [ὁ μέν], the evangelist Matthew handed down the gospel in Hebrew, and the person [ὁ δέ] who turned it into Greek called the time dawning towards the Lord’s day “late of sabbaths”.

ὁ μέν versus ὁ δέ. That is a change of subject in Greek: two different people. But of course here Eusebius is desperate to acquit the gospels of contradiction.

Hope this helps (?).

That was all interesting, but especially the above Eusebius. Regardless of his motive, it at least shows his awareness of and openness to the idea that the Hebrew Matthew had been translated. :thumbup:
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

This webpage offers some food for thought regarding Eusebius on this issue:

Eusebius' Statements of Matthew's Authorship of the Greek Gospel

1) Eusebius refers to Matthew’s translating of the Hebrew text to Greek in his Old Testament quotations.
In his Commentary on Psalms, he does this by referring to Matthew’s translating of the Hebrew to Greek in citing OT passages. Only if Matthew was the author of the Greek Matthew, could Matthew be said to change the Hebrew text into Greek when he was writing (or translating) the text of the Greek Gospel of Matthew.

Eusebius, Commentary on Psalms, Ps. 78 (Comparing Ps. 78:2 to Matt.13:35)

“Which also the scripture of the sacred gospels teaches, where it is said: ‘All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables. And without a parable spake he not unto them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation.’ For instead of, ‘I will speak dark sayings of old,’ [or from the beginning,] Matthew, as being a Hebrew, uses a translation of his own, saying: ‘I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation.’ Instead of which Aquila has translated: ‘I will pour down things which have been enigmatical from the beginning.’ And Symmachus: ‘I will cause to spring up ancient dark sayings.’”9

William Lee evaluated Eusebius’ statement about Ps. 78,

“Eusebius, commenting on Ps. 78, observes that the phraseology of the LXX is different from that employed by S. Matthew, who, himself master of the Hebrew language, has cited the words according to his own translation…”10

Thomas Townson shows his agreement when he wrote,

“Eusebius also, who in one place relates that Matthew wrote in Hebrew in another remarks, that in Chapt. xiii. ver. 35. he does not follow the Seventy, but as a Hebrew makes his own translation.”11

2) Eusebius directly states that Matthew translated the Hebrew text of his gospel into Greek and gives an example.

In his work, Questiones Ad Marinum, Eusebius clearly states that Matthew himself changed or translated the Hebrew into the Greek Matthew.

Eusebius, Questiones Ad Marinum (Comparing Matt. 28:1 to Jn.20:1)

“For on the one hand the evangelist Matthew transmitted the gospel in the Hebrew language. On the other hand, having changed it to the Greek language, he said ‘the hour drawing towards dawn unto the Lord’s day, after the close of the Sabbath.’ Thus therefore, Matthew mentioned the time drawing towards the dawn of the Lord’s Day, ‘after the close of the Sabbaths [plural]’ not having said ‘the evening of the Sabbath’, nor ‘after the Sabbath [singular].'"

William Lee comments on this passage also,

“He [Eusebius] is discussing the relation of S. Matt, xxviii.1, to S. John, xx. 1…On this, he proceeds to argue as if the Greek term ‘opse’ had proceeded from S. Matthew; as well as from the use of the plural, sabbaton.”

3) Eusebius refers to the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew and then in the same paragraph refers to the Gospel of Matthew written in Greek indicating that he saw them as one gospel.
Eusebius' reference occurs in the passage below from his Church History.

This indicates that he referred to them as the same work because the Greek Gospel was Matthew’s expanded translation of his original Hebrew Gospel.

In v.5 below, Eusebius mentions that Matthew and John were the only apostles who left Christians written memorials (gospels).

In v. 6, Eusebius refers to Matthew’s writing of his gospel in Hebrew with the words, “committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue.”

In v.7, he refers to John the Apostle having all three gospels and then writing his gospel. When he refers to these Gospels that John had, he also says about all three that they came “into the hands of all” which means that the church at large possessed the three Gospels which Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote. The only Gospel of Matthew that the church possessed at large was the Greek Gospel of Matthew. He refers to John accepting the Greek Matthew and its truthfulness along with the other two.

Eusebius Church History 3.24.5-8

“v.5 And the rest of the followers of our Savior, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.
v.6 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.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.”

9. For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”
10. Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.” And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.”

If you look carefully, you will see that Eusebius refers to the Hebrew Matthew of v.5 in v.7 as “the three gospels already mentioned” yet he refers to the Greek Matthew when he says, “having come into the hands of all.” The only way that could be true is if Eusebius considered them both as one work, a Hebrew and Greek version of one Gospel of Matthew. This is perfectly understandable if the Greek Matthew was an expanded translation of the Hebrew Matthew both written by Matthew.

In v.9 and 10, he compares the writings of Matthew with Mark and Luke using similar phrasing expressing authorship for all four evangelists while quoting from the Greek Matthew.

Thomas and Farnell agree with this conclusion when they comment on this passage of Eusebius (3.24.5-10),
“Though Eusebius mentions that Matthew first wrote in the Hebrew language, he also considers Greek Matthew to have come from the apostle's hand. He notes that John was aware of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and confirmed their accuracy when he composed his gospel. Eusebius refers to sections of the Greek Matthew and ascribes them to the apostle as their author."

4) Eusebius indicates that Matthew wrote a passage that could only have come from Greek Matthew, thus indicating his belief that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew.

In the passage below, Eusebius quotes the words of Jesus on the cross in Matthew’s Gospel. These words are first given in the Hebrew Aramaic which Jesus spoke to explain why people thought Jesus was crying out for Elijah. It is then translated into Greek by the author whom Eusebius says is Matthew when he writes “Matthew recorded.” This could only be true of the Greek Matthew where the author would have translated them into Greek to help his readers understand what Jesus was saying. There would have been no need for this in the Hebrew Matthew.

Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 10.8

“The words, ‘My God, give ear to me, why hast thou forsaken me?’ spoken at the opening of the Psalm, are recorded by Matthew to have been said by our Saviour at the time of the Passion: ‘And at the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and at the ninth hour Jesus called with a loud voice, Eloim, Eloim, lama sabachthani, that is to say, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’”
(Quote is from The Proof of the Gospel Being The Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, Tr. W.J. Ferrar, Vol.1 The Macmillan Company, New York, 1920 (CCEL))

John Owen concurs with this when he writes,

“The words he uttered were taken from Ps. 22:1, of which ‘Eli, Eli, lama’ are Hebrew, and ‘sabachthani’ is the Aramean or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the language then in common use…’That is to say, i. e. which being interpreted.’ These are the words of the Evangelist, who wrote his gospel in Greek, but retained the words as spoken by Jesus, in order to show why the Jews represented him as calling upon Elias. Those who contend that Matthew's gospel was first written in Hebrew or the Aramaic, make the words ‘that is to say,’ those of the translator.”

5) Eusebius refers to Matthew as the writer of the Greek Gospel of Matthew. He writes of the “gospel written by him” and quotes Greek Matthew.

Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 3.5

“The Apostle Matthew, if you consider his former life, did not leave a holy occupation, but came from those occupied in tax-gathering and over-reaching one another. None of the evangelists has made this clear, neither his fellow-apostle John, nor Luke, nor Mark, but [Matthew] himself, who brands his own life, and becomes his own accuser. Listen how he dwells emphatically on his own name in the Gospel written by him, when he speaks in this way: ‘And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.’”
(Quote is from The Proof of the Gospel Being The Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, Tr. W.J. Ferrar, Vol.1 The Macmillan Company, New York, 1920 (CCEL))

And again further on, when he gives a list of the disciples, he adds the name "Publican" to his own. For he says: ‘Of the twelve apostles the names are these: First, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican.’ Thus Matthew, in excess of modesty, reveals the nature of his own old life, and calls himself a publican, he does not conceal his former mode of life, and in addition to this he places himself second after his yoke-fellow.”

Summary:

The[se] testimonies .. offer the clearest evidence that it was believed by the early church that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and a Greek Gospel of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ ...

The historical literary evidence demonstrates that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew for Jewish converts and then wrote an expanded Greek gospel for both Jews and Gentiles around the world. The Greek Matthew had many original additions. The Hebrew Matthew was not widely used and eventually passed out of sight.

When the early church fathers indicated that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew they never indicated that the Greek Matthew was written or translated by Matthew because it was fully accepted.


http://hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%2 ... idence.php
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:43 pm This webpage offers some food for thought regarding Eusebius on this issue:
Eusebius' Statements of Matthew's Authorship of the Greek Gospel

....

In his work, Questiones Ad Marinum, Eusebius clearly states that Matthew himself changed or translated the Hebrew into the Greek Matthew.

Eusebius, Questiones Ad Marinum (Comparing Matt. 28:1 to Jn.20:1)

“For on the one hand the evangelist Matthew transmitted the gospel in the Hebrew language. On the other hand, having changed it to the Greek language, he said ‘the hour drawing towards dawn unto the Lord’s day, after the close of the Sabbath.’ Thus therefore, Matthew mentioned the time drawing towards the dawn of the Lord’s Day, ‘after the close of the Sabbaths [plural]’ not having said ‘the evening of the Sabbath’, nor ‘after the Sabbath [singular].'"
Wow, what a tendentious page! :D

The highlighted bit above is the same passage I gave in my response to you. I believe the version at your link to be a mistranslation. The Greek, from the PDF supplied by Roger Pearse, is: ὁ μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος ἑβραίδι γλώττῃ παρέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον· ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἑλλήνων φωνὴν μεταβαλὼν αὐτό, τὴν ἐπιφωσκοῦσαν ὥραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν, ὀψὲ σαββάτων προσεῖπεν. There are two people in view: ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. That is a change of subject in Greek. I would examine everything from that page very, very carefully.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to John2,
And Clement of Alexandria at least had information about Mark that Eusebius said was in keeping with Papias and also cites a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews (aka the Hebrew Matthew)
The gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew.
The Gospel called according to the Hebrews himselfs which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior:
And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.

(Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2).
Furthermore, in time of Papias, the logia of Matthew had already be translated to Greek. But Jerome had to translate the gospel according to the Hebrews himself.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:09 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:43 pm This webpage offers some food for thought regarding Eusebius on this issue:
Eusebius' Statements of Matthew's Authorship of the Greek Gospel

....

In his work, Questiones Ad Marinum, Eusebius clearly states that Matthew himself changed or translated the Hebrew into the Greek Matthew.

Eusebius, Questiones Ad Marinum (Comparing Matt. 28:1 to Jn.20:1)

“For on the one hand the evangelist Matthew transmitted the gospel in the Hebrew language. On the other hand, having changed it to the Greek language, he said ‘the hour drawing towards dawn unto the Lord’s day, after the close of the Sabbath.’ Thus therefore, Matthew mentioned the time drawing towards the dawn of the Lord’s Day, ‘after the close of the Sabbaths [plural]’ not having said ‘the evening of the Sabbath’, nor ‘after the Sabbath [singular].'"
Wow, what a tendentious page! :D

The highlighted bit above is the same passage I gave in my response to you. I believe the version at your link to be a mistranslation. The Greek, from the PDF supplied by Roger Pearse, is: ὁ μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος ἑβραίδι γλώττῃ παρέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον· ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἑλλήνων φωνὴν μεταβαλὼν αὐτό, τὴν ἐπιφωσκοῦσαν ὥραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν, ὀψὲ σαββάτων προσεῖπεν. There are two people in view: ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. That is a change of subject in Greek. I would examine everything from that page very, very carefully.

I was wondering about that differing translation. Thanks.
Last edited by John2 on Tue Apr 14, 2020 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:18 pm to John2,
And Clement of Alexandria at least had information about Mark that Eusebius said was in keeping with Papias and also cites a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews (aka the Hebrew Matthew)
The gospel of the Hebrews was not the Hebrew Matthew.
The Gospel called according to the Hebrews himselfs which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior:
And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.

(Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2).
Furthermore, in time of Papias, the logia of Matthew had already be translated to Greek. But Jerome had to translate the gospel according to the Hebrews himself.

Cordially, Bernard

Since Jerome also translated the OT, does that mean no one had translated the OT before him? And Jerome knew Eusebius, so he knew that Papias had said that Matthew's logia had been translated multiple times. And as he writes in the next section of Ill. Men (3, on Matthew):

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it.

And he equates the Gospel of the Hebrews with Matthew in Against the Pelagians 3.2:

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, is used by the Nazarenes to this day, I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea ...
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to John2,
In your 2 quotes from Jerome, the gospel in question looks to be the Hebrew logia of Matthew, generally maintained (following Papias) by Matthew (however Jerome would prefer that gospel be called according to the apostles), but is a different gospel than the Greek (canonical) Matthew's gospel.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:53 pm to John2,
In your 2 quotes from Jerome, the gospel in question looks to be the Hebrew logia of Matthew, generally maintained (following Papias) by Matthew (however Jerome would prefer that gospel be called according to the apostles), but is a different gospel than the Greek (canonical) Matthew's gospel.

Cordially, Bernard

In the entire section of Jerome's Ill. Men 3 (on Matthew) he mentions two gospels, one that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and one that was translated into Greek. If Jerome is talking about Papias' logia in the sense that you understand it, does it not seem strange to you that he doesn't mention the NT Matthew?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply