Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Barry" <nebarry AT verizon.net>]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Christian" <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:20 AM
To: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
Cc: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew Matthew (was Syriac)

> In any case, I'm interested. Why do you think Matthew was originally
> composed in Greek?

If I may interject:

1) Compare it with actual Greek translation literature, the LXX.  It simply 
does not read like translation literature.  I don't have time to quantify it 
for you, but do the reading yourself.

2) Compare Matthew with Matthew and Mark.  Matthew makes stylistic choices 
which are in line with fresh composition of stock material (I am assuming 
Marcan priority here), but nothing which indicates that he is translating 
from a source language.  Were he translating, I would expect the stylistic 
choices to be more limited, especially considering the precedent of what we 
would call formal equivalency translation during the period.

3) Matthew's syntax and stylistic markers are well within the parameters for 
the non-literary Greek of the period.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te...
   -- Augustine, Confessions 1:1

http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/