Shem Tov or Shem Tob Matthew--The Hebrew Matthew

[carl37]

I in no way in my post told anyone what they could or couldn't do. I (if you would please reread) kindly requested that when one replied to my post to please refrain from using the emoticons. I made no mention of what could or should be posted elsewhere. When I was in the military one of my superiors stated "It's not what you say to someone that matters, it's the message they receive and how it is conveyed that does." How profound a statement. This is a forum where people are going to disagree. That is common knowledge. The point I was making was simply that adding emoticons (the point of an emoticon is to show emotion) of shaking head no or fainting in disbelief to a post that you have already expressed a disagreement to just tries to belittle that person or maybe in some small way try to make them feel inferior to you. As far as Rose asking for where I got the list. I stated in the post each instance that was given for that particular point of view. As far as these gentlemen being minor scholars so what. Yehushua's biggest opponents seem to have been the so-called educated and leaders of the day. Just because someone doesn't have a doctorate from a school someone deems appropriate in no way makes that person's findings or views invalid. As for Mr.Trimm's alleged or actual infidelity that is something he will have to answer for when he stands in front of the Almighty. As I recall Peter denied the Messiah three times. Yet somehow his gospels are still valid. (I am in now way equating Mr. Trimm with Peter. What I am saying is that it would seem that Peter repented and was forgiven. Do you have proof that Mr. Trimm hasn't repented?) The point of this thread is the discussion of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew. The manuscript exists hence the reason for this thread.

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

I never asserted that a Hebrew manuscript wouldn't contain errors. In fact if you look at my first post. I never even gave a position on whether I thought Shem Tov's was valid or not, I just provided a list of early church fathers that implied that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. I then posted a list of people within the last 100 years. It was after the administrators post ,which "I found offensive" and I have that right as I served in the military for freedoms we all share, did I even give a position.


We do have 5,656 manuscripts in greek however, and thanks to that we can see clearly ,on the table,so to speak what these contain.
We also have 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early manuscripts in other languages.

Where do these manuscripts come from? It is well known by scholars that mostly all we have is fragments that have been gathered together to form the Textus Receptus and the Latin Vulgate and other writings.

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything that is written I do recommend Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" It is an excellent reference as to how we received the New Testament we have today.

[Vic]

Quote: Carl: Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:

As can be seen, most involved in the list of scholars reject Jesus Christ, which for some isn't an issue is it?

But for those who claim Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, it is a big deal to wave the flag of scholarship concerning the Scriptures.

So a quick perusal on the 'net for the source of the "list of scholars" comes originally from:

The Remnant of YHWH
PO BOX 2453
Abilene, Texas 79604

http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Hebrew%20Origin%20NT.htm

Hebrew/Aramaic Origin of the New Testament ,Textual analysis and scholarship supporting an original Hebrew New Testament

Or

http://groups.google.ru/group/TheNarrowG...a-articles

Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly (YNCA) PO Box 50, Kingdom City, Missouri

We'll use the Remnant of YHWH for simplicity sake:

What do they believe and teach:
The Revelation of Jesus> The Shocking Truth Exposed > "...So accepted is the name “Jesus” that no one dares question its authenticity. But if we actually did research this name, would we find this to be His original Name?...Ps 33:17 says, "H'SUS -Jesus/the Horse is a vain hope for safety!"

..If we can prove that the Messiah of Israyl’s name is NOT “Jesus”, isn’t it time to repent and learn the Truth? ...

http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Jesus.htm

Their site, including mirror site of twowitnessministries.com shows heavy conspiracy stuff, bible codes, they are the only true believers aka remnant, sacred namers--which incidentally is poor scholarship again, and they link directly to the sacred name site eliyah.com for their chat etc.

I see no point in presenting much more. It takes little discernment to reject them as a source for anything.


But that's my opinion.

You, Carl, apparently find their information valid at the very least, and the question would be, Why?

[Vic]

Carl, your contention was that those scholars on that list believed in an original Hebrew NT, not just a Hebrew Matthew. Further to that, most on the list are primarily aramaic primacists. IN other words the list that is supposed to support that original Hebrew concept is filled with people who rather push aramaic--not all, but most.

The fact the Matthew wrote a "version" of his epistle in Hebrew as well as Greek is still not a huge deal. Since we have proof of it in Greek and the majority manuscripts show a greek original--what is your problem? You are presenting a moot point. We have the greek and the speculation about how or what the Hebrew may have said is endless speculation, because quite frankly, you don't know which was written first---the Greek version or the Hebrew, because you discount the Greek as the original. So be it.

Bottom line--the Shem tov is neither an "original" Hebrew Matthew, nor a solid translation. It's a polemic against converted Jews. Therefore unuseable as a "Hebrew Matthew" despite what those within HR wish to claim about it.

Now if you would care to stay on topic that would great.

[carl37]

Again, I never said that I supported the newer list of scholars who implied that Matthew was written in Hebrew. I just listed them as some reference in addition to the early church fathers. I do tend to believe the early church fathers that were living in a closer proximity to that time period would have knowledge to whether a Hebrew Matthew existed than we do some 1700 years removed. Just because some of these people do not believe that Yehushua was messiah doesn't mean that Yehushua isn't messiah. It also doesn't mean that the research into whether there was a Hebrew Matthew or New Testament Hebrew texts that they did is void. It just means that they don't believe Yehushua is the messiah and they alone will have to answer to the Almighty. Diophantus of Alexandria is said to have been the father of Algebra and some say that Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī should be included. If neither of these believed in messiah does that mean Algebra is meaningless and void? Certainly not.

[aahavaa]

Carl ,

its is well known in scholarly circles that Bart Ehrmnan makes much ado about nothing, to summarise on my part.

In Misquoting Jesus he really overestimates the significances of the differences between the manuscripts.His estimates of 400,000 variants may be numerically correct but he fails to inform readers of the insignificance of the vast majority of these variants. Most of the variants consist of differences in spelling, word order or the relationship between the noun and definite articles and don’t affect significantly the theology of the NT.I could go more in depth into it but judging by your lack of responses to some of the things that some other posters have asked you in the thread ,I think I'll save my energy.

So instead, Carl and anyone reading, I recommend you read a couple of reviews of "Misquoting Jesus" written by people who also have credentials in the subject. That way we can get an objective view of Mr Ehrman's conclusions .


http://www.bible.org/page.php?page%20id=4000
long version

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452
shorter version

There's also an excellent review here

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006...-bart.html

Funnily enough Muslims love to quote Ehrmans book in trying to tell us that our scriptures have been corrupted.

(waving smiley should go here )

[carl37]

to what have i not responded?

---

Sorry I do not hang out in scholarly circles. And for that I am glad. And as I have said before, just because someone has a doctorate in Theology or is credentialed doesn't make them the end all or be all of a subject. Someone's views or reviews are just that, their own. Does it mean it should be summarily accepted or rejected? No. It is up to each of us as individuals to discern things for ourselves. This is a forum. I am merely putting forth other ideas and information to see what thoughts are. Just because I may post something doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it 100% or at all. As far as the Muslims or any other religion or anybody in this forum, we all will have to stand in front of Yahweh. As far as Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew or any other Hebrew NT. I would like to know if there are any more and what they say. We have words or phrases in the English language that another language may not comprehend ie... Dumb as a rock or Dead as a doorknob. What if when someone was translating from hebrew to greek or aramaic to greek or vice versa and something was written by Paul or Peter or John that they didn't know what they exactly meant?

As a final thought believe you me, I am in no way trying to dissuade anyone here from their views nor do I think anyone here is trying to dissuade me from mine. We are adults. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I enjoy (dare I say it?) playing the devil's advocate so to speak just to see what kind of response is evoked.

[sheep wrecked]

(12-29-2008 07:51 PM)carl37 Wrote:  As far as these gentlemen being minor scholars so what. Yehushua's biggest opponents seem to have been the so-called educated and leaders of the day. Just because someone doesn't have a doctorate from a school someone deems appropriate in no way makes that person's findings or views invalid. As for Mr.Trimm's alleged or actual infidelity that is something he will have to answer for when he stands in front of the Almighty. As I recall Peter denied the Messiah three times. Yet somehow his gospels are still valid. (I am in now way equating Mr. Trimm with Peter. What I am saying is that it would seem that Peter repented and was forgiven. Do you have proof that Mr. Trimm hasn't repented?) The point of this thread is the discussion of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew. The manuscript exists hence the reason for this thread.

The fact is that "minor scholars" are making suppositions about the Holy Word of God. It is not some cheap dime store novel. It's God's Word they are messing with. They hate Jesus Christ by their denials. Their works should be burned.

Secondly, we note that Peter repented with a sincere heart and became a witness to the Gospel, who did mighty works, signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. The testimony of his belief in the One true God and Savior is impeccable. Peter's hands are clean.

James Trimm's hands are filthy. He teaches kabbalah, he is an adulterer, he plagiarized the NT, he copied the OT King James and then inserted his own Hebrew words and sacred names - boldly stating that his version was TRANSLATED from the original languages, all with a false doctorate from a diploma mill and no BA or MA in any field, which must precede a Doctorate. Then he sold his HRV to 100s of people who still have not received them 5-6 yrs down the road. To many of them, he insisted the money they paid were "donations" to further his work and he owed them NOTHING. James continues to send out emails begging for money - he says his followers owe him the "tithe". He has not only committed adultery many times, but is a pedifile, has pornographic material in his home, and he and his wife were owners and moderaters of a forum devoted to TV soap opera. He continues to promote his HRV, apocryphal writings, and his kabbalistic writings weekly on paltalk and through emails. He has filthy dirty hands. And you compare him to Peter?

Lastly, the Shem Tov is a polemic work - it hates Jesus Christ and says he was hanged on gallows, not crucified, thereby denying the blood atonement.

Quote:Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

The problem is that many scholars question the validity of a original Hebrew Matthew. The weight rests on papias, who seems to be a questionable source. So we have only one witness. The others simply repeated his error. It would be advantageous not to keep promoting something that cannot be proven either way. It appears that if God wanted a Hebrew Matthew, He would have left it for us. He did not. The Word still belongs to Him, including the NT. If we do not believe that God preserved the Word as He chose, then we have no hope that His Word is forever. We have Greek frags dating back to the very late first to very early second century. We have zero, zip, nada Hebrew further back than the 3rd. Do the math

Quote:Although I don't necessarily agree with everything that is written I do recommend Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" It is an excellent reference as to how we received the New Testament we have today.

Bart Ehrman is a disgruntled former Christian with an awe to grind. He is not interested in the truth, he is interested in casting doubt on the NT, and on blaspheming Jesus Christ.

[strefanash]

Maybe Matthew did write his gospel in Hebrew and then it was translated into Greek.

What does it matter?

The assumption that Hebrew Language implies hebrew thought is what needs to be addressed, as is the assuption that the content of hebrew thought implies hebrew roots observances of feasts etc

To me these two never followed.

I have read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky in translation. Translators can do a good job in convering both the meaning and the flavour of a text. So, even though I never learned russian I do claim with confidence that I HAVE read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky and picked up something of the Russian soul.

(
AHHHH THE Russian soul, says this Russophile typing while listening to a Tchaikovsky symphony !!!!!!!!



Bozhe Tsara Khrani)

The same with the Bible. Written in the plain language of common people the transmission of meaning does NOT require rigid precison. God is bigger than that

As an aside, Carl, I am ceasing to see that any freedom that has any value at all can ever be gotten by arms. I believe because of the Holy Spirit, not any battle won by force of arms

Your having been a soldier does not signify to me, neither is it relevant.

The earliest christians were pacifist, and I am moving that way.

As for emoticons I like them, and note that there are more ways of belittling a person than using one: the odd inflection of a word, a shading and a context . . . . .

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Maybe Matthew did write his gospel in Hebrew and then it was translated into Greek.

What does it matter?

The assumption that Hebrew Language implies hebrew thought is what needs to be addressed, as is the assuption that the content of hebrew thought implies hebrew roots observances of feasts etc

To me these two never followed.

Quote:I have read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky in translation. Translators can do a good job in convering both the meaning and the flavour of a text. So, even though I never learned russian I do claim with confidence that I HAVE read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky and picked up something of the Russian soul.

Very good points Strefanash ,you put it very nicely

[Vic]

(12-29-2008 10:37 PM)strefanash Wrote:  Maybe Matthew did write his gospel in Hebrew and then it was translated into Greek.

What does it matter?

The assumption that Hebrew Language implies hebrew thought is what needs to be addressed, as is the assuption that the content of hebrew thought implies hebrew roots observances of feasts etc

To me these two never followed.

....
As for emoticons I like them, and note that there are more ways of belittling a person than using one: the odd inflection of a word, a shading and a context . . . . .

Great post Strefanash! And you are quite right about the hebrew thought and what follows. That's why it is so important to so many to try to disprove Greek in favor of the Hebrew. And then try to present the Shem tov as a real Hebrew Matthew is such utter nonsense and poor scholarship--it begs the question if those who follow those ideas are bereft of any ability to prove all things and discern between truth and error, fact and fiction.

Glad you like the emoticons--

and you are quite right--much can be said without them via wording and tone and context...