- MESSAGE MENU #1
MESSAGE MENU #2
- OVERLOOKING THE SOURCE OF OUR STRENGTH AND SALVATION
- FALSE PROPHETS OR SERVANTS OF YAHWEH?
- BOOK OF MATTHEW WRITTEN IN HEBREW OR IN GREEK?
- CONCERNING BABYLON AND CURRENT EVENTS
- THE FIRSTFRUITS OF YAHWEH/YAHWSHUA
- WHAT DID YAHWSHUA MEAN WHEN HE SAID "TOUCH ME NOT"?
- WHERE WAS YAHWEH'S SHEKINAH GLORY AT THE TIME OF YAWHSHUA?
- THE WAVE-SHEAF CEREMONY
MESSAGE MENU #3
- THE FIRST VISIBLE LUNAR CRESCENT
- TITHING CHART BASED ON WEEKLY INCOME
- HOW TO TITHE BASED ON YOUR ANNUAL SALARY
- MAP OF ANCIENT KHAZARIA
- MAP OF EPHRAYIM AND MANNASAH, ACCORDING TO THE ANGLO-SAXONS
- THE NEW COVENANT IS CONDITIONAL
- BARACK OBAMA: A PROPHET OF ISLAM
- TIMELINE CHART OF YAHSHUA'S DEATH AND RESURRECTION
- THE SACRED NAMES IN ANCIENT PALEO-HEBREW
- ZECHARYAH 12:9
- THE 24 ELDERS ARE ALREADY IN THRONES IN HEAVEN
- THE INFAMOUS "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" LAW: ABOLISHED OR IN EFFECT?
- RE LOST TEN TRIBES
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW:
WAS IT WRITTEN
OR IN GREEK?
detalles adicionales de las 7 iglesias.
Beloved brethren and "called-out" from the "lost sheep of Israel" whose twelve tribes have long been thoroughly dispersed, contaminated and merged with the gentiles; indeed language is a very decisive cultural trait of any race of mankind.
It is very difficult for alien people to totally relate to a culture different than theirs, unless at least one knows the other's native language and can each communicate basics with the other. Although for the very basics, people can use sign language very effectively. Those two methods would be the minimum requirement that two would need to be able to relate to each other.
And this is so, dear friends and brethren, especially as it pertains to the heathen or the unconverted gentiles. For they are not converted to Mashiach, you see, which would be their only effective and overriding "common denominator" that could minimize differences and bring real, meaningful and lasting love between different races and cultures. Sign language or spoken language cannot do that to a total extent. Even when a foreign newpaper is translated into our language, specific nuances are lost. Misunderstandings can arise. False assumptions can easily emerge.
A Spanish person has certain phrases and idioms in his language that really communicate to his way of life. So do people of other cultures. Those specific phrases and idioms belonging to their native language will not communicate to an English speaking person. For example, the American Anglophone does not have the same life-style or word associations as the Spanish speaking Mexican or Peruvian. All people communicate, and feel better accepted, by others of their own culture and language.
Yahwshua our Savior knew this so well---as He kew everything else. And so did His disciples and apostles. This is why He sent some of them to preach the gospel to the ephrayimites/gentiles, and others to the jews. The story about the apostle Matthew and the way he associated with the cultures prervalent in his day is probably not much different from that of Yahwshua and the rest of His disciples. To get their important message out to the world, they used the spoken word, which was later transcribed in writing. Today we have that word written in english, in spanish, and in many other languages. However, the gospel of Yahwshua as told by Matthew was not originally written in english, nor spanish...nor any of the other native languages we know exist today.
But before going on, let's first go back and establish some basics that need to be settled so that we do not misunderstand nor make false assumptions. Neither Our Savior nor His disciples were english or spanish, nor belonged to the roman christian faith we see around prevailing in the world today. Yahwshua grew up in the Galilee, a region in northern Israel which basically spoke Aramaic. His disciples came from the same region. They were all common people, like fisherman and shepherds.
The fact that most of them must have had little need to become fluent in Greek or in other languages, does not mean they were total strangers to the tongues of those living among them and ruling over them, nor of their neighbor nations...as some wrongly assume. While Yahwshua and His disciples and most of the other people residing in the land of Israel did need to know at least one other language---Hebrew---for it was their religious language and the language of their brethren in Judea---common people are often described in Scripture as being able to communicate with peoples of the neighboring lands. It would be impossible to communicate if at least one party doesn't know the language of the other party. (As an example let's bring Abraham to memory. Abraham, a native chaldean, was able to communicate with the egyptians even though obviously each spoke a different native tongue.)
Yahwshua’s cousin Yahchanan (John the Baptist) was a priest. It was necessary for him to speak Hebrew too because he would be raised for ministering in the temple at some point. Likewise Yahwshua’s religious and family culture demanded that He know at least two languages quite well, Aramaic, His native tongue; and Hebrew, the official tongue of the priesthood. But Our Master Yahwshua Ha Mashiach had the Spirit of Yahweh and thus could easily speak and understand all languages of the earth. While their immediate surrounding culture would not immerse Yahushua nor His disciples totally into the Greek language, not necessarily it means this would have been a foreign tongue to them.
Matthew, for one, meek and humble as he was, was a tax collector employed by the romans. Further, the Greek language had been the official tongue or the Greek empire for the previous century, and under greek rulership, all edicts and laws governing its provinces and territories were issued in Greek. To deny this, is to deny history. When the romans took over the government of the greeks, they did not override the Greek language with the Roman language. More so, the Roman language was added, however subtly, to the tongues of the people under Roman rule.
Beloved, just as not every hebrew living in the land of Palestine spoke instant latin upon the emergence of roman rule, and not everyone was a stranger to that tongue either; neither were the romans strangers to the hebrew or greek languages. Some people learned the language of the other when their circumstances demanded it, such as when they worked for them or traded heavily with them. To deny this simple fact, would mean they were never able to communicate with each other!
When learning a language of minimal use, a person thinks in His native language, but translates those words into the foreign language. Usually one word at a time.
History gives us several tidbits of information that substantiates that the Hebrew language was widely used when writing what we know today as the Bible...though not exclusively. Yes, this even includes the so-called New Testament. Eusebius, an early church historian wrote a book in the first two decades of the fourth century called “Ecclesiastical History,” i.e., Church History. (And by "church" let's clarify that we mean the Assembly of Yahwshua...not today's thousands of christian assemblies.)
In that book he has researched several questions that were being asked at that time and quoted many documents in an attempt to answer those questions. It had been about 250 years since Yahwshua walked on the earth and many things that were once common knowledge had fallen from their memory. Eusebius attempted to compile documents written by the Pre-Nicean Church fathers to re-educate the masses on the evidences for what was taught of that day. Let's quote a few of the documents that he records to substantiate the necessity for considering Hebrew when studying the New Testament.
Eusebius quoted Origen’s list of Inspired books where Origen mentioned the following concerning the gospels.
“The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”
Eusebius also reported quotes from Irenaeus 120AD-202AD, the bishop of Lyons, concerning the Gospels, which can be found below.
“Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. (3) After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul....”
It is evident that in the first century it was known that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Some scholars suggest this may be referring to Aramaic since both Hebrew and Aramaic were considered a “dialect of the Hebrews.” Studies made by some experts could persuade us to conclude it was in Hebrew rather than in Aramaic, but both languages share many words and expressions in common, making it trivial or at least much less important to determine which of the two it may have been! But none of this so far said precludes the possibility that the author could have written it in a second language (other than Aramaic or Hebrew). As we know, very old copies of Matthew's gospel exist in the Greek language! And Peter's letters also appear written in Greek...
Greek, however, comes from a culture and linguistic base completely different from the Semitic languages and would be very different in usage, culture and word associations. The above quote shows that Peter at least did not speak fluent Greek or Latin since he needed an interpreter (Mark) to translate for him. This in turn establishes that Mark did indeed speak it well, and that Peter gave Mark the Gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and that Mark put Peter’s words into Greek. We could also conclude that this same process was needed for the books of first and second Peter.
We also find that Luke wrote the gospel preached by Paul. Some quickly and falsely conclude that "if Paul needed a translator for the Gospel, then he may have also needed one for the remaining 13 letters that are claimed to have been written by him." But they overllok the possibility that Paul could have himself written many of his letters---or translated them afterwards---in Greek...with Luke simply "helping" Paul do a few translations Paul "may have missed."
Whether these books were first written in Hebrew and translated into Greek after, or if they were spoken in Hebrew and written down in Greek, is irrelevant. The Hebrew thinking that was behind the books would be manifest either way. So to understand these books, it is important to understand the basis to Hebrew (and in some cases in which the books were translated by the authors themseleves, to Greek) thinking, and the culture and word associations that may come from it.
Other quotes from Eusebius show the Semitic origin to another "New Testament" book attributed to the Apostle Paul. Ignatius believed that Clement had translated the Book of Hebrews. Ignatius died in 110 AD and Clement died in 101 AD. Eusebius quotes Ignatius:
“It is probable that this was also numbered with the other writings of the apostles, for as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. (3) This appears more like the truth, since the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserved the same features of style and phraseology, and the sentiments in both these works were not very different.”
From this we could determine that the Book of Hebrews was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew and was then---not very long after--- translated into Greek by another person. The translator can not be determined from the information since Ignatius suggested two possibilities and preferred one over the other. Eusebius also reports on Clement’s teaching concerning the authorship of Hebrews. It may have been that Clement’s comments were triggered from hearing Ignatius’ conclusion.
“The epistle to the Hebrews he (Clement) asserted was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but it was carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks since one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the epistle as in the acts;"
Clement reveals that the book of Hebrews was written in Hebrew, but was translated by Luke, not by himself. This seems rather matter of fact, but since he gives a reason outside of personal knowledge, it leads us to believe he was concluding who translated it by the style of writing rather than a personal knowledge. (But suppose they both had the same style of writing?) His first statement concerning the Hebrew language is reporting the facts. It seems clear in this English translation of Eusebius’ that the book was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. However as stated earlier both languages might have been referred to as the language of the Hebrews, since it depended on the region where a person lived as to which he natively spoke!
There are other indications that many books of the New Testament are of Semitic origin. This discussion serves as a sufficient basis to understand one reason why looking at it with Hebrew glasses is important. But keep this in mind. A normal person generally cannot think outside of his native tongue, so in anything he might write, the native tongue should be considered regardless of the language in which it was written. But the gospels were inspired and originally written and translated by people with the Ruach Ha Kodesh or Holy Spirit, and the Spirit take into account any cultural differences!
But later translations made by others, moved to translate without the Spirit, do not. Plenty to think about, is it not...? While such works might be flawed because of the "lying pen of the scribes," the Spirit will (slowly and eventually) guide all those who are called and chosen, to all truth.