Mohammed and the Ingil

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by 3rddec, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. 3rddec

    3rddec New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find the Muslim perspective on the Ingil confusing; did he say it was Gods words or not?

    Was it still in existance when Mohammed preached and if so where and in which book?

    If it didn't exist why as Muslims to revere something that didnt exist?
     
  2. theTopicsmile

    theTopicsmile New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Ingil' means the Gospel of Jesus, in the islamic religion. The Muslim view is that God gave the scripture to Jews and Christians to let the whole world know of God's knowledge.

    A common accusation leveled by Muslims against Christians is the belief that the Holy Bible in our possession today, has been corrupted and no longer represents the original teachings of God's messengers. Their book recognises the Holy Bible saying "It is not for a man to whom is given the Book and wisdom and prophecy that Sura 3:79" along with many other passages, verses. It is believed that the early Muslims did not believe the Bible was corrupted. They were already surrounded by Arab Christians and Arab pagan worshippers at that time.
     
  3. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    43
    Thanks for quoting the Quran theTopicsmile, however if you quote the whole verse it actually explains why we do not accept Jesus as God or the son of God:

    It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah ," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied." 3:79

    the verse before says:

    And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. 3:78

    To answer your questions 3rddec:

    did he say it was Gods words or not?

    The Injil were the teaching and revelations of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and yes these were from God.

    Was it still in existance when Mohammed preached and if so where and in which book?

    Nobody knows, it may have existed in book form with one of the Christian sects. We do know Waraqa bin Nawfal, the cousin of Prophet Mohamed's wife Khadija (pbut), was a Christian and a monotheist (ie he did not believe Jesus (pbuh) was the son of God). There are also accounts of Christian monks in the area who followed a monotheist Christian faith.

    There was no known recorded Gospel of Jesus (pbuh) but had there been that would be the Injil.

    If it didn't exist why as Muslims to revere something that didnt exist?

    Of course it existed, it just didn't exist in the form of the Bible we see today.

    The Quran was not a written book, it was a series of revelations, then recorded in many forms with verses written on bones, bark, etc and was then formed into the book we see today.

    Muslims believe the message of Jesus (pbuh) was the same, a series of revelations but after he left this earth the Bible was formed into a book and corrupted with the gospels of men. It is these revelations and teachings we revere.


     
  4. peaceandkarma

    peaceandkarma New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is fair to say that the New Testament does contain the message that the various Churches want their followers to follow. One part of the Bible to prove this is before Jesus was betrayed. Jesus was praying while Peter, James and John slept, yet we have a detail account of Jesus's words and thoughts while everyone else was a sleep and unable to record them. The Gospels were also written from eye witness accounts after Jesus died so they should really be written from a third party prospective. I do believe in the good that Jesus did and I feel he was indeed a gifted healer.

    As I'm a Spiritualist I see religions from a Spiritualist veiw point. When Jesus said believe in me and you'll never die he was talking about the spirit. I personally believe that the early Christains were more like modern day Spiritualist and that the 12 deciples were more like a circle. With Jesus returning in spirit form to show that the spirit servives physical death. I think that the Churches that formed the Christian religion as we know it today had a different idea of what Christianity should be and so we have what we have today.

    If The Last Supper was the Pass Over Festival? Are Pass Over and Easter celebrated at the same time? Or has the Church altered things? Easter is named after an Anglo Saxon Goddess called Eoster, who was known to the German tribes as Oster meaning eastern or from the east. To stop pagans from celebrating a pagan festival the Church had the clever idea to Christianise it and so we have modern Easter.
     
  5. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9


    The 'Injeel' was the Book revealed to Jesus [pbuh] by God; it is not the Bible for the Bible was written by Paul? many years after jesus [pbuh] departed from this world

    not sure if the 'Injeel' was still around during muhammad's [saw] time, but it probably would have been distorted; it is said that Barnabas' Gospel [translation of the injeel?] actually had the word 'muhammad' in it in place of the word parakalate

    the Quran is From God, thus God can refer to anything wether it still exists or not!

    Peace! :)

    ps: The Injeel is Gods divine words just like the Holy Quran is, but the injeel is no longer here, also the injeel has been abrogated by the Quran for the Quran has been revealed for all mankind
     
  6. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    doh, thats so funny
     
  7. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    If by "Injeel" you mean "Gospel" then no. I don't see why Jesus needed to even read from a book if he had direct contact with God. The Gospel of John describes Jesus as "the heavenly man" and even Paul refers to him as "the heavenly man" in some places. Jesus didn't need to read from a book even if he could read. Because he had direct contact with God he only needed to be instructed orally.

    John 3:12-15
    I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

    1 Corinthians 15:45-49
    So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

    Paul wrote his own epistles and his epistles take up a fraction of the New Testament Canon. There are other writings in the NT Canon, including the four Gospels, other people's epistles, Acts of the Apostles and the book of Revelation (about the apocalypse).

    The Gospel was oral, not physical. If there was ever a book explaining a Gospel, we wouldn't have needed Jesus. What's the point of having Jesus if we can just read the book?

    The Gospel of Barnabas was written 1,500 years after Jesus. Muhammad himself was dead for a number of centuries.

    The Injeel was a person and that person was taken back to heaven 1,950 years ago. That is why it (he) is no longer here.:) The written tradition preserves the words and teachings of the Injeel. His words are recorded in the Gospels.

    I disagree. The Injeel continues to be relevant. As long as Muslims continue to misunderstand the Injeel and the mission/purpose of Christianity it will continue to be relevant.
     
  8. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9
    the concept of 'revelation' has failed you there my dear meister :); God reveals revelations of guidance to Messengers and these revelations are put in a book form so that the people can read it/get guidance from it; just like the Holy Quran, but where as the Holy Quran is the Quran that was preserved in peoples memmory and bits of material and two witnesses were required to attest to every verse [except one] that went in the book form, the 'Bible' is not claimed to be as such at all; the 'Bible' is claimed to be a Book 'inspired' to a certain 'Paul' and he wrote it; where is the evidence at all that the Bible is/was the memmorised 'Injeel'?

    and besides, even the orginal bible is distorted; attested to by biblical scholars themselves:


    Christian Scholars Recognize Contradictions in the Bible (part 1 of 7): Introduction - The Religion of Islam




    No no no, not talking about a book explaining the injeel, but a book called the 'injeel' itself containing of purely the revealed verses to jesus [pbuh]

    mesengers are there to recieve, convey, explain, and to set an active example of the book




    where did you get all that from: the 'Bible'? that was written by a man who claimed to be 'inspired' in Syria?; a man who was not even a prophet?

    wouldn't it make sense for the prophet Jesus [pbuh] to be 'inspired' with a revelation?

    so your sources miester i have to say is dubious to base beliefs which have eternal consequences on, but my source is the Holy Quran, attested to by orientalists as being undistorted from the original and irrefutable; and Allah himself has mentioned in it that the injeel was revealed to Jesus [pbuh] [and not to some paul in syria! :rolleyes:]


    The Injeel was revealed just as the Quran and Torah were revealed through the angel Jibreel [​IMG]. Allaah Says (which means): {And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the pure spirit (i.e., Jibreel)</B>.}[Quran 2:253]</SPAN>
    The Muslim scholars have clearly mentioned that Jibreel [​IMG] was the mediator between Allaah and His messengers, may Allaah exalt their mention. The scholars also mentioned in their books that the Torah and the Injeel, were revealed all at once not in separate portions. Imaam Al-Qurtubi[​IMG] wrote in the explanation of the verse (which means): {And those who disbelieve say, “Why was the Quran not revealed to him all at once?”</B>}[Quran 25:32] He said: 'They (disbeliever) enquired why He (Allaah) did not reveal the Quran on the Prophet [​IMG] at once as the Torah was revealed on Moosaa, Injeel was revealed on 'Eesaa, and Psalter was revealed on Daawood, may Allaah exalt their mention.' Imaam Ibn Katheer said: '… as the divine Books were revealed at once before the Quran.'</SPAN>
    Therefore, the Injeel was revealed on 'Eesaa by Jibreel at once, may Allaah exalt their mention, not like the Quran which is revealed gradually throughout the period of twenty three years.</SPAN>
    These are the general facts that were related about how the Books were sent down, and we do not know the other details.</SPAN>
    How the Injeel was revealed to 'Eesaa (Jesus) - Islamweb.net -English
     
  9. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said yourself that revelation can be preserved in people's memory, at least temporarily, so my concept of revelation is not failing me. Actually it seems to be compatible with your own logic. If Jesus received the revelation in oral form from God, then that eliminates the need for a book.

    This concept doesn't seem to be foreign to you. All three of the main Abrahamic traditions have it: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Pharisees of Judaism, for example believed in both a written and unwritten oral Torah. Even your Muhammad received an oral revelation. Muslims claim he was dyslexic and that the angel Gabriel had to read it to him.

    But if God can speak directly to us, that eliminates the need for a book. Before Moses there was no book called the Torah and before Jesus there was no book called the Gospel. Actually as I have said in my previous post, because Jesus had direct contact with God, a book wasn't necessary. God's memory is perfect, so God does not need to write things down in a book when instructing Jesus.

    The word "Gospel" means "good news." The Arabic word Injeel has the same meaning. If you have a read through the New Testament, you will find that the "Gospel" is never referred to as a book, but as an idea.

    You may be stubbornly persistent in your claim that it is a book, but it will not change the fact that the early Christians referred to the Gospel as an idea, not a book.:rolleyes:

    The NT is a historical document of early Christianity. If the Quran claims that the Injeel is a book and the early Christians referred to it as just an idea, then the Quran is not historically accurate in this regard and is merely promoting a fantasy. Whatever claims the Quran makes of the Injeel does not refer to practices or beliefs in the first century. What Christians believed in later centuries or even now doesn't really matter. The first century is the ideal example and there are different opinions on that.

    Well, Christianity has plenty of witnesses. The four Gospels are four witnesses. There were other witnesses as well. The authors of the epistles speak for themselves. The Acts of the Apostles gives you the big picture.

    Paul did not write the entirety of the New Testament as I said before. Maybe your "research" is failing you here.:)

    The New Testament is a collection of historical documents about the Gospel, the Gospel of which at the time was oral, not written. Actually like I said above, the Gospel was an idea, not a book.

    As I said, there is no need for such a thing. If there was, we wouldn't need Jesus. The Gospel was intended to be oral, not written.

    Where did you get the idea that "the Christian Bible" was written by a guy from Syria? This wikipedia article tells me the Gospel of Barnabas was written long after the death of Muhammad:

    Gospel of Barnabas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I think your sources are more dubious than mine!

    I am pretty sure the Quran doesn't say the Christian Bible was written by Paul!!!

    My source is the New Testament itself and the NT says Jesus was "the heavenly man," and that therefore Jesus didn't need to read a book. He only needed to talk to God directly.

    Revealed, but not necessarily as a book as you claim. You're assuming that the Gospel had to be revealed in the same way as to Muhammad. I don't know why you're so fixated on angels revealing things in books. Unless you're learning by rote, if you've got a good memory, you don't need a book. It's only because people today are too busy with other things to memorise holy tradition that we need books. Practice makes perfect.
     
  10. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9
    In the Quran Allaah informs us that He revealed a number of books, including the pages of Prophet Abraham (Ibraaheem [​IMG]), the Psalms of Prophet David (Daawood [​IMG]), the Torah of Prophet Moses (Moosaa [​IMG]), the Injeel (Gospel) of Prophet Jesus (‘Eesaa [​IMG]), and finally, the Quran of Prophet Muhammad [​IMG]. Of these revealed texts only the Quran remains intact in its original form. All of the others (as complete books) have been lost, their remains have survived only as fragments or tampered with in some way so as to make their authenticity doubtful.

    Nowhere in the Quran is the Bible even mentioned, to say nothing of its being among the revealed texts of Allah, or as Christian claim “The Word of God.” Further, we know from respected scholars that although some fragments of the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel (the teachings of Prophet Jesus) may be found in the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, the Bible cannot rightfully be called “The Word of God.” Why is this so?

    As one publisher (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois) stated: “The Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six books in one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. It is possible that more than forty writers were used by God to write all sixty-six books.” (Quoted from the “Holy Bible” – New Living Translation, Gift and Award Edition, l997, p. vii)



    So if the Bible is neither narrated by God nor written by Him, and, as such, is not ‘the word of God,’ then what is it? By any objective criteria, the Bible is a book containing a compilation of stories, legends, folk tales, folk lore, myths, sagas, narratives, poetry, fragments of scriptures (fragments from the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel as already mentioned), letters (esp. in New Testament), visions, dreams, accounts of events from doubtful sources (not eye witnesses), editors’ or scribes’ notes, as well as human errors.



    For those who believe in it, it is a book that has historical, cultural, moral and ethical values, and a source of spiritual teaching and guidance. It is a book held in high esteem, primarily by Christians who see it as a divine book and the source of their religious beliefs. But, in the final analysis it is only a book with many limitations and imperfections which disqualify it from being called “The Word of God.” Whoever makes such a claim then the burden of proof rests with him. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran is the Speech of Allaah and, through the Angel Gabriel, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad [​IMG]; later compiled into a book more than 14 centuries ago it remains preserved in its original form until today.



    Some common misunderstandings about the Bible include the following:


    • The Bible is one book, the Old Testament. The Bible contains sixty-six books (or more depending upon the denomination one belongs to).
    • The Old Testament (OT) is the Torah followed by the Jews. The OT contains some fragments of the Torah which was lost and the Psalms, but the Talmud is the book followed by the Jews and is totally unrelated to the Bible.
    • The New Testament (NT) is the Gospel of Prophet Jesus, or the Injeel. It is neither. It is made up of twenty-seven books, none of which was narrated or written by Prophet Jesus although the NT may contain fragments of the Injeel (sayings and teachings of Prophet Jesus). The Injeel as revealed through Prophet Jesus has been lost. The fragments which may be cited in the NT may not be authentic or in their proper context. So it is erroneous to equate the NT with the Injeel mentioned in the Quran.
    • The Bible is a holy book, narrated, dictated by God and is infallible. While this is a claim, this misconception has already been addressed. Since the Bible is ‘only’ a book, there is no need to call it a forgery, a corrupted text, etc. The Quran is the only authentic “Word of God,” His Speech, and Allah has promised to protect it from distortion of any kind until the Day of Judgment and He has kept His promise. Not one letter or syllable has been changed over the past l4 centuries.


    Facts & misunderstandings about the Bible - Islamweb.net -English


    the bottom line is, the 'Bible' is not the injeel :)
     
  11. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Abdula

    it would be nice if you posted your own stuff rather than copying and pasting.

    so are you saying that the quran is better than the Bible ?


    also how long have you been a muslim and what school of law do you adhere to ?
     
  12. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    ah, i see abdullah is back again to peddle the usual salafi mumbo-pocus of tendentious, arrogant self-aggrandisement:

    the hebrew bible, the so-called "old testament", not that we accept anything "old" about it except its age, known as the "TaNaKh", is made up of three sections, the Torah or pentateuch (genesis through deuteronomy), the Nakh (joshua through malakhi) and the Kethubim (psalms, proverbs, job, the five megilloth, daniel, ezra, nehemiah and chronicles). you can read a good intro here.

    Tanakh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    clearly, it is neither one book nor sixty-six books. so this is incorrect insofar as it refers to the tanakh as opposed to the christian versions of the bible.

    this is completely untrue. the talmud is the oral Law that complements the written Law of the Torah. the Torah tells you how to get divorced, but not how to get married - those laws are deduced from the talmud. you can read about the talmud here:

    Talmud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    talmudic discussions are almost entirely devoted to the minute elucidation of the meanings of the often cryptic and terse language used in the Torah, as abdullah would know if he actually checked for himself rather than listening to anti-jewish propaganda.

    well, abdullah, if that's true, perhaps you'd like to explain why G!D apparently saw fit to base the story of how cain learned how to bury abel from a crow (qur'an 5:31) on the demonstrably earlier jewish midrashic texts, the pirkei d'rabbi eliezer and the midrash tanhuma? what about the alleged missing 157 verses from surah at-tawba? what about the differences between the wafs and the warsh texts? i'm sorry, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. any of the arguments that are used to allege corruption of the Torah are equally applicable to the Qur'an, so get off your high horse and learn some humility before the G!D we are both supposed to worship. you have a lot to learn about the world.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  13. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're assuming these "books" ever existed on earth.

    I don't think God ever sent down any books. He spoke to the prophets and it was then their responsibility to write things down.

    I think you misunderstand what Christians mean by "word of God." They do not mean the literal words of God, but God's will and/or concepts inspired by the original and literal words of God.

    The Bible speaks of God in third person. The God in the Bible is never a narrator as far as I know. The NT also speaks of Jesus in third person. Jesus is never a narrator in the NT. The Tanakh/OT is about God. The NT is about Jesus. Most of the time the prophets are also referred to in third person, although there are some who serve as narrators like Daniel, Solomon and king Nebuchadnezzar.

    The idea of calling it the "word of God" may have much to do with the philosophy of Philo of Alexandria, also called Philo Judaeus and his idea of the Logos. Do you want to know why Christians call it the "word of God?" I am going to do my best to explain it to you now.

    The Logos is about how God influences the world. The question often asked is, is God everywhere, in everything, or is He separate from the world, but having a great influence over it?

    This is what I think Philo was trying to say about how God influences the world. It began with Abraham, Moses, the prophets and the Torah. Every time God speaks, He is influencing the world. The words of God enter our minds and we became influenced by these words.

    The words of God may influence us indirectly to turn toward good or evil, but because God tells us to do good, we focus on the good that people do as a result of hearing the words of God.

    Because the Bible contains the words of God, they are being influenced by God when they read it. The Bible itself is about people influenced by God. It is about prophets who sought God, found God, listened to His words and obeyed his instructions. When we read the Bible, we are not only reading the words of God, but stories of people who responded to God.

    The Logos refers to the phenomenon created when people respond to the words of God. A picture is a thousand words and the Bible has thousands of words. The picture you see is the Logos itself. The Greek word Logos translates roughly to "the Word" and this is why Christians call the Bible "the word of God."

    It is not because the whole Bible contains only the words of God, but because what Christians mean by "the word of God" (influenced by Hellenism and Greek philosophy) is more than just the literal words of God, but the divine will. It is everything that God achieves just by speaking.

    It doesn't really matter if humans are smart. God gave us the ability to learn from mistakes. Didn't Adam eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If humans are smart, why does God even need to send us "corrections" for our holy text?

    If we wrote the Bible and talked about God in third person, then at least we don't have to prove the whole Bible is from God. The words of God are still there. All we need to change is how we talked about God in third person. If the Bible contains the words of God, accompanied by commentary, then the real problem is the commentary itself.

    The point of me saying this is that there was probably never a book narrated by God. You're assuming that book exists. If that book ever existed, there would at least be some evidence. If God wrote a book and sent it down, it would be somewhere on this planet.

    I think the truth is, God's revelations were always oral. They were written down by people who were wise enough to think about future generations, that the message wasn't just for them, but for their descendants as well.

    The NT referred to Jesus in third person. It also referred to the Gospel in "third person." The NT documented the concept of the Gospel. By documenting the concept of the Gospel, it allows us to "reconstruct" or "rediscover" the Gospel. The NT, therefore does not need to be the Gospel itself. It only needs to tell us what it was and what it meant to the early Christians. This eliminates the need for a book which you call the Injeel. If people remember the concept, they don't need the book.

    But like I said, the Injeel was an idea, not a book.

    I think it's more likely that either you or the Quran doesn't have the proper context. If it's you, bad for you. If it's the Quran, bad for Muslims. I don't want to be too negative here. It isn't nice to be negative.

    I think you are talking about some other Injeel, Gospel or "good news," not the one the early Christians followed, a Gospel that probably didn't exist in history -- probably a fantasy Gospel.

    If this Gospel was lost, then your Quran should be able to tell us what it was, so I challenge you to produce the Gospel from within the Quran itself. What was the "good news" that Jesus taught in the first century?

    Does the Quran tell you that?

    The bottom line is, the Injeel was an idea, not a book.:)
     
  14. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    So do I, sometimes.

    “Khadija [Muhammad’s wife] then accompanied him [Muhammad] to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write …” (I cannot provide a link until I've posted more on this board, but the source for this is: Sahih Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 1, Number 3)

    Reference is here made to a Gospel which was present on the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Muhammad. There is plenty of discussion among historians and others concerning the nature and content of this Gospel. Please note that Aisha (the narrator) states in this case that Waraqa wrote from the Gospel “in Hebrew” which might, just might, correlate somehow to the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew which Jerome and others have stated was in circulation prior to the Greek version but which is now lost to posterity:

    “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Church History V.10.3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in Church History VI.25.3-4, Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Church History III.24.6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.” (source: Newadvent online Catholic Encyclopedia, article on the Gospel of Matthew)

    It evidently existed, but, perhaps like other (early) Gospels of its type, it is, for whatever reason, no longer in circulation?
     

Share This Page