6. Chapter 1
Rabbinical translations of Matthew
The Rabbinical translations of Matthew are rabbini-
cal versions of the Gospel of Matthew that are written in
Hebrew; Shem-Tob’s Matthew, the Du Tillet Matthew, and
the Münster Matthew, and which were used in polemical
debate with Catholics.
These versions are to be distinguished from the Gospel
According to the Hebrews which was one or more works
found in the Early Church, but surviving only as fragmen-
tary quotations in Greek and Latin texts.
Most scholars consider all the rabbinical versions to be
translated from the Greek or Latin of the canonical
Matthew, for the purpose of Jewish apologetics.[1]
1.1 Rabbinical Jewish versions
1.1.1 Early Rabbinical citations of
Matthew, 600-1300
Quotations from Hebrew translations of portions of vari-
ous New Testament books - including the epistles of Paul
- can be found in rabbinical treatises against Catholicism.
These treatises multiplied wherever Jews lived in proxim-
ity to Christians - such as Spain before the expulsion of
the Jews from Spain in 1492.
• Sefer Nestor ha-Komer; “The Book of Nestor the
Priest”, 7th century. Contains significant quotes
from Matthew, apparently from a Latin text.[2]
• Toledot Yeshu; “Life of Jesus”, 7th century.
• Milhamoth ha-Shem; “Wars of the Lord” of Ja-
cob Ben Reuben 12th century, which cites texts in-
cluding Matthew 1:1-16, 3:13-17, 4:1-11, 5:33-40,
11:25-27, 12:1-8, 26:36-39, 28:16-20.
• Sefer Nizzahon Yashan; “The Book of Victory” (in
Latin Nizzahon vetus), 13th century.
• Sefer Joseph Hamekane; “Book of Joseph the Of-
ficial” of rabbi Joseph ben Nathan, 13th century
(Paris MS).
Jean Carmignac (Paris 1969, BNES 1978) identified fifty
Hebrew translations of the Lord’s Prayer from the 9th to
the 18th centuries.[3][4][5]
Most scholars consider that the
medieval Hebrew manuscripts are derived by translation
from medieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore
that it is extremely unlikely that any of the unique read-
ings found in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could
be ancient.[6]
Four principal versions in rabbinical Hebrew of Matthew
have survived or partially survived:
1.1.2 Shem Tov’s Matthew, 1385
The Shem Tov Matthew (or Shem Tob’s Matthew)
consists of a complete text of Gospel of Matthew in the
Hebrew language found interspersed among anti-Catholic
commentary in the 12th volume of a polemical trea-
tise The Touchstone (c.1380-85) by Shem Tov ben Isaac
ben Shaprut (Ibn Shaprut), a Jewish physician living in
Aragon, after whom the version is named. Shem Tov de-
bated Cardinal Pedro de Luna (later Antipope Benedict
XIII) on original sin and redemption in Pamplona, De-
cember 26, 1375, in the presence of bishops and learned
theologians. Nine manuscripts of The Touchstone sur-
vive, though if an independent version of the text of
Matthew used by Ibn Shaprut ever existed then it is lost.
Spanish Jews of Ibn Shaprut’s period were familiar with
the New Testament in Latin. Jacob Ben Reuben in his
Wars of the LORD translated Gilbert Crispin's Dispu-
tation of Jews and Christians from Latin into Hebrew,
along with quotes from Matthew. Lasker (1998) re-
marks that “By the fourteenth century, most likely ev-
ery Iberian anti-Christian Jewish polemicist knew Latin.”
Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas made proficient use of
Latin phrases. Profiat Duran (fl.1380-1420) had exten-
sive knowledge of Latin Christian texts, and devoted a
chapter of his Disgrace of the Gentiles (Klimat ha-goyim)
to criticism of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Hayyim ben Ju-
dah ibn Musa argued with Nicholas de Lyra in his Book
of Shield and Spear (Sefer magen va-romah).[7]
Like-
wise converts to Christianity such as Abner of Burgos
(Alphonso of Valladolid, ca. 1270-1347) continued to
write polemical, theological, philosophical, and scientific
works in Hebrew.
Shem Tov’s The Touchstone (Eben = stone, bohan = test)
1
7. 2 CHAPTER 1. RABBINICAL TRANSLATIONS OF MATTHEW
has never been translated into English or published. It
follows the model of Milhamoth ha-Shem of Jacob Ben
Reuben in use of Matthew but contains not just sections
of Matthew as Jacob Ben Reuben, but the whole text of
Matthew and parts of Mark. George Howard excised the
text of Matthew from among Shem Tov’s comments and
published them separately as The Gospel of Matthew ac-
cording to a primitive Hebrew text (1987), a revised ver-
sion Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995).[8]
Shem Tov’s quotations of Matthew in The Touchstone are
marked by Jewish thought, and are interspaced with the
comments of the author. As a consequence several schol-
ars feel it is difficult to determine which parts are Shem
Tov’s commentary, and which parts are the actual text of
the source he was quoting. Many scholars view the text as
a mediaeval translation from the Greek text of the Gospel
of Matthew, as well as being the likely source of all later
Hebrew versions of Matthew prior to the 20th century.
Where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Tanakh quota-
tions, instead one finds a single Hebrew He ()ה except
in one place where the word “ha-shem” (,השם the name)
is spelled out. There are some interesting readings of
Matthew in The Touchstone.[9]
• Matt 12:37 “According to your words you will be
judged, and according to your deeds you will be con-
victed.”
• Matt 24:40-41 “40 Then if there shall be two plough-
ing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the
one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women
will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the
other left. This is because the angels at the end of
the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the
world and will separate the good from the evil.”
• Matt 28:9 “As they were going Jesus passed before
them saying: 'May the Name deliver you.'"
• Matt 28:19-20 “Go and teach them to carry out all
the things which I have commanded you forever.”
• Mark 9:20-28 is placed into the text of Matthew
between Matt 17:17 and 17:19. Matt 17:18 is
omitted.[10]
While the quotations in Shem Tov’s The Touchstone,
which are interspersed in his own commentary, diverge
from the canonical text of Matthew, the text of the Mün-
ster Matthew and the Du Tillet Matthew are significantly
very close to it in many passages.
1.1.3 Sebastian Münster’s Matthew, 1537
The Münster Matthew is printed version of the Gospel
of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language published by
Sebastian Münster in 1537 and dedicated to King Henry
VIII of England. He had received the text from Spanish
Jews he had converted to Christianity in the 1530s. Ap-
parently, these Jews had been using the text to understand
the Christian religion in order to counter it. Münster felt
that the text was defective, and set about reworking it.
The original manuscript he received no longer exists; only
his printed reworking of it survives, and it closely resem-
bles the Du Tillet Matthew. Because the places where
Münster changed the text is unknown, this text can be
difficult to use for textual criticism.
1.1.4 Jean du Tillet’s Matthew, 1555
The Du Tillet Matthew is a version of the Gospel of
Matthew, written in Hebrew, known as Heb.MSS.132,
and residing in the National Library, Paris. The
manuscript was obtained by Bishop Jean du Tillet from
Italian Jews on a visit to Rome in 1553, and published in
1555, with editing by Jean Mercier (Hebraist) and addi-
tion of a Latin version, dedicated to cardinal Charles de
Guise.
While the text is less divergent from the Greek textual
tradition than is the Shem Tov Matthew, this version share
some deviations in common with the Shem Tov Matthew;
for example, the Tetragrammaton is replaced with a sign
composed of three yodhs or dots enclosed in a semicircle.
Jean Cinqarbres (Quinquarboreus), Hebrew professor of
the College Royal also worked on the Du Tillet Matthew.
1.1.5 Rahabi Ezekiel’s Matthew, 1750
Rabbi Rahabi Ezekiel's Ha-sepher shel we-'angilu shel ha-
Nosarim shel Yeshu [The book of the Gospel belonging
to the followers of Jesus] is a polemical translation of
Matthew dating from 1750.[11]
This may or may not be
the same as the polemical rabbinical Hebrew New Tes-
tament of Rabbi Ezekiel bought by Claudius Buchanan
in Cochin and known as the “Travancore Hebrew New
Testament”, which led Buchanan to urge Joseph Frey to
commence work on a Christian translation.[12]
1.1.6 Elias Soloweyczyk’s Matthew, 1869
Main article: Elias Soloweyczyk
1.2 Christian Hebrew versions
Around half of the 20 known Christian translations
of Matthew were also done by authors who were
formerly rabbis, or came from a rabbinical training:
Domenico Gerosolimitano and Giovanni Battista Jona,
Rudolph Bernhard, Johan Kemper, Simon Rosenbaum
(of Uppsala),[13]
Christian David Ginsburg and Isaac
Salkinson.[14]
However the principal modern Hebrew
8. 1.4. NOTES 3
version of Matthew is based on the New Testament of
a German, Franz Delitzsch.
1.3 Shem Tov’s Touchstone in
Christian Aramaic primacy
debate
Main article: Aramaic primacy
The hypotheses of Hebrew and Aramaic primacy posit
that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in
Hebrew or Aramaic. Scholars who support these hy-
potheses sometimes appeal to these 3 medieval Hebrew
manuscripts. However, the vast majority of scholars be-
lieve Matthew was originally written in Greek.[15]
George Howard, Associate Professor of Religion and He-
brew at the University of Georgia has argued (1995)
that some or all of these three medieval Hebrew versions
may have descended (without any intervening translation)
from ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, which
may have been used by early Christians in the 1st or 2nd
century, but were nearly extinct by the time of Jerome,
late in the 4th century.[16]
However the surviving citations from Jewish-Christian
Gospels (namely Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the
Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the
writings of Jerome, Epiphanius and others, lead critical
scholars to conclude that those Gospels themselves either
were Greek or were translated from Greek Matthew.[17]
In fact, most scholars consider that the medieval Hebrew
manuscripts were descended (by translation) from me-
dieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore that it is
extremely unlikely that any of the unique readings found
in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could be ancient.
[18]
Horbury (1999)[19]
notes that the characteristics of ibn
Shaprut’s Touchstone are better explained by the influence
of Latin Gospel harmonies.
1.4 Notes
[1] Brown
[2] Horbury, W. Appendix in Matthew 19-28 ed. William
David Davies, Dale C. Allison
[3] “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer: An Historical
Survey. BNES 1978
[4] Jakob Josef Petuchowski, Michael Brocke The Lord’s
Prayer and Jewish liturgy 1978
[5] Evans Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Stud-
ies 2001 p294 “Carmignac (“Hebrew Translations,” 21-
49) provides fifty Hebrew translations of the Lord’s prayer
ranging from the ninth to the eighteenth centuries, as well
as many more from the nineteenth and twentieth cen-
turies.”
[6] Petersen 1998
[7] Daniel J. Lasker in In Iberia and beyond: Hispanic Jews
between cultures ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman 1998 p176
[8] William Horbury Appendix pp729 in A Critical and Ex-
egetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint
Matthew ed. . D. Davies, William David Davies, Dale
C. Allison
[9] Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduc-
tion to Shem-Tob’s “Hebrew Matthew”
[10] http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html
Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduc-
tion to Shem-Tob’s “Hebrew Matthew”
[11] Pinchas Lapide Hebrew in the church: the foundations of
Jewish-Christian dialogue 1984
[12] Shalom Goldman God’s sacred tongue: Hebrew & the
American imagination p108 2004 “In Travancore he pur-
chased a large collection of Hebrew manuscripts that in-
cluded both a chronicle of the Jews of Cochin and a He-
brew New Testament. Buchanan identified the translator
of the New Testament as one Rabbi Ezekiel,”
[13] Biblical and Near Eastern studies: essays in honor of
William Sanford La Sor, Gary A. Tuttle - 1978 “1727
Simon Rosenbaum: Uppsala, O. Hebr. 31, p. 7ro This
translation of the New Testament up to Gal 2:15 is in
fact anonymous, but has been attributed to Simon Rosen-
baum, the successor of Johan Kemper, by Hans Joachim
Schoeps”
[14] Jean Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s
Prayer: A Historical Survey,” in Biblical and Near Eastern
studies: essays in honor of William Sanford LaSor (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 18."My list of transla-
tors (or editors) is as follows: Shem Tob ben Shafrut,
Sebastian Munster, Jean Cinqarbres, Jean du Tillet,
Marco Marini(?), Elias Hutter, Domenico Gerosolimi-
tano, Georg Mayr [Bavarian Jesuit 1564-1623], Giovanni
Battista Jona, William Robertson (Hebraist), Rudolph
Bernhard, Johannes Kemper, Simon Rosenbaum, Ezekiel
Rahabi, Richard Caddick, Thomas Yeates (orientalist),
The London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst
the Jews, William Greenfield, Robert Young (Bibli-
cal scholar), Elias Soloweyczyk, Franz Delitzsch, Isaac
Salkinson and J. M. Paul Bauchet.”
[15] Brown 1997, p. 210 “There are medieval Hebrew forms
of Matt that most scholars think of as retroversions from
the Greek of canonical Matt, often made to serve in ar-
guments between Christians and Jews. However, some
claim that these texts are a guide to the original He-
brew of Matt (French scholars like J. Carmignac and M.
Dubarle have contributed to this thesis...) Still other schol-
ars think they can reconstruct the original Hebrew or Ara-
maic underlying the whole or parts of the Greek text of
canonical Matt on the assumption that the original was in
9. 4 CHAPTER 1. RABBINICAL TRANSLATIONS OF MATTHEW
Semitic... The vast majority of scholars, however, con-
tend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed orig-
inally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic orig-
inal... Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New
Testament”
[16] Howard 1995
[17] Philipp Vielhauer section in NTA1
[18] Petersen 1998
[19] Horbury W. Hebrew study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda 1999
p129 “These features are probably to be explained, how-
ever, not, as Howard thinks, from the influence of a gospel
in Hebrew current among the early Christians, but rather
from the encounter of Jews over the years with various
forms of gospel text in other languages;"
1.5 References
• Brown, Raymond E. (1997), An Introduction to the
New Testament, Anchor Bible, ISBN 0-385-24767-
2
• Howard, George (1995), Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
(2nd ed.), Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN
0-86554-442-5
• Petersen, William L. (1998), “The Vor-
lage of Shem-Tob’s 'Hebrew Matthew'",
New Testament Studies 44: 490–512,
doi:10.1017/S0028688500016696, OCLC
1713962
10. Chapter 2
Gospel of Matthew
For the film, see The Gospel According to St. Matthew
(film).
The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: κατὰ Ματ-
θαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, kata Matthaion euangelion, τὸ εὐαγ-
γέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, to euangelion kata Matthaion)
(Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew) is one of the
four canonical gospels, one of the three synoptic gospels,
and the first book of the New Testament. The narra-
tive tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, fi-
nally sends the disciples to preach his Gospel to the whole
world.[1]
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was com-
posed between 80 and 90;[2]
a pre-70 date remains a
minority view.[3]
The anonymous author was probably a
highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the techni-
cal aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was
probably honored within his circle.[4]
According to the
majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three
main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark;
the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q
source; and material unique to his own community, called
“Special Matthew”, or the M source.[5]
2.1 Composition and setting
2.1.1 Background
Autographs do not survive for ancient books such as the
Gospel of Matthew and the other Gospels. They sur-
vive in scribal copies propagated over time. In the pro-
cess of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional
manuscript traditions emerged with multiple streams
of transmission, and corrections and adjustments were
made, for theological reasons or to iron out incongruen-
cies between copies or different translations into numer-
ous languages. The editions of biblical and other ancient
texts we read today are established by collating all ma-
jor surviving manuscripts, using also the evidence from
citations of them in Patristic writers, in order to pro-
duce a version which, by the consensus of scholars of
textual criticism, most likely approximates to the form of
The Evangelist Matthew Inspired by an Angel (Rembrandt)
the lost autographs.[6]
In the case of the New Testament,
the oldest exemplars of relatively complete manuscripts
are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Most
scholars agree, following what is known as the “Marcan
hypothesis”,[7]
that the authors of Matthew and Luke used
Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the
Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE).[8]
2.1.2 Author
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not
named within the text, and the superscription “accord-
ing to Matthew” was added some time in the second
century.[9][10]
The tradition that the author was the disci-
ple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias
of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church
historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: “Matthew
collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in
5
11. 6 CHAPTER 2. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one
interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps “translated”) them as
best he could.”[11][Notes 1]
On the surface, this has been
taken to imply that Matthew’s Gospel itself was writ-
ten in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and
later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the au-
thor claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and
Matthew’s Greek “reveals none of the telltale marks of
a translation.”[12][9]
Scholars have put forward several
theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two
gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek
version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings
rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have
meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than
in the Hebrew language.[11]
The consensus is that Papias
does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it,
and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in
Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.[13]
2.1.3 Sources
Relationships between the
Synoptic Gospels
Unique to
Mark
Mark and
Matthew
Mark and
Luke
Unique to
Luke
Double
Tradition
Unique to
Matthew
Triple
Tradition
35% 23%
41%1% 45%
25% 20%
10%
76%
18%
3%
MARK
MATT.LUKE
3%
Matthew’s sources include the Gospel of Mark, the “shared tra-
dition” called Q, and material unique to Matthew, called M.
The majority view of modern scholars is that Mark was
the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who
includes some 600 of Mark’s 661 verses) and Luke both
drew upon it as a major source for their works.[14][15]
If
so, the author of Matthew did not, however, simply copy
Mark, but edited his source freely, emphasizing Jesus’
place in the Jewish tradition and adding large blocks of
teaching.[16]
An additional 220 (approximately) verses,
shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, form
a second source, a hypothetical collection of sayings to
which scholars give the name “Quelle” (“source” in the
German language), or the Q source.[17]
This view, known
as the Two-source hypothesis (Mark and Q), allows for a
further body of tradition known as “Special Matthew”, or
the M source, meaning material unique to Matthew; this
may represent a separate source, or it may come from the
author’s church, or he may have composed these verses
himself.[15]
The author also had at his disposal the Jew-
ish scriptures, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of
Isaiah, the Psalms etc.) and in the form of “testimony
collections” (collections of excerpts), and, finally, the oral
traditions of his community.[18]
These sources were pre-
dominantly in Greek;[19]
although a few scholars hold that
some of these source documents may have been Greek
translations of older Hebrew or Aramaic sources.[20][21]
2.1.4 Setting and date
The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was
a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.[22][Notes 2]
This makes it a work of the second generation of Chris-
tians, for whom the defining event was the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE
in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73
CE); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of
Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an in-
creasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a
separate religion[23]
Historically, the dating of Matthew
was less clear,[24]
and even some modern scholars have
proposed that Matthew was written earlier.[25][26]
The Christian community to which Matthew belonged,
like many 1st century Christians, were still part of
the larger Jewish community: hence the designation
Jewish-Christian to describe them.[27]
The relationship of
Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject
of study and contention, the principal question being to
what extent, if any, Matthew’s community had cut itself
off from its Jewish roots.[28]
Certainly there was conflict
between Matthew’s group and other Jewish groups, and
it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the
Matthew community’s belief in Jesus as the messiah and
authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the
dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.[29]
The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-
speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (An-
tioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest
in the empire, is often mentioned).[30]
Unlike Mark, he
never bothers to explain Jewish customs; unlike Luke,
who traces Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, father of the
human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the
Jews; of his three presumed sources only “M”, the ma-
terial from his own community, refers to a “church” (ec-
clesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order;
and the content of “M” suggests that this community was
strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must ex-
ceed the scribes and the Pharisees in “righteousness” (ad-
herence to Jewish law).[31]
Writing from within a Jewish-
12. 2.2. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT 7
Christian community growing increasingly distant from
other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its mem-
bership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his
vision “of an assembly or church in which both Jew and
Gentile would flourish together.”[32]
2.2 Structure and content
Beginning of the Gospel of Matthew in Minuscule 447
2.2.1 Structure
Matthew, alone among the gospels, alternates five blocks
of narrative with five of discourse, marking each off with
the phrase “When Jesus had finished...”[33]
(see Five Dis-
courses of Matthew). Some scholars see in this a delib-
erate plan to create a parallel to the first five books of the
Old Testament; others see a three-part structure based
around the idea of Jesus as Messiah; or a set of weekly
readings spread out over the year; or no plan at all.[34]
Davies and Allison, in their widely used commentary,
draw attention to the use of “triads” (the gospel groups
things in threes),[35]
and R. T. France, in another influen-
tial commentary, notes the geographic movement from
Galilee to Jerusalem and back, with the post-resurrection
appearances in Galilee as the culmination of the whole
story.[36]
2.2.2 Prologue: genealogy, nativity and in-
fancy
Main articles: Genealogy of Jesus and Nativity of Jesus
The Gospel of Matthew begins with the words “The Book
of Genealogy [in Greek, “Genesis"] of Jesus Christ”, de-
liberately echoing the words of Genesis 2:4 in the Old
Testament in Greek.[Notes 3]
The genealogy tells of Jesus’
descent from Abraham and King David and the mirac-
ulous events surrounding his virgin birth,[Notes 4]
and the
infancy narrative tells of the massacre of the innocents,
the flight into Egypt, and eventual journey to Nazareth.
2.2.3 First narrative and discourse
Main articles: Baptism of Jesus and Sermon on the
Mount
The first narrative section begins. John baptizes Jesus,
and the Holy Spirit descends upon him. Jesus prays
and meditates in the wilderness for forty days, and is
tempted by Satan. His early ministry by word and deed
in Galilee meets with much success, and leads to the Ser-
mon on the Mount, the first of the discourses. The sermon
presents the ethics of the kingdom of God, introduced by
the Beatitudes (“Blessed are...”). It concludes with a re-
minder that the response to the kingdom will have eter-
nal consequences, and the crowd’s amazed response leads
into the next narrative block.[37]
2.2.4 Second narrative and discourse
From the authoritative words of Jesus the gospel turns to
three sets of three miracles interwoven with two sets of
two discipleship stories (the second narrative), followed
by a discourse on mission and suffering.[38]
Jesus com-
missions the Twelve Disciples and sends them to preach
to the Jews, perform miracles, and prophesy the immi-
nent coming of the Kingdom, commanding them to travel
lightly, without staff or sandals.[39]
2.2.5 Third narrative and discourse
Opposition to Jesus comes to a head with accusations that
his deeds are done through the power of Satan; Jesus
in turn accuses his opponents of blaspheming the Holy
Spirit. The discourse is a set of parables emphasising the
sovereignty of God, and concluding with a challenge to
the disciples to understand the teachings as scribes of the
kingdom of heaven.[40]
(Matthew avoids using the holy
word God in the expression “Kingdom of God"; instead
he prefers the term “Kingdom of Heaven”, reflecting the
Jewish tradition of not speaking the name of God).[41]
13. 8 CHAPTER 2. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
2.2.6 Fourth narrative and discourse
Main article: Confession of Peter
The fourth narrative section reveals that the increas-
ing opposition to Jesus will result in his crucifixion in
Jerusalem, and that his disciples must therefore pre-
pare for his absence.[42]
The instructions for the post-
crucifixion church emphasize responsibility and humil-
ity. (This section contains Matthew 16:13–19, in which
Simon, newly renamed Peter, (πέτρος, petros, meaning
“stone”), calls Jesus “the Christ, the son of the living
God”, and Jesus states that on this “bedrock” (πέτρα, pe-
tra) he will build his church—the passage forms the foun-
dation for the papacy's claim of authority).
2.2.7 Fifth narrative and discourse
Main article: Second Coming
Jesus travels toward Jerusalem, and the opposition inten-
sifies: he is tested by Pharisees as soon as he begins to
move towards the city, and when he arrives he is soon
in conflict with the Temple and other religious leaders.
The disciples ask about the future, and in his final dis-
course (the Olivet Discourse) Jesus speaks of the com-
ing end.[43]
There will be false Messiahs, earthquakes, and
persecutions, the sun, moon, and stars will fail, but “this
generation” will not pass away before all the prophecies
are fulfilled.[39]
The disciples must steel themselves for
ministry to all the nations. At the end of the discourse
Matthew notes that Jesus has finished all his words, and
attention turns to the crucifixion.[43]
2.2.8 Conclusion: Passion, Resurrection
and Great Commission
The events of Jesus’ last week occupy a third of the con-
tent of all four gospels.[44]
Jesus enters Jerusalem in tri-
umph and drives the money changers from the temple,
holds a last supper, prays to be spared the coming agony
(but concludes “if this cup may not pass away from me,
except I drink it, thy will be done”), and is betrayed. He
is tried by the Jewish leaders (the Sanhedrin) and before
Pontius Pilate, and Pilate washes his hands to indicate that
he does not assume responsibility. Jesus is crucified as
king of the Jews, mocked by all. On his death there is an
earthquake, the veil of the Temple is rent, and saints rise
from their tombs. Mary Magdalene and another Mary
discover the empty tomb, guarded by an angel, and Je-
sus himself tells them to tell the disciples to meet him in
Galilee.
After the resurrection the remaining disciples return to
Galilee, “to the mountain that Jesus had appointed,”
where he comes to them and tells them that he has been
given “all authority in heaven and on Earth.” He gives the
Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
obey everything that I have commanded you;" Jesus will
be with them “to the very end of the age.”[45]
2.3 Theology
Woodcut from Anton Koberger's Bible (Nuremberg, 1483): The
angelically inspired Saint Matthew musters the Old Testament fig-
ures, led by Abraham and David
2.3.1 Christology
Christology is the theological doctrine of Christ, “the
affirmations and definitions of Christ’s humanity and
deity”.[46]
There is a variety of Christologies in the New
Testament, albeit with a single centre - Jesus is the figure
in whom God has acted for mankind’s salvation.[47]
Matthew has taken over his key Christological texts from
Mark, but sometimes he has changed the stories he found
in Mark, giving evidence of his own concerns.[48]
The title
Son of David identifies Jesus as the healing and miracle-
working Messiah of Israel (it is used exclusively in rela-
tion to miracles), and the Jewish messiah is sent to Israel
alone.[49]
As Son of Man he will return to judge the world,
a fact his disciples recognise but of which his enemies are
unaware.[50]
As Son of God he is named Immanuel (God
with us) (Matthew 1:23), God revealing himself through
his son, and Jesus proving his sonship through his obedi-
ence and example.[51]
2.3.2 Relationship with the Jews
Matthew’s prime concern was that the Jewish tradition
should not be lost in a church increasingly becoming
gentile.[52]
This concern lies behind the frequent citations
of Jewish scripture, the evocation of Jesus as the new
Moses along with other events from Jewish history, and
the concern to present Jesus as fulfilling, not destroying,
14. 2.5. IN ART 9
the Law.[53]
According to Dale Allison, Matthew, unlike
Paul and like Luke, believed that the Law was still in
force, which meant that Jews within the church had to
keep it.[54]
The gospel has been interpreted as reflecting the strug-
gles and conflicts between the evangelist’s community and
the other Jews, particularly with its sharp criticism of the
scribes and Pharisees.[55]
Prior to the Crucifixion the Jews
are called Israelites, the honorific title of God’s chosen
people; after it, they are called "Ioudaioi", Jews, a sign
that through their rejection of the Christ the "Kingdom
of Heaven" has been taken away from them and given in-
stead to the church.[56]
2.4 Comparison with other writ-
ings
2.4.1 Christological Development
The divine nature of Jesus was a major issue for the com-
munity of Matthew, the crucial element marking them
off from their Jewish neighbors. Early understandings of
this nature grew as the gospels were being written. Be-
fore the gospels, that understanding was focused on the
revelation of Jesus as God in his resurrection, but the
gospels reflect a broadened focus extended backwards in
time.[57]
The gospel of Mark recounts prior revelations
in Jesus’ lifetime on earth, at his baptism and transfigu-
ration. Matthew and Luke go back further still, showing
Jesus as the Son of God from his birth. Matthew most
of all the gospels identifies how his coming to earth was
the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies. Fi-
nally John calls God the Word (Jesus) pre-existent before
creation, and thus before all time.
Matthew is a creative reinterpretation of Mark,[58]
stress-
ing Jesus’ teachings as much as his acts,[59]
and making
subtle changes in order to stress his divine nature – Mark’s
“young man” who appears at Jesus’ tomb, for example,
becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.[60]
The miracle sto-
ries in Mark do not demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, but
rather confirm his status as an emissary of God (which
was Mark’s understanding of the Messiah).[61]
2.4.2 Chronology
There is a broad disagreement over chronology between
Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and John on the
other: all four agree that Jesus’ public ministry began with
an encounter with John the Baptist, but Matthew, Mark
and Luke follow this with an account of teaching and heal-
ing in Galilee, then a trip to Jerusalem where there is
an incident in the Temple, climaxing with the crucifix-
ion on the day of the Passover holiday. John, by contrast,
puts the Temple incident very early in Jesus’ ministry, has
several trips to Jerusalem, and puts the crucifixion im-
mediately before the Passover holiday, on the day when
the lambs for the Passover meal were being sacrificed in
Temple.[62]
2.5 In art
The Chi Rho monogram from the Book of Kells is the most lavish
such monogram
In Insular Gospel Books (copies of the Gospels produced
in Ireland and Britain under Celtic Christianity), the first
verse of Matthew’s genealogy of Christ was often treated
in a decorative manner, as it began not only a new book
of the Bible, but was the first verse in the Gospels.
2.6 See also
• Authorship of the Bible
• Godspell
• Gospel
• Gospel harmony
• Gospel of the Ebionites
• Gospel of the Hebrews
• Gospel of the Nazoraeans
• Great Commission
15. 10 CHAPTER 2. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
• Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
• The Visual Bible: Matthew
• Il vangelo secondo Matteo, a film by Pier Paolo Pa-
solini
• Immanuel
• Jewish-Christian Gospels
• List of Gospels
• List of omitted Bible verses
• Live by the sword, die by the sword
• Matthew 16:2b–3
• Olivet discourse
• Papyrus 64
• Sermon on the Mount
• Joseph Smith—Matthew
• St Matthew Passion – an oratorio by J. S. Bach
• Synoptic gospels
• Textual variants in the Gospel of Matthew
• Woes of the Pharisees
2.7 Notes
[1] Eusebius, “History of the Church” 3.39.14-17, c. 325
CE, Greek text 16: "ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ
Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’
εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ
λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς
ἕκαστος. Various English translations published, stan-
dard reference translation by Philip Schaff at CCEL:
"[C]oncerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows:
'So then(963) Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew
language, and every one interpreted them as he was
able.'(964)" Online version includes footnotes 963 and
964 by Schaff.
Irenaeus of Lyons (died c. 202 CE) makes a similar
comment, possibly also drawing on Papias, in his Against
Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, “Matthew also issued a
written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect”
(see Dwight Jeffrey Bingham (1998), Irenaeus’ Use of
Matthew’s Gospel in Adversus Haereses, Peeters, p. 64 ff).
[2] This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting re-
flects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about
85 CE; (b) it reflects the capture of Rome and destruction
of the Temple by the Romas in 70 CE; (c) it uses Mark,
usually dated around 70 CE, as a source. (See R.T France
(2007), “The Gospel of Matthew”, p. 18.) France himself
is not convinced by the majority – see his Commentary,
pages 18-19.
[3] France, p. 26 note 1, and p. 28: “The first two words of
Matthew’s gospel are literally “book of genesis”.
[4] France, p. 28 note 7: “All MSS and versions agree in
making it explicit that Joseph was not Jesus’ father, with
the one exception of sys, which reads “Joseph, to whom
was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus.”
2.8 References
[1] Luz 2005, p. 249-250.
[2] Duling 2010, p. 298-299.
[3] France 2007, p. 19.
[4] Duling 2010, p. 298-299, 302.
[5] Burkett 2002, p. 175.
[6] Daniel B. Wallace (ed.) Revisiting the Corruption of the
New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Ev-
idence, Kregel Academic, 2011, passim.
[7] Stoldt, Hans-Herbert, History and Criticism of the Marcan
Hypothesis, Hardcover, 302 pages, Mercer Univ Pr; First
Edition edition (October 1980), ISBN 978-0865540026
[8] Mark D. Roberts, Investigating the Reliability of
Matthew, Crossway Publisher, 2007, p58.
[9] Harrington 1991, p. 8.
[10] Nolland 2005, p. 16.
[11] Turner 2008, p. 15-16.
[12] Hagner 1986, p. 281.
[13] Ehrman 1999, p. 43.
[14] Turner 2008, p. 6-7.
[15] Senior 1996, p. 22.
[16] Harrington 1991, p. 5-6.
[17] McMahon 2008, p. 57.
[18] Beaton 2005, p. 116.
[19] Nolland 2005, p. 3.
[20] Casey 2010, pp. 87–8.
[21] Davies & Allison 1988, pp. 12–3.
[22] Davies & Allison 2004, p. 128].
[23] Scholtz 2009, p. 34-35.
[24] John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991) p116.
[25] Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Syn-
optics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1987), p275
[26] R.T France (2007), “The Gospel of Matthew”, p. 18.)
16. 2.9. BIBLIOGRAPHY 11
[27] Saldarini 1994, p. 4.
[28] Senior 2001, p. 7-8,72.
[29] Senior 2001, p. 11.
[30] Nolland 2005, p. 18.
[31] Burkett 2002, p. 180-181.
[32] Senior 2001, p. 19.
[33] Turner 2008, p. 9.
[34] Davies & Allison 1988, p. 59-61.
[35] Davies & Allison 1988, p. 62ff.
[36] France 2007, p. 2ff.
[37] Turner 2008, p. 101.
[38] Turner 2008, p. 226.
[39] Harris 1985.
[40] Turner 2008, p. 285.
[41] Browning 2004, p. 248.
[42] Turner 2008, p. 265.
[43] Turner 2008, p. 445.
[44] Turner 2008, p. 613.
[45] Turner 2008, p. 687-688.
[46] Levison & Pope-Levison 2009, p. 167.
[47] Fuller 2001, p. 68-69.
[48] Tuckett 2001, p. 119.
[49] Luz 1995, p. 86,111.
[50] Luz 1995, p. 91,97.
[51] Luz 1995, p. 93.
[52] Davies & Allison 1997, p. 722.
[53] Senior 2001, p. 17-18.
[54] Allison 2004, p. xxvi.
[55] Burkett 2002, p. 182.
[56] Strecker 2000, pp. 369–370.
[57] Peppard 2011, p. 133.
[58] Beaton 2005, p. 117.
[59] Morris 1987, p. 114.
[60] Beaton 2005, p. 123.
[61] Aune 1987, p. 59.
[62] Levine 2001, p. 373.
2.9 Bibliography
2.9.1 Commentaries
• Allison, D.C. (2004). Matthew: A Shorter Commen-
tary. T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-08249-7.
• Davies, W.D.; Allison, D.C. (2004). Matthew 1–7.
T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-08355-5.
• Davies, W.D.; Allison, D.C. (1991). Matthew 8–18.
T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-08365-4.
• Davies, W.D.; Allison, D.C. (1997). Matthew 19–
28. T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-08375-3.
• Duling, Dennis C. (2010). “The Gospel of
Matthew”. In Aune, David E. The Blackwell Com-
panion to the New Testament. Wiley-Blackwell. pp.
296–318. ISBN 978-1-4051-0825-6.
• France, R.T (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerd-
mans. ISBN 978-0-8028-2501-8.
• Harrington, Daniel J. (1991). The Gospel of
Matthew. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814658031
• Keener, Craig S. (1999). A commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-
3821-6.
• Luz, Ulrich (1992). Matthew 1–7: a commentary.
Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-9600-9.
• Luz, Ulrich (2001). Matthew 8–20: a commentary.
Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-6034-5.
• Luz, Ulrich (2005). Matthew 21–28: a commentary.
Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5.
• Morris, Leon (1992). The Gospel according to
Matthew. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-85111-338-8.
• Nolland, John (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A
Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans. ISBN
0802823890.
• Turner, David L. (2008). Matthew. Baker. ISBN
978-0-8010-2684-3.
2.9.2 General works
• Aune, David E. (ed.) (2001). The Gospel of
Matthew in current study. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-
0-8028-4673-0.
• Aune, David E. (1987). The New Testament in its
literary environment. Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN 978-0-664-25018-8.
• Beaton, Richard C. (2005). “How Matthew Writes”.
In Bockmuehl, Markus; Hagner, Donald A. The
Written Gospel. Oxford University Press. ISBN
978-0-521-83285-4.
17. 12 CHAPTER 2. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
• Browning, W.R.F (2004). Oxford Dictionary of the
Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
860890-5.
• Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New
Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cam-
bridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.
• Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Inde-
pendent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teach-
ing. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-567-64517-3.
• Clarke, Howard W. (2003). The Gospel of Matthew
and Its Readers. Indiana University Press. ISBN
978-0-253-34235-5.
• Cross, Frank L.; Livingstone, Elizabeth A., eds.
(2005) [1997]. “Matthew, Gospel acc. to St.”. The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.).
Oxford University Press. p. 1064. ISBN 978-0-19-
280290-3.
• Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Jesus Remembered.
Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet
of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper-
Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
• Fuller, Reginald H. (2001). “Biblical Theology”. In
Metzger, Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D. The Ox-
ford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible. Oxford
University Press.
• Hagner, D.A. (1986). “Matthew, Gospel According
to”. In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. International Stan-
dard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3: K-P. Wm. B. Eerd-
mans. pp. 280–8. ISBN 978-0-8028-8163-2.
• Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Understanding the Bible.
Palo Alto: Mayfield.
• Kowalczyk, A. (2008). The influence of typology
and texts of the Old Testament on the redaction of
Matthew’s Gospel. Bernardinum. ISBN 978-83-
7380-625-2.
• Kupp, David D. (1996). Matthew’s Emmanuel: Di-
vine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
57007-7.
• Levine, Michael D. (2001). “Visions of kingdoms:
From Pompey to the first Jewish revolt”. In Coogan.
The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513937-2.
• Levison, J.; Pope-Levison, P. (2009). “Christol-
ogy”. In Dyrness, William A.; Veli-Matti. Global
Dictionary of Theology. InterVarsity Press.
• Luz, Ulrich (2005). Studies in Matthew. Eerdmans.
ISBN 978-0-8028-3964-0.
• Luz, Ulrich (1995). The Theology of the Gospel of
Matthew. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-
0-521-43576-5.
• McMahon, Christopher (2008). “Introduction to
the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles”. In Ruff,
Jerry. Understanding the Bible: A Guide to Reading
the Scriptures. Cambridge University Press.
• Morris, Leon (1986). New Testament Theology.
Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-45571-4.
• Peppard, Michael (2011). The Son of God in the Ro-
man World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political
Context. Oxford University Press.
• Perkins, Pheme (1998-07-28). “The Synoptic
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the
Christian Story”. The Cambridge Companion to Bib-
lical Interpretation. ISBN 0521485932., in Kee,
Howard Clark, ed. (1997). The Cambridge com-
panion to the bible: part 3. Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
• Saldarini, Anthony (2003). “Matthew”. Eerdmans
commentary on the Bible. ISBN 0802837115., in
Dunn, James D.G.; Rogerson, John William (2003).
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans.
ISBN 978-0-8028-3711-0.
• Saldarini, Anthony (1994). Matthew’s Christian-
Jewish Community. University of Chicago Press.
ISBN 978-0-226-73421-7.
• Sanford, Christopher B. (2005). Matthew: Christian
Rabbi. Author House.
• Scholtz, Donald (2009). Jesus in the Gospels and
Acts: Introducing the New Testament. Saint Mary’s
Press.
• Senior, Donald (2001). “Directions in Matthean
Studies”. The Gospel of Matthew in Current
Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson,
S.J. ISBN 0802846734., in Aune, David E. (ed.)
(2001). The Gospel of Matthew in current study.
Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4673-0.
• Senior, Donald (1996). What are they saying about
Matthew?. PaulistPress. ISBN 978-0-8091-3624-7.
• Stanton, Graham (1993). A gospel for a new people:
studies in Matthew. Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN 978-0-664-25499-5.
• Strecker, Georg (2000) [1996]. Theology of the New
Testament. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-0-664-
22336-6.
18. 2.10. EXTERNAL LINKS 13
• Tuckett, Christopher Mark (2001). Christology and
the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers.
Westminster John Knox Press.
• Van de Sandt, H.W.M. (2005). "Introduc-
tion". Matthew and the Didache: Two Docu-
ments from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu ?.
ISBN 9023240774., in Van de Sandt, H.W.M, ed.
(2005). Matthew and the Didache. Royal Van Gor-
cum&Fortress Press. ISBN 978-90-232-4077-8.
• Weren, Wim (2005). “The History and Social Set-
ting of the Matthean Community”. Matthew and the
Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-
Christian Milieu ?. ISBN 9023240774., in Van de
Sandt, H.W.M, ed. (2005). Matthew and the Di-
dache. Royal Van Gorcum&Fortress Press. ISBN
978-90-232-4077-8.
2.10 External links
• A list of online translations of the Gospel of
Matthew: Matthew 1–28
• Biblegateway.com (opens at Matt.1:1, NIV)
• A textual commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Detailed text-critical discussion of the 300 most im-
portant variants of the Greek text (PDF, 438 pages).
• Early Christian Writings Gospel of Matthew: intro-
ductions and e-texts.
• Matthew – King James Version
19. Chapter 3
Gospel of the Nazarenes
The Gospel of the Nazarenes (also Nazareans,
Nazaraeans, Nazoreans, or Nazoraeans) is the tradi-
tional but hypothetical name given by some scholars
to distinguish some of the references to, or citations
of, non-canonical Jewish-Christian Gospels extant in
patristic writings from other citations believed to derive
from different Gospels.
3.1 Collation into Gospel of the
Nazarenes
Most scholars in the 20th century identified the Gospel of
the Nazarenes as distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews
and Gospel of the Ebionites.[1]
3.1.1 Text editions of Gospel of the
Nazarenes
The current standard critical edition of the text is found
in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha, where 36
verses, GN 1 to GN 36, are collated.[2]
GN 1 to GN 23 are
mainly from Jerome, GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval
sources. This classification is now traditional[3]
Though
Craig A. Evans (2005) suggests that “If we have little con-
fidence in the traditional identification of the three Jewish
gospels (Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Hebrews), then per-
haps we should work with the sources we have: (1) the
Jewish gospel known to Origen, (2) the Jewish gospel
known to Epiphanius, and (3) the Jewish gospel known
to Jerome.[4]
3.1.2 The name Gospel of the Nazarenes
The name Gospel of the Nazarenes was first used in
Latin by Paschasius Radbertus (790-865), and around
the same time by Haimo, though it is a natural pro-
gression from what Jerome writes.[5]
The descriptions
“evangelium Nazarenorum”, dative and ablative in evan-
gelio Nazarenorum”, etc. become commonplace in later
discussion.[6]
The hypothetical name refers to a possible identification
with the Nazarene community of Roman period Pales-
tine.[7]
It is a hypothetical gospel, which may or may not
be the same as, or derived from, the Gospel of the He-
brews or the canonical Gospel of Matthew.[8][9]
The ti-
tle, Gospel of the Nazarenes, is a neologism as it was not
mentioned in the Catalogues of the Early Church nor by
any of the Church Fathers.[10]
Today, all that remains of
its original text are notations, quotations, and commen-
taries from various Church Fathers including Hegesippus,
Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.[8]
The Gospel of the Nazarenes has been the subject of many
critical discussions and surmises throughout the course
of the last century. Recent discussions in a growing
body of literature have thrown considerable light upon
the problems connected with this gospel. Its sole liter-
ary witnesses are brief citations found in patristic litera-
ture and quotations by the Church Fathers.(Jerome, Com-
mentary on Micah, 7) This bears great significance be-
cause higher criticism argues that the canonical Gospel
of Matthew is not a literal reproduction of Matthew’s
original autograph, but was rather the production of an
unknown redactor, composed in Greek posthumous to
Matthew.[11]
This aligns with Jerome’s assessment, in
which he stated, “Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and
aforetime publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first
published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of
the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards
translated into Greek, though by what author is uncer-
tain."(Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 3) (See:
Two-source hypothesis and Four Document Hypothesis)
3.2 Background - Nazarenes
Main article: Nazarene (sect)
The term Nazarene was applied to Jesus of Nazareth
(Gospel of Matthew 2:23). Mention of a “sect of the
Nazarenes” (plural) occurs first with Tertullus (Acts
24:5). After Tertullus the name does not appear again,
apart from an unclear reference in Eusebius' Onomasti-
con, until a similar name, "Nazoreans", is distinguished
14
20. 3.4. SCHOLARLY POSITIONS 15
by Epiphanius in his Panarion in the 4th Century.[12]
It was the term used to identify the predominantly Jewish
sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah. When this sect
branched into the Gentile world, they became known as
Christians.[13]
By the 4th century, Nazarenes are generally accepted
as being the first Christians that adhered to the Mosaic
law who were led by James the Just, the brother of Je-
sus. Traditionally he led the Church from Jerusalem
and according to 1 Corinthians (15:7) had a special
appearance of the resurrected Jesus, and only “then to all
the apostles”.[14]
3.3 Primary sources - Patristic tes-
timony
Concerning its origin, Jerome relates that the Nazarenes
believed that the Hebrew Gospel he received while at
Chalcis was written by Matthew the Evangelist. In his
work On Illustrious Men, Jerome explains that Matthew,
also called Levi, composed a gospel of Christ, which was
first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake
of those of the circumcision who believed (On Illustri-
ous Men, 2) Meanwhile, in his Commentary on Matthew,
Jerome refers to the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the
Gospel of the Hebrews.
Epiphanius is of the same opinion; he states in his
Panarion that Matthew alone expounded and declared
the gospel in Hebrew among the New Testament writers:
“For in truth, Matthew alone of the New Testament writ-
ers expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using
Hebrew script.” (Panarion 30.13.1)
Origen adds to this by stating that, among the four
gospels, Matthew, the one-time tax collector who later
became an apostle of Jesus Christ, first composed the
gospel for the converts from Judaism, published in the
Hebrew language.(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 6.25)
3.4 Scholarly positions
There exist two views concerning the relationship of the
surviving citations from the “Gospel of the Nazarenes":
3.4.1 GN dependent on Canonical
Matthew
Due to contradictions in the account of the baptism of
Jesus, and other reasons, most biblical scholars consider
that the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews,
and Gospel of the Ebionites are three separate Gospels,
even though Jerome linked the Nazarenes to the Ebionites
in their use of the Gospel of the Hebrews.[15]
Philipp Vielhauer writes of the Greek/Latin fragments
collected as the Gospel of the Nazarenes that “Its liter-
ary character shows the GN secondary as compared with
the canonical Mt; again, from the point of view of form-
criticism and the history of tradition, as well as from that
of language, it presents no proto-Matthew but a develop-
ment of the Greek Gospel of Matthew (against Waitz).
'It is scarcely to be assumed that in it we are dealing with
an independent development of older Aramaic traditions;
this assumption is already prohibited by the close rela-
tionship with Mt.[16]
Likewise, as regards the Syriac frag-
ments, Vielhauer writes “the Aramaic (Syriac) GN can-
not be explained as a retroversion of the Greek Mt; the
novelistic expansions, new formations, abbreviations and
corrections forbid that. In literary terms the GN may best
be characterised as a targum-like rendering of the canon-
ical Matthew.”[17]
From this view the GN fragments are
linked to the canonical version of Matthew, with minor
differences. For example, GN replaces “daily bread” with
“bread for tomorrow” in the Lord’s Prayer (GN 5), states
that the man whose hand was withered (GN 10, compare
Matthew 12:10-13) was a stonemason, and narrates there
having been two rich men addressed by Jesus in Matthew
19:16-22 instead of one (GN 16).
3.4.2 Matthew dependent on Gospel of
Nazarenes
James R. Edwards (2009) argues that the canonical
Matthew is based on a Hebrew original, and that the ci-
tations of the Gospel of the Nazarenes are part of that
original.[18]
Edwards’ view is predated by that of Edward Nicholson
(1879), Bodley’s Librarian. His conclusions were as fol-
lows:
1. “We find that there existed among the Nazarenes and
Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews, written in Aramaic, but with
Hebrew characters. Its authorship was attributed by
some to the Apostles in general, but by very many or
most — including clearly the Nazarenes and Ebion-
ites themselves — to Matthew.”[19]
2. “The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety,
referred to it always with respect, often with rev-
erence: some of them unhesitatingly accepted it as
being what tradition affirmed it to be — the work
of Matthew — and even those who have not put
on record their expression of this opinion have not
questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with
the supposition that the Gospel according to the He-
brews was a work of heretical tendencies? This ap-
plies with tenfold force to Jerome. After copying
it, would he, if he had seen heresy in it, have trans-
lated it for public dissemination into both Greek and
21. 16 CHAPTER 3. GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES
Latin, and have continued to favor the tradition of its
Matthaean authorship? And Jerome, be it observed,
not only quotes all three of these passages without
disapprobation; he actually quotes two of them (Fr.
6 and Fr. 8) with approval.”[20]
Nicholson’s position that The Gospel of the Hebrews was
the true Gospel of Matthew is still the subject of heated
debate. However most scholars[21]
now agree that the
Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was not written by
Matthew, but composed posthumous to him.[11]
The Talmudic evidence for early Christian gospels, com-
bined with Papias’ reference to the Hebrew “logia”
(Eusebius, Church History III . 39 . 16)[22]
and Jerome’s
discovery of the Gospel of the Hebrews in Aramaic
(Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2) have led scholars such as
C. C. Torrey (1951) to consider an original Aramaic or
Hebrew gospel, meaning the Gospel of the Hebrews which
the Nazarenes used.[23]
The Gospel of the Nazarenes (Nazoraeans) emphasized
the Jewishness of Jesus.[24][25]
According to multiple
early sources, including Jerome (Against Pelagius 3) and
Epiphanius (Panarion 29-30) the Gospel of the Nazarenes
was synonymous with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the
Gospel of the Ebionites. Ron Cameron considers this a
dubious link.[26]
3.4.3 Time and place of authorship
The time and place of authorship are disputed, but since
Clement of Alexandria used the book in the last quar-
ter of the second century, it consequently predates 200
AD. Its place of origin might be Alexandria, Egypt since
two of its principal witnesses, Clement and Origen, were
Alexandrians. However, the original language of the
Gospel of the Nazarenes was Hebrew, suggesting that
it was written specifically for Hebrew-speaking Jewish
Christians in Palestine, Syria, and contingencies.
3.5 The extant reconstructed text
of Gospel of the Nazarenes
and variances with Canonical
Matthew
The following list[27][28][29]
represents variant readings
found in Gospel of the Nazarenes against the canoni-
cal Gospel of Matthew:[30]
Where Ehrman’s order corre-
sponds to the Schneemelcher numbering "(GN 2)" etc.,
is added for clarity:
• (GN 2) In Matthew 3, it reads: “Behold, the mother
of the Lord and his brethren said to him, 'John the
Baptist is baptizing unto the remission of sins; let us
go and be baptized by him.' But He said to them,
'Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be bap-
tized by him? Unless what I have just said is (a sin
of?) ignorance.'"(Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2”)[31]
• (GN 3) Matthew 4:5 has not “into the holy city” but
“to Jerusalem.”
• (GN 4) Matthew 5:22 lacks the phrase “without a
cause” as in P א 67
B 2174, some vgmss
, some ethmss
• (GN 5) Matthew 6:11 reads, “Give us today our
bread for tomorrow.” (Jerome, Commentary on
Matthew 6:11)[32]
• (GN 6) Matthew 7:23 adds, “If ye be in my bosom,
but do not the will of my Father in heaven, out of
my bosom I will cast you.”[27]
Compare with non-
canonical 2 Clement 2:15.[33]
• (GN 7) Matthew 10:16 has “wise more than ser-
pents” rather than “wise as serpents.”
• (GN 23) On Matthew 10:34-36, the Syriac transla-
tion of Eusebius' Theophania contains: 'He (Christ)
himself taught the reason for the separations of souls
that take place in houses, as we have found some-
where in the Gospel that is spread abroad among the
Jews in the Hebrew tongue, in which it is said, “I
choose for myself the most worthy; the most worthy
are those whom my Father in heaven has given me."'
(Eusebius, Theophania, Syriac translation 4.12)
• (GN 8) Matthew 11:12 reads “is plundered” instead
of “suffers violence.”
• (GN 9) Matthew 11:25 has “I thank thee” rather than
“I praise you.”
• (GN 10) At Matthew 12:10-13, the man who had the
withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded
for help in the following words: “I was a mason seek-
ing a livelihood with my hands. I beseech thee, Je-
sus, to restore me to my health, that I may not in
shame have to beg for my food.” (Jerome, Commen-
tary on Matthew 12:13)
• (GN 11) Matthew 12:40 omits “three days and three
nights” immediately preceding “in the heart of the
earth.”
• (GN 12) Matthew 15:5 reads, “It is a korban (offer-
ing) by which ye may be profited by me.” Compare
Mark 7:11.
• (GN 13) Matthew 16:2b–3 omitted, as in א B V X
Y Γ Uncial 047 2 34 39 44 84 151 157 180 194 272
274 344 376 539 563 595 661 776 777 788 792 826
828 1073 1074 1076 1078 1080 1216 2542 syrcur
syrs
copsa
copbomss
arm f13
Origen.
• (GN 14) Matthew 16:17 has Hebrew “Shimon ben
Yochanan” (Simon son of John) instead of Aramaic
“Simon Bar-Jonah” (Simon son of Jonah).
22. 3.6. SEE ALSO 17
• (GN 15) At Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus is recorded as
having said: “If your brother has sinned by word,
and has made three reparations, receive him seven
times in a day.” Simon his disciple said to him,
“Seven times in a day?" The Lord answered, saying
to him, “Yea, I say unto thee, until seventy times
seven times. For in the Prophets also, after they
were anointed with the Holy Spirit, a word of sin
was found.(Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2)
• (GN 16) At Matthew 19:16-24, Origen, in his Com-
mentary on Matthew, records there having been two
rich men who approached Jesus along the way. Ori-
gen records that the second rich man asked Jesus,
“Rabbi, what good thing can I do that I may live?"
He (Jesus) said to him, “Man, fulfill the Law and the
Prophets.” He answered him, “I have done (so).” Je-
sus said, “Go, sell all that you have, and distribute
to the poor; and come, follow me.” But the rich man
began to fidget (some copies read, 'began to scratch
his head'), for it did not please him. And the Lord
said to him, “How can you say, 'I have fulfilled the
Law and the Prophets’, when it is written in the Law:
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself', and many
of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are covered with
filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many
good things, none of which goes out to them?" And
he (Jesus) turned and said to Simon his disciple,
who was sitting by him, “Simon son of John, it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a nee-
dle than for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven."(Origen, Commentary on Matthew 19:16-
30)
• (GN 17) At Matthew 21:12, Jerome records, “For a
certain fiery and starry light shone from His eyes,
and the majesty of the Godhead gleamed in His
face.”[34]
Also, there is quoted in a marginal note
of a thirteenth-century manuscript of the Aurora by
Peter of Riga the following: “Rays issued forth from
His eyes which terrified them and put them to flight.”
• (GN 18) Matthew 23:35 reads “Zechariah, the
son of Jehoiada" instead of “Zechariah, the son
of Barachiah."(Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
23:35)
• (GN 19) Matthew 26:74 has, “And he denied, and
he swore (i.e., took an oath), and he cursed (i.e., for-
swore).”
• (GN 21) Matthew 27:51 states not that the veil of the
temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of
wondrous size collapsed.(Jerome, Letter to Hedibia
120.8)[35]
• (GN 22) Matthew 27:65 reads, “And he (Pilate) de-
livered to them (the chief priests and the Pharisees)
armed men, that they might sit over against the tomb
and guard it day and night.”
• GN 4, 6, 15a, 19, 22 come from the 'Zion
Gospel Edition', the subscriptions of thirty-six
Gospel manuscripts dating from the 9th to the 13th
centuries.[36]
• GN 24-36 (not listed) are derived from medieval
sources.
3.6 See also
• Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke
• Gospel of Matthew
• Jewish-Christian Gospels - overview of the topic
• Gospel of the Hebrews - 7 fragments preserved by
Jerome
• Gospel of the Ebionites - 7 fragments preserved by
Epiphanius of Salamis.
• Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - 3 medieval rabbinical
translations of Greek Matthew into Hebrew.
• New Testament apocrypha - non-canonical and/or
pseudepigraphical Gospels, Acts, and Epistles.
3.7 Primary Sources
Wikisource – Gospel of the Nazoraeans
3.8 References
[1] Craig A. Evans Ancient texts for New Testament studies:
a guide to the background literature ISBN 978-1-56563-
409-1 2005 “The Jewish Gospels. With one or two notable
dissenters, most scholars in the last century have followed
Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and
Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently A.F.J. Klijn
(1992), in extrapolating from the church fathers three dis-
tinct extracanonical Jewish gospels: the Gospel of the
Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of
the Hebrews. A recent study by Peter Lebrecht Schmidt
(1998), however, has called this near consensus into ques-
tion. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke
to Klijn, Schmidt thinks that originally there was only
one Jewish gospel, probably written in Aramaic about 100
CE, called the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which
was subsequently... " cf. Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal
gospels: an introduction 2003 p37
[2] Vielhauer and Strecker Gospel of the Nazaraeans in
Schneemelcher NTA p.160-174 Fragments 1 to 36
[3] David Edward Aune The Westminster dictionary of New
Testament and early Christian Literature and Rhetoric.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003 p201
“Schneemelcher has reiterated the traditional classifica-
tion of the various types of apocryphal gospels into three.”
24. 3.9. EXTERNAL LINKS 19
• Gospel of the Nazoreans at earlychristianwrit-
ings.com
• Development of the Canon of the New Testament:
Gospel of the Hebrews
25. Chapter 4
Aramaic New Testament
The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms, the
classical Aramaic, or Syriac, New Testament, part of
the Peshitta Bible,[1]
and the “Assyrian Modern” New
Testament and Psalms published by the Bible Society in
Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Greek. The
official Assyrian Church of the East (known by some as
the Nestorian Church) does not recognise the new “As-
syrian Modern” edition, and traditionally considers the
New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New
Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This
view was popularised in the West by the Assyrian Church
of the East scholar George Lamsa, but is not supported
by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the
Greek New Testament.
The traditional New Testament of the Peshitta has 22
books, lacking 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and
Revelation, which are books of the Antilegomena. The
text of Gospels also lacks the Pericope Adulterae (John
7:53–8:11) and Luke 22:17–18.[2]
These missing books
were supplemented by the Syriacist John Gwynn in 1893
and 1897 from alternative manuscripts, and included
them in the United Bible Societies edition of 1905. The
1997 modern Aramaic New Testament has all 27 books.
4.1 Aramaic original New Testa-
ment hypothesis
The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for the New Tes-
tament holds that the original text of the New Testament
was not written in Greek, as held by the majority of schol-
ars, but in the Aramaic language, which was the primary
language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.
The position of the Assyrian Church of the East, per Mar
Eshai Shimun XXIII in 1957, is that the Syriac Peshitta
(which is written in a cursive form of Aramaic), used in
that church, is the original of the New Testament. Vari-
ants of this view are held by some individuals who may
argue for a lost Aramaic text preceding the Peshitta as the
basis for the New Testament.
This view is to be distinguished from higher criticism
and text-critical transmission theories such as the Hebrew
Gospel hypothesis of Lessing and others. The Hebrew
Gospel or Proto-Gospel hypothesis includes either Ara-
maic or Hebrew source texts for Matthew and possibly
Mark.
4.2 Church of the East doctrine
concerning the Peshitta
This is a traditional belief held in the Church of the East
that the Peshitta text, which most scholars consider a
translation from Greek, is in fact the original source of
the Greek:
“With reference to... the originality of the
Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the
Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the
East, we wish to state, that the Church of the
East received the scriptures from the hands of
the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic
original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus
Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text
of the Church of the East which has come down
from the Biblical times without any change or
revision.” Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, by Grace,
Catholicos Patriarch of the East. April 5, 1957
The most noteworthy advocate of this view in the west
was George Lamsa (1976) of the Aramaic Bible Center.
However this view is rejected by the majority of scholars:
“The only complete English translation of
the Peshitta is by G. Lamsa. This is unfortu-
nately not always very accurate, and his claims
that the Peshitta Gospels represent the Aramaic
original underlying the Greek Gospels are en-
tirely without foundation; such views, which
are not infrequently found in more popular lit-
erature, are rejected by all serious scholars.
Brock, Sebastian P (2006), The Bible in the
Syriac tradition, p. 58
The current Patriarch of the Church of the East, Mar
Dinkha IV (1976–present), has not publicly pronounced
that the Peshitta is the original New Testament.
20
26. 4.5. METHODS OF ARGUMENT 21
4.3 Other “Peshitta original” advo-
cates
A tiny minority of scholars are backers of the “Peshitta
original” theory today, including website owners Andrew
Gabriel Roth (compiler of the “AENT”) and the Assyrian
Paul Younan, among others.[3]
4.3.1 “Aramaic primacy”
Some advocates of the “Peshitta original” view, or the
view that the Christian New Testament and/or its sources
were originally written in the Aramaic language, also use
the term “Aramaic primacy” though this is not used in
academic sources, and appears to be a recent neologism.
The words do earlier appear together in print in the
sentence “according Aramaic primacy among the lan-
guages,” in Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in an-
tiquity: conflict or confluence 1998[4]
but only as a gen-
eral expression used to note the primacy of Aramaic over
other languages in specific context, and also describing
“Aramaic’s predominance”[5]
over Hebrew and Greek in
Second Temple Jerusalem. Levine could equally have
written “according primacy to Aramaic.”
This article titled “Aramaic primacy” appeared on
Wikipedia in August 2004,[6]
with the first line “Ara-
maic Primacists believe that the Christian New Testament
was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek as generally
claimed by Churches of the West”. The term then ap-
peared in print in 2008.
Likewise advocates of the primacy of an Aramaic New
Testament have coined a new meaning for the phrase
"Greek primacy" (earliest confirmed reference 2007[7]
)
to describe the consensus scholarly view that the New
Testament was originally written in Greek. These terms
are not used by text-critical scholarship, since in its view
the evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament
was written originally in Greek.[8][9]
4.4 Brief history
George Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta New Testa-
ment from Syriac into English brought the claims for pri-
macy of the Aramaic New Testament to the West. How-
ever, his translation is poorly regarded by most scholars
in the field.[10]
The Old Syriac Texts, the Sinai palimpsest
and the Curetonian Gospels, have also influenced schol-
ars concerning original Aramaic passages. Diatessaronic
texts such as the Liege Dutch Harmony, the Pepysian
Gospel Harmony, Codex Fuldensis, The Persian Har-
mony, The Arabic Diatessaron, and the Commentary on
the Diatessaron by Ephrem the Syrian have provided re-
cent insights into Aramaic origins. The Coptic Gospel of
Thomas and the various versions of the medieval Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew also have provided clues to Aramaic
foundations in the New Testament especially the gospels.
Many 19th Century scholars (H. Holtzmann, Wendt,
Jülicher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B.
Weiss, Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and
Stanton)[11]
theorized that portions of the gospels, espe-
cially Matthew, were derived from an Aramaic source
normally referred to as Q.
4.5 Methods of argument
Aramaic Primacists believe that New Testament is writ-
ten in Aramaic, because of the below reasons.
Hebrew Historian Josephus points out that his nation did
not encourage the learning of Greek. Because of this, a
Hebrew knowing Greek was extremely rare in first cen-
tury.
Josephus - "I have also taken a great deal of pains to
obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand
the elements of the Greek language, although I have
so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue,
that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exact-
ness; for our nation does not encourage those that
learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn
their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;
because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as
common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many
of the servants as please to learn them. But they give
him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully ac-
quainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their mean-
ing; on which account, as there have been many who
have done their endeavors with great patience to ob-
tain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many
as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were
immediately well rewarded for their pains.” [12]
In the beginning of Josephus’ Antiquities of Jews, Jose-
phus again points out that Greek was an unaccustomed
language to Hebrews in first century AD.
Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 2 - "Now
I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it
will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for
it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of
our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of
the war, to explain who the Jews originally were, - what
fortunes they had been subject to, - and by what legisla-
ture they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise
of other virtues, - what wars also they had made in re-
mote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last
with the Romans: but because this work would take up
a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by
itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own con-
clusion; but in process of time, as usually happens
to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and
went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult
27. 22 CHAPTER 4. ARAMAIC NEW TESTAMENT
thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us
unaccustomed language.[13]
"
Unlike Greek NT, Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) sup-
ports Josephus who testifies (above) that Greek wasn't
spoken among Hebrews in first century Israel and also the
extreme rarity in terms of a Hebrew knowing Greek.
Greek NT and the translations of Greek NT say that
there are Greeks who communicated with Jesus Christ
and Apostle Paul which contradict the testimony of Jose-
phus. But Aramaic NT supports the testimony of Jose-
phus by saying that they were either Aramaean(s) or Pa-
gan(s). Below are some examples.
1. Mark 7:26 (NIV Translation) - “The woman was a
Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to
drive the demon out of her daughter.”
Mark 7:26 (Aramaic NT) [14]
- “But she was a pagan
woman from Phoenicia of Syria, and she was begging him
to cast out the demon from her daughter.”
2. John 7:35 (NIV) - “The Jews said to one another,
“Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find
him? Will he go where our people live scattered among
the Greeks, and teach the Greeks.”
John 7:35 (Aramaic NT) [15]
- “The Judeans were saying
among themselves, “Where is This Man prepared to go
that we cannot be? Is He prepared to go teach the pa-
gans?"".
3. Acts 16:1 (NIV) - “Paul came to Derbe and then to
Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose
mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was
a Greek.”
Acts 16:1 (Aramaic NT) [16]
- “And he arrived at the city
Derby and at Lystra, but a disciple was there whose name
was Timotheus, son of a certain Jewess believer, and his
father was an Aramaean.”
4. Romans 1:16 (KJV) - “For I am not ashamed of the
gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation
to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek.”
Romans 1:16 (Aramaic NT) [17]
- “For I am not ashamed
of The Gospel, because it is the power of God for the life
of all who believe in it, whether of The Judeans first, or
of the Aramaeans.”
5. Acts 20:21 (NIV) - “I have declared to both Jews and
Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have
faith in our Lord Jesus.”
Acts 20:21 (Aramaic NT) [18]
- “While I was testifying
to the Jews and to the Aramaeans about returning to God
and the faith in Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah.”
6. 1 Corinthians 1:24(NIV) - “but to those whom God
has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God and the wisdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 1:24 (Aramaic NT) [19]
- “But to those
who are called, Jews and Aramaeans, The Messiah is the
power of God and the wisdom of God.”
7. Galatians 2:3 (KJV) - “But neither Titus, who was with
me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:"
Galatians 2:3 (Aramaic NT) [20]
- “Even Titus, an Ara-
maean who was with me, was not compelled to be cir-
cumcised.”
8. Acts 19:17 (KJV) - “And this was known to all the Jews
and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them
all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”
Acts 19:17 (Aramaic NT) [21]
- “And this became known
to all the Jews and Aramaeans dwelling in Ephesaus and
great fear fell upon all of them, and the name of Our Lord
Yeshua The Messiah was exalted.”
4.6 Aramaic phenomena
There are many phenomena that advocates of an Aramaic
original for the New Testament consider to be evidence
for their case. For example, some of them include:
4.6.1 Perceived logical improbabilities in
Greek
One passage that it is argued contains a logical improb-
ability in Greek is Matthew 4:8. There isn't a mountain
high enough to view “all of the kingdoms of the earth”
since the earth is round. The Hebrew word found in Ibn
Shaprut's medieval translation of the Greek Gospel of
Matthew in the appendix to The Touchstone (c.1380) uses
“eretz”[22]
which can be translated as earth or land.[23]
By substituting the Hebrew word “eretz” into the passage
makes it possible that “all the kingdoms of the land of Is-
rael” were viewed from a high mountain such as Mount
Tabor in Israel. However the same is true for Greek ge
which can mean land or earth depending on context. Also
since “all the kingdoms of the land of Israel” is seen as an
unlikely meaning most commentators on Matthew have
seen “all the kingdoms of the land of earth” as being ei-
ther hyperbole or a vision.[24]
Another proposed example concerns Matthew 24:51 and
Luke 12:46. Agnes Smith Lewis (1910) noted that the
verb used in all of the Syriac versions “palleg” has the
primary meaning of “cut in pieces” and the secondary
one of “appoint to some one his portion.” The primary
sense leads to the possible problem of how someone cut
to pieces could then be assigned to something else. But,
Smith argues, if we take the secondary meaning then we
are may suggest that the Greek translator misunderstood
a Syriac idiom by taking it too literally. The translation
would be “and shall allot his portion and shall place him
with the unfaithful” instead of the Greek “shall cut him in
pieces and shall place him with the unfaithful.”[25]
Hugh
J. Schonfield (1927) notes that the Hebrew verb “bahkag”
28. 4.6. ARAMAIC PHENOMENA 23
means literally to “break forth, cleave asunder” and con-
cludes that the Greek translator has failed to grasp the
sense in which the Hebrew word is here used.[26]
Another proposed example involves the genealogy in
Matthew. Schonfield (1927) argues that the text of
Matthew indicates three genealogical groups of 14 each.
However, the Greek texts of Matthew have two groups
of 14 and a final group of 13. The Syriac Curetonian and
Syriac Sinaitic add the following to Matthew 1:13, “Abiud
begat Abiur, Abiur begat Eliakim. Dutillet’s Hebrew ver-
sion of Matthew adds Abihud begat Abner; Abner begat
Eliakim.[27]
In both Syriac and Hebrew the spellings be-
tween Abiud and Abiur are so close that during transla-
tion into Greek the second name could have been dropped
mistakenly. In any case, all Greek texts contain only 13
names while possibly indicating 14 should be in the final
portion of the list. The two Syriac texts and one Hebrew
text have 14 names and indicate 14 should be in the final
portion of the list.
4.6.2 Polysemy
Some treat “split words” as a distinctive subsection of
mistranslations. Sometimes it appears that a word in Ara-
maic with two (or more) distinct and different meanings
appears to have been interpreted in the wrong sense, or
even translated both ways in different documents. Per-
haps the most well known example that advocates of an
Aramaic urtext for the Gospels cite is the parable of the
“camel (καμηλος) through the eye of a needle.” (Mark
10:25, Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25) In Aramaic, the word
for “camel” ()גמלא is spelled identically to the word for
“rope” (,)גמלא suggesting that the correct phrase was
“rope through the eye of a needle,” making the hyperbole
more symmetrical. The Aramaic word can also be trans-
lated as “beam”, making a connection between this pas-
sage and the passage on removing a beam from your
eye—Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:41–42.
4.6.3 Puns
Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, a family where
many words come from three-letter roots. As a result,
speakers of the language employ puns that play on roots
with similar sounding consonants, or with the same con-
sonants re-arranged. In applying this principle, scholars
have studied the dialogues of the New Testament and in
some cases claim that how a choice of words that ap-
parently seem completely unrelated or awkward in Greek
may originate from an original Aramaic source that em-
ployed puns, or vice-versa. Agnes Smith Lewis[28]
dis-
cusses how the Aramaic words for “slave” and “sin” are
similar. “He who sins is a slave to sin” John 8:34. She
uses this to point out Jesus used puns in Aramaic that
were lost in the translations.
For example, in the True Children of Abraham debate
within the Gospel of John, some consider the conversa-
tion took place in Aramaic, note possible examples of
punning between the words “father” (,אבא abba), “Abra-
ham” (,אברהם abraham) and the verb “to do” (,עבד
`abad):
John 8 39
They retorted and said to him:
“Our abba (father) is Abraham!"
Jesus says to them:
“If you are Abraham’s children, `abad (do) as Abra-
ham would `abad (do)!"[29]
An alternate possibility is that the above conversation
was actually conducted in Aramaic, but translated into
Greek by the gospel writer. Portions of the oral sayings
in Matthew contain vocabulary that may indicate Hebrew
or Aramaic linguistic techniques involving puns, alliter-
ations, and word connections. Hebrew/Aramaic vocabu-
lary choices possibly underlie the text in Matthew 1:21,
3:9, 4:12, 4:21–23, 5:9–10, 5:23, 5:47–48, 7:6, 8:28–
31, 9:8, 10:35–39, 11:6, 11:8–10, 11:17, 11:29, 12:13–
15, 12:39, 14:32, 14:35–36, 15:34–37, 16:18, 17:05,
18:9, 18:16, 18:23–35, 19:9–13, 19:24, 21:19, 21:37–46,
21:42, 23:25–29, 24:32, 26:28–36, 26:52.[30][31][32]
4.6.4 Absence or presence of Aramaic quo-
tations and translations
In the Greek New Testament, a number of verses include
Aramaic phrases or words which are then translated into
Greek. In the Peshitta, sometimes the word or phrase
is quoted twice in Aramaic, indicating that the words
needed to be translated from one Aramaic dialect to an-
other.
For example, Matthew 27.46 reads:
Peshitta — And about the ninth hour Jesus
cried out with a loud voice and said: "Ēl, Ēl,
why have you forsaken me?"[33]
Greek — And about the ninth hour Je-
sus cried with a loud voice, saying: “Eli, Eli,
lamma sabacthani?" that is, “My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"[34]
However, the parallel verse in Mark 15:34 reads in both
in the quotation/translation form it has in the Greek:
Peshitta — And in the ninth hour, Jesus
cried out in a loud voice and said: "Ēl, Ēl lmānā
shvaqtāni” that is “My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?"[35]
