Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Spud]

Because it is a mistranslation.

The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.

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

No it isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.

Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.

Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.

[Spud]

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".

That's not analogous to Matthew 1:21. Better: "I named him Aresenalarethebest because Arsenal were top of the league."

[Spud]

It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).

[Spud]

Genesis 2:25 "the man and his wife were naked"
Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was the most clever"
No pun in  English.
But in Hebrew, 'naked' = 'arumim', 'clever' = 'arum'

[Spud]

According to Nehemiah Gordon, the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew says at Matthew 16:18,
"You are a stone (Heb: 'even') and I will build (Heb: evneh) my house of prayer upon you."

[jeremyp]

The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages.

Not only is that false, but the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".

The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.

This is false and the context tells us that. The pregnant young woman is there to give a timescale to a prophecy about the enemies of Ahaz. It's nothing whatever to do with the Messiah.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

[jeremyp]

It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).

Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.

Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

[Spud]

the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".

Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.

[Spud]

Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.

Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.

It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.

[Spud]

Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.

Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

More examples:
See #205 and:

Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".

Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.

Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.

From this video

[jeremyp]

It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.

Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.

Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.

Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek. That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.

We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.

[jeremyp]

More examples:
See #205 and:

Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".

Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.

Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.

From this video

Matthew was not written in Hebrew. End of story.

[Dicky Underpants]

Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.

Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.

This is quite interesting:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15pcrwa/what_is_this_dr_jones_found_early_hebrew_gospels/&ved=2ahUKEwi1xfH8lJuKAxWhaEEAHfXsAHgQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1q7OgfH95T35fzxyW5D07d

Seems that not everyone thinks that Spud's sources are truly scholarly.

[Dicky Underpants]

Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.

These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.

[Spud]

These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.

Note that the 'greater fulfillment' is salvation from sins, as the angel says.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's off-topic though:

It isn't off topic Spud - you are making completely unevidenced claims about the intentions and motivation of translators and, potentially, original authors. It is not off-topic to point out that we have no idea who these people were and we have no evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture.

[Spud]

Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.

Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.

This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.

Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek.

Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.

That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.

We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.

What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative. Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.

[Dicky Underpants]

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, I'm rather struggling to understand exactly what you mean by "the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew", as no doubt a few others have been if they've shown any interest in this thread.
I just like to outline a few points to attempt clarification.
Firstly, we have the assertions from Papias and Eusebius that a certain Matthew wrote 'something' in Hebrew, which may have been a prototype to the gospel of Matthew we have today.
Then we do have a version of Matthew, translated in the mediaeval period from the Greek by Shem-Tob ben Isaac. This version is purported by some Christian devotees to indicate that there was an original Hebrew version, but not liked by Christians, since the purpose of this Jewish version was to deny Jesus' divine Sonship and the claims that he was the Messiah. Besides which, it avoided any mention of the divine name. For a refutation that this might indicate an original Hebrew version, see what David Bivin has written here:
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4067/

The apologists for an original Hebrew version were delighted when the Vatican fairly recently released certain manuscripts which purported to relate back to a faithful Christian version of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. This unfortunately bore all the signs of having been translated back into Hebrew from Catalan !

Honestly, Spud, with all this back and forth translating, tergiversations and people attempting to include confirmation bias into these mediaeval versions of Matthew's gospel, do you honestly think they give a modern reader any confidence that there ever was such an original gospel in Hebrew? This despite your worthy attempts to show how puns work in Hebrew, for which claim to esoteric scholarship we have only your word to rely on.

[Dicky Underpants]

This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.

And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?

[jeremyp]

This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.

Hebrew Matthew is a figment of your imagination. The Hebrew gospels that you seem to love so much are later translations of Matthew into Hebrew from (I note from Dicky's link) Catalan - so not even Greek.

How can you possibly bring them up as evidence?

Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.

So the person who translated them into Hebrew smoothed out some of the problems. It means nothing.

What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative.

The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument. It's possible that the entire canon of early Christian literature was fabricated by Eusebius. Yes, some people do believe that. That doesn't mean it's probable or worthy of serious study.

It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but clever people have studied the possibility and concluded it is extremely unlikely.

Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.

This is St Jerome who lived in the second half of the fourth century, who, as far as I can tell, never went to Caesarea and who translated the Bible into Latin using only Greek texts from the New Testament?

[Spud]

And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?

Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.
What language was the Catalan version translated from?

[jeremyp]

Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.

There wasn't an original Hebrew version. Matthew was written in Greek.

What language was the Catalan version translated from?

Who cares? It's not relevant.

[Spud]

The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument.

It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative. The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous. For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.

[jeremyp]

It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative.

Really? What's the evidence?

The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous.

The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Q material. I'm not averse to you claiming that Q was originally written by Matthew the Apostle, but by the time it was incorporated into the gospel, it was in Greek and similar arguments apply to Q as to Mark and the rest of Matthew's gospel.

For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.

I do not see how your conclusion follows.