Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Spud]

Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.

But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew. So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.

[ekim]

You understand that the word  'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves',  does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?

[Spud]

You understand that the word  'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves',  does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?

I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.

[jeremyp]

But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew.

No it doesn't, not if the reader also knew a little Hebrew or where the name comes from. In fact, if the gospel had been written in Hebrew, no explanation would have been necessary.

So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at that time. Hebrew was the language of much of the Old Testament. The ordinary people living in Galilee and Judea would have been native speakers of Aramaic. It's not unreasonable to expect an educated person in the region at the time to speak both Greek and their native language.

Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:

I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".

[jeremyp]

I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.

And of course it was totally impossible for anybody to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek in the First Century /s

[Dicky Underpants]

I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.

I learned this from the Jehovah's Witnesses when I was twelve. The JWs are notoriously not fluent in Hebrew (and certainly the translators of their bible weren't). However, their translation of the instance in question was correct.

[Spud]

Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:

That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".

Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.

[Spud]

There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?

The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos). According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.
So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text, then either 'virgin' or 'young woman' would be accurate.
Hebrewgospels.com renders it 'virgin' also.

[jeremyp]

Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"

Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.

The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.

You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.

[jeremyp]

The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos).

So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.

According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.

Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.

So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text

He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.

[Spud]

You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.

But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?
His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.

[Spud]

Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.

Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.

[Maeght]

Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.

Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.

[jeremyp]

But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?

He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.

His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.

Why did he explain it then?

[Spud]

So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.

Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.

He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.

Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status? Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.

The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.

[Spud]

Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.

Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.

[Maeght]

Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.

Not Cephas then.

[jeremyp]

Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status?

No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.

Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.

It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later. Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.

The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.

That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek. It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).

[Spud]

Not Cephas then.

His former name was the Hebrew version of Simon and his new name was Cephas, meaning rock in Aramaic. Our gospels have translated this to Simon Peter.

[Spud]

No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.

So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?

It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later.

I meant "as it happened" as in, "in the way that it happened" not "while it was happening".

Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.
That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek.

That's an assumption.

It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).

It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.

[Spud]

He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.

No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.

Why did he explain it then?

He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means. The pun involving "yoshia" ("he will save") also helps a Hebrew reader understand. The angel was basically saying, "you will call his name 'Salvation', because he will save his people" - but in Hebrew.

[jeremyp]

So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?

Because it is a mistranslation.

It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.

It's consistent with Matthew originally writing in Swahili. So what?

[jeremyp]

No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.

People assume we know what Peter means or Cephas. We don't need to speak the language to understand the meaning of a name in that language.

He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means.

If he'd been writing in Hebrew, he wouldn't have needed to do that. It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest^*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. I wouldn't need to say "I named him Arsenalarerthebest because Arsenal are the best".

^* Everybody will be relieved to know I have no children.

[ekim]

It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest^*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. .

Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the  team?

[jeremyp]

Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the  team?

Well, signing Jesus from Man City was one of their best signings for a long time. And Man City appears to need miracles now.