Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Eusebius was here say, and his theory was based on Papias. Which is highly debatable concerning what Papias was even talking about. Matthew was supposedly writing a logia of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew. The Matthew which we have today isn't "sayings" of Jesus, but the biography of Jesus. Also, if Matthew was written in Hebrew, why would the writer have to explain Aramaic words to his readers? Matthew 27:33, and Matthew 27:46. Also Matthew 16:18 makes absolutely no sense in Hebrew or Aramaic. It's a play on words which only works in the Greek. Peter the piece of rock, the church built on the greater rock. Only Roman Catholics hang onto an Aramaic translation to uphold their beloved Papacy proof, that Peter is the rock which the church would be built upon. |
Hi!
The Hebrew Matthew, seen and partially described by Jerome from the library at Caesarea Maritima, was a different text than canonical Matthew. And I said above that it is not extant. It likely did not have any internal translations.
Here I have some material on the topic.
Pure Bible Forum
Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php...l-matthew.543/