|
Rav Richard ‘Aharon’ Chaimberlin Studies in Matthew |
The earliest Christian witness to the Hebrew
Matthew was Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey)
during the Second Century C.E. He wrote:
Matthew
put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated
them, each as best he could.
[2]
Irenaeus
(120-202 CE), Bishop of Lyons, France, near the end of the Second Century,
wrote:
Matthew,
indeed, produces his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
[3]
Orien (beginning of the Third Century) wrote in his
commentary on Matthew:
The
first [Gospel], composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew…
for those who come to faith from Judaism.
[4]
Eusebius,
Bishop of Caesarea (about 325 CE) wrote:
Matthew
had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also,
he transmitted his Gospel in his native language.
[5]
In
addition, the Post-Nicean Fathers (after 325 CE) wrote of the Hebrew Matthew,
as well as the Messianic Jews (called Nazarenes at that time). Epiphanius, who
died in 403 CE, wrote this about the Nazarenes:
They
have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them
as it was originally written, in Hebrew script.
[6]
Epiphanius also writes about another Messianic Jewish
sect, the Ebionites:
And
they also accept the Gospel of Matthew… they call it “according to the Hebrews,”
and that is the correct way of speaking, since Matthew alone of the Hebrew
writers presents the Gospel in Hebrew and in the Hebrew script.
[7]
Jerome
was the most knowledgeable of all the Church Fathers in the Hebrew language. He
translated the Tanakh (O.T.) into Latin directly from the original Hebrew.
He wrote:
Matthew
was the first in Judea to compose the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and
words… Who it was that later translated it into Greek is no longer known with
certainty. Furthermore, the Hebrew text itself is still preserved in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus assembled with great care.
Considering
all the abundant evidence, I can say with no hesitation or doubt that the
Gospel of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew.
With less certainty, it is my opinion that other Gospels may have been
written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is also logical to assume that other books
such as Hebrews, James (“Jacob”), and Peter (“Kefa”) were also originally
penned in Hebrew, because the original writers and intended audience were both
Jewish.
[8]
So what happened to those original Hebrew
manuscripts? Keep in mind the following: The various sects of Messianic Jews
(called Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Pasaginians) were considered heretics by the
non-Messianic Jewish communities as well as the Gentile church as a whole. As a
result, when the documents and writings of these Messianic Jews came into the
hands of the Jewish community or the Gentile Christian community, they were
generally destroyed, often by burning. Also, time takes a heavy toll. Paper,
and even leather parchment, doesn’t last beyond a few centuries before turning
to dust.[9]
An excellent book, which I recommend, is Understanding the Difficult Words of
Jesus, by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, pub-lished
by Makor Foundation, Arcadia California in 1983. In
large part, the quoted sources on the first page of this article are as they
were quoted in the book above. The primary premise of Bivin
& Blizzard’s book is that there must have been an original Hebrew Matthew.
Then the authors set about trying to reconstruct an “original” Hebrew Matthew.
This is where I think they went over the edge a few times. However, their
scholarship is impressive.
For years I eagerly looked forward to
someone hopefully discovering an ancient Hebrew Matthew. The closest I had
heard of was the ancient Peshitta Bible, which was
written in Aramaic. This text is favored over the Greek NT by the Syrian
Orthodox churches located in the Middle East. Aramaic is a Semitic language related
to Hebrew. The Aramaic Peshitta NTs are older than
any existing ancient Greek texts. However, this does not mean that the NT was
originally written in Aramaic. It must be remembered that the Aramaic Bibles
were preserved in a much dryer climate than the Greek manuscripts in Europe.
Dry climates are much more conducive to the manuscripts surviving longer, as
with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The
Hebrew Matthew seemed to be missing. Then one day I was truly blessed to obtain
The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, by
George Howard, published by Mercer University Press in Macon Georgia in 1987.
Contained in this book was what may very well be a very ancient Hebrew Matthew.
Curiously, this Hebrew Matthew was preserved by Jews who opposed the message of
Messiah Yeshua.
The Jewish communities of Europe were
constantly subjected to persecution from the Roman Catholic Church several
hundred years ago. There were also many attempts to convert Jews to
Catholicism. Some of these conversion attempts were based upon argumentation;
other attempts were much more coercive, such as “Convert to Christianity or
die!” The only other option was to flee to another country that might be more
tolerant. This wasn’t always possible, as many other nations locked their doors
to Jewish refugees. It was also difficult financially to move to other
countries back then. Travel was also very strenuous.
Many Jews chose to suffer the fires of martyrdom
rather than convert to what was basically a paganized Christianity. For those
who were subjected to mere argumentation, reason could possibly prevail, and
Jews could maintain their religion and Torah-based lifestyles.
There were also argumentations called “Disputations.”
In such cases, a Jewish religious scholar was called upon to debate with a
Catholic religious scholar. Both scholars would be subject to publicly prove
the merits of their respective beliefs. If the Jew won the debate, the
Jewish community in that area could maintain their Torah-based faith. However,
if the Jewish scholar lost the debate, all the Jews in that community
were given the choice of conversion to Christianity, death, or exile. And of
course the judges were Catholics! It was also a one-sided deal. If the Jew won
the debate, the Gentiles didn’t convert to Judaism. In fact, conversion to
Judaism carried the death penalty to whoever might attempt it.
With so much at stake – sometimes a fiery
stake – the Jewish community needed to have texts to better understand the
faith of the opposition in order to counter the arguments put forth by the
so-called “Christians.”
This brings us to the “Hebrew Matthew.” In
the 14th Century, the text of an ancient Hebrew Matthew appeared in
toto in a Jewish polemical text called the Even Bohan written
by Shem-Tob ben-Shaprut, a Spanish Jew. Therefore, this manuscript is
also known as the “Shem-Tob” Matthew. Even Bohan is an extensive
volume containing arguments against the false Christianity of that era, as well
as refutations against Yeshua as the Messiah. The Hebrew Matthew was included
in this large volume as an original source material to argue against
Christianity.
Manuscripts of this Hebrew Matthew can be
found in the British Library (Ms. #26964) as well as the Bodeleian Library in
Oxford, and at least 4 other manuscripts of the Hebrew Matthew can be found in
the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. I don’t want to mislead anybody.
These manuscripts were written about 600 years ago and included in the Even
Bohan in order to dispute Yeshua’s Messiahship. However, the Even
Bohan quotes from a truly ancient Matthew. (Likewise, I quoted “Church
Fathers, whose writings are about 1800 years old. However, this article is recent!)
As time went on, I discovered that others
before George Howard were aware of ancient Hebrew Matthews. Hugh Schonfield
published B’sorot Matti, An Old Hebrew Text of Matthew’s Gospel
in 1927. Hugh Schonfield (1901–1988) was a scholar of immense stature. He was
also the president of the Hebrew-Christian Alliance of Great Britain in the 1930s.
However, he was often attacked for his strong pro-Torah beliefs. He promoted
what was a genuine Messianic Jewish theology, and was attacked for some of his
beliefs[10]
by many Hebrew Christians at that time. He also wrote The History of
Jewish Christianity in 1936, which is excellent. Schonfield eventually
became disillusioned and became an apostate to the faith. But that’s another
story.
George Howard’s Hebrew Matthew is all
redone with modern Hebrew typesetting, which is much
easier to read than the photo-copied Shem-Tob Matthew. Mr. Howard also has the
Hebrew and English texts facing each other on opposite sides, which makes for
handy comparisons. The Hebrew is “unpointed,” that is, no added vowels, as was
the text in the Even Bohan. When he adds words to give sense to
the translation, the added words are in parentheses so you can know they are
added words.
James Scott Trimm has published some very
scholarly books, including an English translation of the Hebrew Matthew as well
as an English translation of the Aramaic NT. Regretfully,
much of the scholarship is plagiarized. Also, many who have sent money to order
his books did not receive the books. That’s too bad, because the scholarship (although
largely plagiarized) is excellent. In Trimm’s Hebrew Matthew, you get to see a
photocopy of the Shem-Tob Matthew at the end of the book, but the Hebrew
handwriting is very difficult to read and it is not divided into chapters and
verses. I suspect that Trimm borrowed heavily from Hugh Schonfield’s translation
of Matthew. There is nothing
wrong with borrowing from the scholarship of others, but proper credits should
be given.
At this point, some of you might be saying, “So what
difference does it make about the original language of the Book of Matthew?”
Part of my answer to this is that it would be emotionally satisfying to me, as
further evidence that the Book of Matthew (as well as other books of the Newer
Testament) is a thoroughly Jewish docu-ment, written in the Hebrew language. Matthew
would have written his Gospel onto a scroll. “Books” as we know them today did
not exist until at least the Third Century .
Of much greater
importance, however, it is important when reading any book of the Bible to
understand the culture, circumstances, and history in which the book was
written. The language takes on significance in getting a better handle on how
to interpret the texts set before you. Most of those who are reading this
article are quite comfortable with the English language, and therefore usually
study and read the Bible in an English-language translation. That is all fine
and well. However, there are many idioms (expressions of speech) that simply
don’t translate well into other languages. For instance, when I tell you that
something disturbed me, and I “hit the ceiling,” most of you understand that I
didn’t really “hit the ceiling.” However, a reader from Poland or China might
have a hard time understanding such idioms. The same is true for Hebrew idioms
(expressions of speech).
Also, something
always gets lost in the translation. Although not fluent in Hebrew, when I read
the original Hebrew text of the Bible, I see things that are missing in most
translations. It isn’t because the translators are incompetent. But some terms
carry a few different meanings, depending on the context. Also, there are
always some words which simply don’t have an equivalent word in other
languages. For instance, my wife is from Colombia. Occasionally, she tries to
tell a joke that is funny in Spanish. Somehow it loses something in the English
translation. However, in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, when we read the
English text, we are reading something that was originally written in Hebrew,
translated into Greek, and then finally translated into English. We are reading
a translation of a translation of a translation! And each time something is
translated, something is lost in the translation.
I do believe
that the Greek and Aramaic translations are very good, perhaps even “inspired.”
Whoever did the Greek translation almost slavishly translated it, preserving
even the Hebrew idioms, which are called “Hebraisms.” Many of these marvelous
Hebraisms are still in the Greek text today. One of the things I like about the
King James translation is that the translators almost slavishly translated these
Hebraisms for future generations to puzzle over. This is also one of the things
that makes the KJV Bibles difficult to understand. One
of the keys to understanding difficult passages in Matthew’s Gospel (as well as
some other books of the NT) is to realize that the original gospel was
communicated in Hebrew, not Greek! Many of the expressions (Hebraisms) are
either meaningless or con-fusing in Greek or English, but come to life when
understood with a Hebraic mindset. Some of these same Hebraic passages are
among the strongest and most important passages in the NT. They come to life
when one understands the Hebrew idioms.
Even if Matthew
had written his Gospel in Greek (which he didn’t do!), it must be remembered
that Matthew’s native language was Hebrew, not Greek. Also, when Yeshua spoke
to his talmidim (disciples), He spoke to them in either Aramaic (spoken
in the Galilee region), or He spoke to them in Hebrew (the language of Judea).
Then his teachings were later translated into Greek.
It is curious
that many Christians will spend years learning Greek in order to get a better
handle on understanding the Bible. How much better it would be if they spent
that time learning Hebrew! After all, 78% of the Bible is the Tanakh (O.T.),
which is 99% Hebrew, and about 1% Aramaic in the original texts. In addition,
most of the Newer Testament was either written in Hebrew, or was written in
Greek or Aramaic with a Hebraic perspective. Admittedly, Hebrew is a difficult
language. However, those who study Hebrew are rewarded with a better
understanding of both the Tanakh and the NT.
Likewise, many
Bible “scholars” study Greek culture and philosophy in order to get a better
understanding of the NT. This is pure craziness! If you want to better
understand the NT, it is vital to better understand the Jewish culture of the
First Century, as well as rabbinic thought. Don’t waste time studying Greek culture
and philosophy! I don’t recommend spending too much time in studying Talmud.
[11]
However, it is also helpful to have some knowledge of Talmud in studying the
NT, as some of the thought in the NT happens to be Talmudic, even more so than
with the Tanakh. Additional advances in understanding the NT can come only as
the concentration of study shifts to the Hebrew language, as well as Jewish
history, theology, and culture.
One of the main arguments against a Hebrew Matthew
(despite the pro-nouncements of the “church fathers”) is that Hebrew (supposedly)
was not a spoken language in the time of Yeshua the Messiah. The theory was
that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the language of conversation after the Babylonian
Captivity (597–538 BCE). Supposedly, Hebrew was only used in prayer and in the
study of Scripture. This idea caught on in the 1800s, and has stuck to this
day.
Aramaic was
indeed spoken in northern Israel, particularly in the Galilee region. No doubt,
some Jews also spoke Greek and Latin, as a result of the foreign occupations.
Also, like today, it helped to know foreign languages for trade, commerce, and
education. However, most Jews inside of Israel spoke and under-stood Hebrew.
Some translations, such as the NIV (“Nearly Inspired Version”) actually
mistranslate Acts 21:40 and 26:14 to mislead readers into believing that Yeshua
and Paul spoke to the people in Aramaic instead of Hebrew! If the writer Acts
intended to have Yeshua and Paul speaking in Aramaic, he would have said so.
(The Greek words for “Aramaic” and “Hebrew” are two entirely different words.)
There were some
Aramaic loan words used in the Hebrew of Yeshua’s time, just as there is today.
The term “Abba,” meaning “Daddy,” is Aramaic in origin, but is still used in
Israel today. Nearly all languages borrow heavily from other languages.
However, in one sense, Hebrew is a “pure” language:[12]
When an Israeli wants to use curse words, he is forced to go to another
language. The language of choice for the swear words is usually English. There
are no real curse words in Hebrew!
The primary
languages in use in Israel were Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Therefore, when
Pontius Pilate had the sign erected above the cross, it was written “Yeshua the
Nazarene, the King of the Jews,” in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.[13]
Aramaic wasn’t even mentioned!
The Dead Sea
Scrolls, as well as writings preserved on stone, confirm that Hebrew was a
living, vibrant langauge 2000 years ago. In addition, the Mishna[14]
was written centuries after Yeshua in Hebrew!
The Greek of
the NT, particularly of Matthew, is written in what is usually called Koine
Greek, or the Greek of the common man. However, the only place in which
this kind of “Koine” Greek can be found is in the Greek NT. Curiously, when
scholars in recent centuries began translating the Greek NT into Hebrew, they
found that they didn’t have to play around with the word order very much, as
the Greek NT already had a Hebrew word order. This is very unusual, as most
languages – including Hebrew – have word orders which are maddening to those
who speak modern European languages.
In addition,
they found many plays on words which simply did not exist in the Greek, but
suddenly surfaced in the Hebrew trans-lation! (Keep in mind that Matthew – and
perhaps other books of the NT – were originally written in Hebrew, and then
translated into Greek and Aramaic. Then many centuries later, they were
translated back into the original language – Hebrew!)
James Scott
Trimm writes, “It is clear from various Hebrew word plays, that the text therein
(of Matthew) was composed in Hebrew, not translated from Greek; in fact, many
passages (such as Matthew 2:23) cannot even be understood in Greek.” [15]
Another text
that proves that the Hebrew text predates the Greek is the genealogy of Yeshua
in Matthew 1. The text should include 3 sets of 14 generations each, per
Matthew 1:17. However, the Greek text contains only 13 generations in the last
set. Matthew 1:13 of the Hebrew Matthew contains the missing name, “Avner,”
which looks much like Avichud, the name preceding Avner. It is easy to
see how a translator could easily miss this word when translating the text into
Greek. The Hebrew “D” (d) and “R” (r) are very similar in appearance.
|
This
is the first of a series of articles on the book of Matthew. Additional
articles from this series on Matthew will appear in future issues of Petah
Tikvah. |
[1] “Common
Era,” equivalent to “A.D.”
[2] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, III 39, 16.
[3] Ibid.,
V 8, 2.
[4] Ibid.,
VI 25, 4.
[5] Ibid.,
III 24, 6.
[6] Refutation of All
Heresies, 29,9,4.
[7] Ibid.,
30, 3, 7.
[8] Even at that time, Jews
were spread out through many different countries, speaking many different
languages. However, most had some familiarity with Hebrew.
[9] A notable exception would
be the Dead Sea Scrolls which were preserved by Jews in the dry desert climate
of SE Israel 2000 years ago.
[10] Schonfield also dismissed
Paul as being mentally ill, which of course is not true.
[11] A huge, multi-volume,
encyclopedic, Rabbinic commentary on Torah.
[12] See Zephaniah 3:9.
[13] Yochanan (John) 19:19-20.
[14] A Rabbinic commentary on Torah.
[15] Page ‘x’
of the introduction to his book.