If a more pure scriptures were found such as a Hebrew version of Matthew, would you as a christian deny it?

Question

It is said by many ancient church fathers and documented in many instances that there was a hebrew gospel, which they said was the hebrew Matthew gospel writen in hebrew characters that the greek version of the Matthew gospel came from. It is reported that it was much longer and had much more concepts within it. There are some excerpts of it from being quoted by Church fathers, but it isn't available atm, although the vatican might have it locked up. But there may be some of it buried somewhere.

And this leads into the question; now if this scripture was found and it proved that the recent church beliefs and scriptures are so overly corrupted in comparison and missing concepts which would bring down many of the held traditions and major beliefs in the ideology of Christianity and its faith today. If this scripture was found, would you as a christian accept this this truth and reevalute your beliefs from this greater source, or deny it even in the face of such evidence and truth?

Actually I don't read the Davinci code. That is bogus garbage. What I read and study is early christain writtings.

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

this is a site with quotations collected from early church writers whom quoted the gospel. The few excerpts are a little strange.

http://www.textexcavation.com/jewishgospels.html

Answer 1

Roman Emperor Constantine and his followers setup Christianity to be a state religion. Converting all of the citizens to believe in it. They corrupted scriptures to ensure that it fitted with the religion they were trying to created. And this has already been proven by historians that the texts have been altered in many ways on different accounts and that Christianity that exists today is not what it should of been.

Scriptures that conveyed the deeper meanings were destroyed or locked away. Why? Because it was impossible to corrupt them and served as a threat to reveal the Roman Catholic churches true motives. Any and all scriptures that have been uncovered after these events have nothing, zero to do with the bastardized Christianity of today.

All the scriptures show a totally different outlook of what the religion was like before the corruption. Dead sea scrolls, Thomas Gospel, Gospel of Judas and the Nag hammadi library. And thats just naming a few. Each time these scriptures are uncovered the multitude who follow this shadow religion deny them and give superstitious excuses such as the devil planted them to tempt mankind, instead of exercising their intellect to understand why these newly uncovered scriptures(which are all similar) depict a entirely different picture of their Roman state religion.

For the most part a great portion of Christian zealots will deny them because of their inability to change and grasp a higher rung. But their will be some who still utilize their reasoning to be able to firmly understand that the Christianity of today is counterfeit.

Peace

Aza

Answer 2

I am not Catholic, but I am Christian....

I question the purity of what the Catholic Church teaches. I question the intent of the Church's leadership. If another version of Matthew's gospel were found, I'm really not sure what the Church would do. I suspect that there would be a certain amount of cover-up. The Church seems pretty big on "We're right, always have been, always will be...", and a new scripture, especially if it taught new or different stuff would blow that out of the water.

I believe that God is always willing to teach us, send revelation, enlightenment our way. I also belive that He is always willing (and eager) to let us know what is right, true, etc...
If another book that claimed to be scripture were to come to light, I would be willing to read it with an open mind, but I'd do it with a prayer in my heart for God to let me know if it was true.

Answer 3

I believe it was first written in the hebrew text, then translated to greek so more people would understand it. Most people around that time spoke more then one language, so it wasn't uncommon for them to write in more then one also. This was done all the time.

I do believe that there are things that have been taken out or mis-translated from the bible. I think that it has been changed over the years to suit different people. I'm not saying I don't believe in the bible. I do. I'm saying that things have been changed. This is common knowledge to most people. If I were to see the full, correct version, the one that was written by the hands of the prophets, then I would believe it.

I do think that if things were found by the other secs of christianity, they would keep it hidden. If it went against something that they taught, they for sure would keep it hidden.

I don't know if you know that much about other religions, but in my religion, we have another book that was written at about the same time as the bible. It covers many years, the same as the bible. One of these books is basically Matthew, written by someone else. If you would like more info, let me know.

Answer 4

The theory is not that it was written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic, which is one of the three languages Jesus speaks in the gospels. He also speaks and read Greek and Hebrew Aramaic was the most commonly spoken language of that day for Jews. Since Matthew as written to a Jewish audience, having it in Aramaic would make sense.

The problem with the text of Matthew having been written in Aramaic, is that all the quotes that Matthew contains from the Old Testament all come from the Greek version, not the Hebrew. There are differences in the text between in the Greek and the Hebrew. In every case were they differ, it is wording of the Greek text that the author needs for the prophecy to be there. Often what he refers to as the part fulfilled is not the same in the Hebrew. So if Matthew had written the book in Aramaic or Hebrew, the Hebrew quotes would have to be rewritten, which no Jew would ever accept. The book simply would not work if it was in Aramaic, unless the author were to switch languages and quote the Greek text in the Aramaic gospel. Which would make writing it in Aramaic or Hebrew pointless, and been used by Jews who opposed the Christian gospel as the ultimate proof that it was wrong - it had to rewrite the scriptures.

Having read through much of the writings of the early Christian fathers, I have not found a single quote from such a document. There does not exist today a single quote from an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew. There are a couple references to a version of Matthew existing in Aramaic, but it is not quoted.

There are versions of Matthew (and other NT books) in many languages. Many of which date back as early as 100 years after the resurrection of Jesus. It simply makes sense that it would have been translated into the Jewish language by early Jewish Christian. So odds are that at some point a version of Matthew will be found in Aramaic. But it will probably not answer the question about whether is was written in Aramaic and translated to Greek, or the other way around.

Would it affect my faith. Nope. There are simply too many manuscripts (over 2,300 from the first 200 years) that show that the text of the NT books - including Matthew - have remained unchanged from their original form.

Answer 5

I don't think a hebrew version of the gospel would turn me Jewish. It would merely affirm what I already believe.

However, you have to realize this. As a baptist, there are Catholic books that are not in my bible. I do not discredit them per se, but I do not put as much thought in them as I do the bible I currently read.

Adding a Hebrew book wouldn't change anything exactly. Most truly devout Christians understand that there is no way to say exactly what is theologically acceptable. A good Christian will observe and study with an open mind. Don't expect most people to change their minds immediately, but I think it would be reasonable to read it and force some thought. If the book was powerful enough and connected properly to the rest of the bible, then I could certainly consider giving it at least some merit.

The thing to understand about the bible is that IT IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD!!! it is the word of God TRANSCRIBED THROUGH MAN!!! I have no doubt that much of it is very close if not exactly what God intended because of divine inspiration, but I still people that men, even good men, are susceptible to their own vanity and may add their own views in there. The indiscrepencies in the bible are there, but the only ones that exist are personal views expressed by the individual author's.

Therefore, if we don't view everything with an open mind, we may be depriving ourselves of salvation. On the flip side of that, if we don't read new material with a grain of salt, we may be walking the wide road to hell.

Answer 6

You know, I had religion professor that actually learned Hebrew and Greek, so he could read the older scriptures in those languages - the insights he gave the class through his simple knowledge of those languages were incredible.

Assuming it was viably written by Mathew, I think it would be a treasure, and should be treated as such. I mean, good people can admit they were wrong because they didn't know it was at the time, and make changes when they do know what's right. It's seems a good religion would do the same.

Answer 7

The Scriptures we have today are very old. There are over 25,000 N.T. manuscripts. If a Hebrew version of Matthew was found, and if it dated correctly-then it may be worth looking at. If it varied even a little from the Greek-it would be suspect immediately. There is just too much known about the manuscripts we have today. To suggest that they may have been corrupted or changed in any way shows extreme ignorance of just how texts are analyzed. It is thorough, and tediously academic.

Answer 8

this is in one form or another on here a lot.. number one most of the scripture quotes against homosexuality are from the OLD TESTAMENT which yes it is included in our christian bible as it was what jesus based his teachings on it however is NOT CHRISTIAN in origin.. also the other quotes such as pauls letters to the corinthians were his own opinions based on jesus' teachings not jesus' own words or actual teachings... also much of the quotations are interpreted to serve a purpose such as your own example :"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his OWN lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." i apologize, i must have missed the direct quote where jesus said man is tempted by homosexuality... that aside jesus himself spent very little time in his teachings focusing on sex and sexuality, most if not all of what his actual teachings were to love god, that god loves us all UNCONDITIONALLY, be good to your neighbors, and JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, or LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE... now the history of it all: the concepts brought to christianity in regards to sexualtiy and more importantly moral sexuality were borrowed from other pagan and most importantly jewish religions and are not christian by origin... sexuality and moral sexuality ideology and the rational behind it was not a major part of the christian faith until the late 4 century and 5 century (way after jesus was gone to tell us anything about it) during the time of st. jerome and st. augustine, after constantine made the law that christianity was the national faith of rome and declared other religions heresy it was around this time the HE AND THE COUNCIL OF NICEA decided what books would be put into the bible and finally after centuries decided on the one and true christian doctrine.. that said i was under the assumption that god himself bestowed the TEN COMMANDMENTS and later the SEVEN DEADLY SINS- none of which include anything about homosexuality...

Answer 9

Unfortunately many would reject it.

Proof of that is how many still quote 1 John 5:7 from the KJV, even though 'older' manuscripts shows that it doesn't contain 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit"

Answer 10

How pure do you need something to be to beleive firsthand biography. Matthew walked along side Christ and his accounts are translated, not altered in some way like you are saying. They also go along with the other three books, Luke, Mark, and John as far as the events and teachings. Is Hebrew that difficult to translate that it completely alters the message, or is this another attack on Christianity that seems to be so popular now.