Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Just so I can understand you correctly are you differentiating between the
Gospel to the Hebrews (written by Matthew) that we hear so much about from
the early church fathers and the Greek Gospel of Matthew we find in early
codices?

James Christian

2010/2/3 Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>

> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM, James Christian
> <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >>
> >> Unfortuantely, meaningful discussion on this list would require high
> control
> >> of Second Temple Hebrew(s), literary and mishnaic, + Aramaic, + Greek,
> >
> > This sounds to me like to you meaningful discussion would require that
> everyone agrees with your assumptions about second temple Hebrew.
>
> Why?
> No one denies that both literary/classical Hebrew and mishanic/colloquial
> Hebrew were in use. Qumran and Judean Desert made that abundantly clear.
> And no one denies that Qumran, a contemporary eschatological community,
> used
> literary Hebrew for writing their documents.
>
>
> > In any case, I'm interested. Why do you think Matthew was originally
> composed in Greek?
> > James Christian
>
> Well, for one, any and all of the evidence used to show that GkMatthew
> used GkMark,
> would support the proposition. This is not the list to discuss that.
> One tidbit, not often in the above: if one uses the Alexandrian texts,
> it is clear that Mark had a special stylistic EYQYS, and Matthew has
> both EYQEWS and EYQYS but the latter only where Mark has EYQYS. It's
> been 40+ years since I've played with statistics, so I'll let someone
> else work out the confidence precentages. And as I mentioned, to deal
> with the whole question would require monograph length.
>
> So for this list, just let it rest as my opinion.
>
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>