Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned. Now who shall rest.”

(FZ had "oshall".) The last part is mangled some, and FZ does not give us his source.

More accurately:

Gospel of the Hebrews
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ws-throck.html

(Clement, Stromateis 2.9.45.5)
As also it stands written in the Gospel of the Hebrews:
He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest.

Gospel According to the Hebrews
https://archive.org/details/thegospe...huoft/page/n19

Clement op Alexandria writes—
'As Matthias in theTraditions, exhorting us, says,
“Marvel at what is before thee,” supposing this the first step to ulterior knowledge ; just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is written “He that hath marveled shall reign, and he that hath reigned shall rest.” ’

Yep, this could be part of what was understood as Matthews Gospel in Hebrew (not canonical Matthew.)

So where does FZ add this to his new Versions? .

It has a lot more support as being in the Matthew Hebrew than mangling Matthew 28:19.

We have various comments, especially from Jerome, about what was in what was called the Hebrew Matthew. Nobody commented on anything that would affect our Matthew 28:19 verse in the canonical (Greek, Latin, Syriac and versions) Matthew.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

(FZ had "oshall".) The last part is mangled some, and FZ does not give us his source.

More accurately:




Yep, this could be part of what was understood as Matthews Gospel in Hebrew (not canonical Matthew.)

So where does FZ add this to his new Versions? .

It has a lot more support as being in the Matthew Hebrw than mangling Matthew 28:19.

What all this has boiled down to is that Matthew had notes in Aramaic? Yet, the Gospel wasn’t meant for just one group. Or one “obscure” language. But the universal language which was known throughout the entire Empire. A Hebrew Only Matthew would’ve done little to spread the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

(FZ had "oshall".) The last part is mangled some, and FZ does not give us his source.

More accurately:




Yep, this could be part of what was understood as Matthews Gospel in Hebrew (not canonical Matthew.)

So where does FZ add this to his new Versions? .

It has a lot more support as being in the Matthew Hebrw than mangling Matthew 28:19.

What all this has boiled down to is that Matthew had notes in Aramaic? Yet, the Gospel wasn’t meant for just one group. Or one “obscure” language. But the universal language which was known throughout the entire Empire. A Hebrew Only Matthew would’ve done little to spread the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The argument for a original Hebrew Matthew will gain steam when actual manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew are discovered. None have surfaced in 2000 years.

The shem Tov is one.
some dispute it because it does not have the trinitarian ending,
that is circular reasoning.

Maybe it does not have the trinitarian ending, because it is more original than the latest Greek translations, some people think so.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What all this has boiled down to is that Matthew had notes in Aramaic? Yet, the Gospel wasn’t meant for just one group. Or one “obscure” language. But the universal language which was known throughout the entire Empire. A Hebrew Only Matthew would’ve done little to spread the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.

OK let us send English bibles to Hispanic countries since English is the universal language which is known throughout the entire modern world.

Matthew was interested in reaching the Jews, he was part of the apostles who ministered to the circumcision, the rest of the gospels could reach the gentiles. you have Mark, Luke and John.

So the Jews who could not read Greek were neglected?

[FlamingZword]

Joseph Armitage Robinson, Canon and scholar, writes Encyclopedia Biblica (1899) Vol. I Art. "Baptism": on Matthew 28:19 he says: “We have not synoptic parallel at this point; and thus, from a documentary point of view, we must regard this evidence as posterior to that of the Paul’s Epistles and of Acts”

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK let us send English bibles to Hispanic countries since English is the universal language which is known throughout the entire modern world.

Matter of fact that was discussed in church today. How in Bogotá, Colombia, Mexico City, Mexico, and all over South and Central America American Movies, Popular Music, and television shows are all in English with subtitles. If you want to know what is going on you learn the language. Just like Israel, Judea, Jerusalem. They were under GREEK speaking occupation for over 400 years. Jesus was taken into Alexandria Egypt where the largest concentration of Judeans living outside of Judea dwelt. All Greek speaking. In Jerusalem Greek, as well as Latin and Aramaic would of been spoken. Over 400 years! Greek was spoken throughout the Middle East. Yet, what makes you hit a wall, is that you were under the impression that Jesus and the rest of the first century Judeans were ignorant bedouins off of a Sunday School felt board. Where they hated the Romans as if the Romans were the Nazis of the First Century,. You were led to believe that Hebrew was regarded by the Judeans as a holy language.. That God spoke Hebrew in Heaven. That when you go to heaven that everyone would be speaking in Hebrew. Which isn't the case. in the Bar Kochba uprising the JEWS couldn't read the messages going back and forth because they were written by the zealotes. Zealots who wrote all their messages in the liturgical language of Hebrew. They couldn't read them because the footsoldier (peasants) could only speak Greek. Funny, how you are so into Jewishness that you totally miss that. Shame. You are more in low with Jewishness than Jesusness it seems.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Matthew was interested in reaching the Jews, he was part of the apostles who ministered to the circumcision, the rest of the gospels could reach the gentiles. you have Mark, Luke and John.

Again, over 400 years of Greek speakers. Mexico has 68 national languages, 63 of which are indigenous, including around 350 dialects of those languages.Yet, Spanish is the language which all business, and government speaks. Spanish was brought to Mexico in the 16th century A..D. 6 centuries later and the entire world understands that Spanish is the language of Mexico. The Spanish conquerors came and the language changed. Just like Judea. over 400 years speaking Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. all three languages of her conquering nations. The Gospel of Matthew was to be preached to the whole WORLD which was some backwater in Judea, but the entire Roman empire.An Empire which didn't speak Aramaic, and certainly not the almost extinct language of Hebrew, but Greek, the language of government and commerce.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

So the Jews who could not read Greek were neglected?

We don't teach by appealing to the dramatic. We deal with logic concerning the evidence we currently have available. A Hebrew Only Matthew is the fantasy of people who feel in love with being more Jewish than Jesus.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The shem Tov is one. some dispute it because it does not have the trinitarian ending, that is circular reasoning.

That is a very small part of the corruption of the Shem-Tov, that came from a Jewish anti-missionary. My research on this was way before the Matthew 28:19 issues were on the modern radar, and I may be able to find the earlier study showing many of the corruptions. (A fella named James Trimm was the Shem-Tov pusher.) There is in fact solid evidence that Shem-Tov made up this version for anti-missionary, anti-Christian purposes.

FZ has apparently never read up on the ms. and throws out the "trinitarian ending" red herring. The problems are much deeper. I will show one in this post, and then plan on more later. I wonder if FZ is the one who originally tried to combine the anti-Matthew 28:19 position with this absurd concept. Remember, FZ hides virtually all his secondary and teirtiary sources, and plagiarizes freely, so we would have to do some checking to see if Clinton D. Willis or Randall Duane Hughes or anyone else came up with this idea before FZ.

On a simple and clear level:

Here is a simple evidence that I like to emphasize, what I call the internal translations, well explained on another site.

Overall, my approach would be a bit different, because afaik Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut never claimed it was an ancient manuscript, and even indicated that it was his own work (this is from notes years back, that I plan to check.) Thus, the nonsense from this edition is more from confused Christians than Jews. However, the sections I quote below are sound, allowing that I prefer to use the adjective "Satanic" less freely (I do not even use that for "Yahweh" pushers.) Here is the section.

Christian Media Research
James Lloyd
Satanic Translations:
Shem Tov & The Toledoth Yeshu
http://www.christianmediaresearch.co...nslations.html

Shem-Tov ben Shaprut, usually referred to as Shem Tov, is the name of a 14th century Jewish writer who was hostile to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Shem Tov of Tudela, Spain, would have faded into complete obscurity were it not for a specific written work he is thought to have authored. This material, entitled Even Bohan, is a written treatise attacking Christianity.

....

The only reason anyone pays any attention to this work is Even Bohan (the Shem Tov manuscript) contains a corrupted version of the Gospel of Matthew, but it is written in a form of Hebrew. Because early Christian historians noted the tradition that Matthew did indeed distribute his Gospel in Hebrew, certain teachers claim that it is that very Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, that was incorporated into the Shem Tov work.

Next, we will go to the internal translations.

the Grecian book of Matthew shows unmistakable internal evidence of its authenticity by the disciple of Jesus.

In an attempt to make the scholarly data more accessible, we note the fact there are numerous statements within the Greek text itself where the narrative tells us the meaning of a Hebrew term. If the writing originated in Hebrew, an ongoing occasional translation would not be necessary. In other words, if Matthew (or the larger body of the New Testament) originated in Aramaic or Hebrew, it would be unnecessary to tell the reader what a particular Hebrew word or phrase means.

It is only because the writing did originate in Greek that an occasional explanation is needed, and such interpretive statements are provided in the Scripture itself. Thus, we see several examples of these ongoing translation notes. For instance, in Matthew's first chapter, the disciple cites the prophecy from Isaiah concerning how a virgin will conceive, and a male child will come forth who is to be called Immanuel. Isaiah wrote:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

When Matthew quotes this prophecy, he writes

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:22,23)

In the Shem Tov version of Matthew, which was supposedly composed in Hebrew, the verse also tells us the name Immanuel, means God with us in Hebrew. Once again, if the book was actually written in Hebrew, there would be no reason to tell the reader the meaning of the name, for the name Immanuel is Hebrew.

It should also be noted that this type of internal evidence also discredits the supposed Aramaic version of the entire New Testament called the Peshitta,

Well done. Thank you Lord Jesus for a clear presentation.
Time and energy permitting, I will do a small series of posts on the Shem-Tov,and also make it accessible on the purebibleforum.

=====================

Oh, note the irony of FZ trying to attack church leaders like Cyprian, who wrote many superb works, and then basing his whole position on an anti-Christian publication (The Hebrew Matthew was part of the anti-Christian polemic.)

Ironies abound.

At this point, it is virtually impossible for FZ to write consistently and to the scholarship points. Basically, he just recycles uncorrected errors. He does not check the primary sources, so he is in a pickle.

=====================

Steven Avery

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is a very small part of the corruption of the Shem-Tov, that came from a Jewish anti-missionary. My research on this was way before the Matthew 28:19 issues, and I may be able to find the earlier study showing many of the corruptions. There is in fact solid evidence that Shem-Tov made up this version for anti-missionary, anti-Christian purposes.

FZ has apparently never read up on the ms. and throws out the "trinitarian ending" red herring. The problems are much deeper. I will show on in this post, and then plan on more later. I wonder if FZ is the one who originally tried to combine anti-Matthew 29:19 position with this absurd concept. Remember, FZ hides virtually all his sources, and plagiarizes freely, so we would have to do some checking to see if Clinton D. Willis or Randall Duane Hughes or anyone else came up with this idea.

On a simple and clear level:

Here is a simple evidence that I like to emphasize, what I call the internal translations, well explained on another site. My approach would be a bit different, because araik Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut never claimed it was an ancient manuscript, and even indicated that it was his own work (this is from notes years back, that I plan to check.) Thus, the nonsense from this edition is more from confused Christians than Jews.



Time and energy permitting, I will do a small series of posts on the Shem Tob,and also make it accessible on the purebibleforum.

Do you have information on the Peshitta, the Lamsa translation, etc? I know next to nothing about that stream of texts/versions.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Do you have information on the Peshitta, the Lamsa translation, etc? I know next to nothing about that stream of texts/versions.

The short answer is that the Peshitta is a fine early translation from the Greek, that generally supports the pure Bible text. However, it does have some major corruptions, like at 1 Timothy 3:16, where it has "which" was manifest in the flesh. And it is missing the Pericope Adultera, 12 verses.

Lamsa's translation is ok. He actually used some Authorized Version excellence in the process. Lamsa was hanging out with some new agey people (especially Rocco A. Errico) for awhile, who were part of his support network, but afaik that was after the edition, and the version itself does not have new age junk like The Message. It is not anywhere near as good as the Authorized Version, but it is far, far better than the Westcott-Hort corruption versions. (NIV, NAS, etc.)

The problem addressed in the article above is the Aramaic Primacy theory, that tries to claim that the New Testament was (with some possible exceptions in the five books not in the original Peshitta) written in Aramaic. Many of the Aramaic Primacy people are quite sincere, they are looking for a pure Bible, and they have been misled a bit.