Expert: Mel and Guyna Horne - 7/14/2011

Question
I'm familiar with the theory that since Matthew wrote for the Jewish people, he used the term "Kingdom of Heaven" usually, in contrast to Luke who said "Kingdom of God."

The Jewish people, of course, likely finding it offensive if God were mentioned in writing like that.  

I hadn't noticed it till now, but in the KJV, Matthew does indeed appear to say, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God."

Why wasn't this then offensive, and can you tell me any theories others have had on why it was more important (especially when probably risky) to say God instead of Heaven here?

Answer
Hi Jason,
You asked if we could tell you of any theories of why Matthew used the phrase, kingdom of God, rather than kingdom of heaven?

We are not aware of any.


As you wrote, the speculation that Matthew wrote his version of the gospel for the Jews is a theory. The fact that he used "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" could seem to contradict the theory that he was writing to a Jewish audience.

There are certain assumptions of higher criticism, or more specifically, form criticism,  regarding the gospel of Matthew:

1. That the author is unknown, but if the author's name is Matthew, it is not the disciple.

We disagree because of Mat. 9:9, and 10:3.

2. That the book was originally written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek, or, the author wrote another original copy in Greek.

We disagree because no original copy, or fragment, in Hebrew has ever been found.  Those who are quoted as saying it was in Hebrew (e.g. Irenaeus, c. 130-200) , and those who quote second and third hand accounts of hearsay, never claimed to have been in possession of a copy.  None of them specifically said that they had ever seen a copy.  They only "said" that it was written in Hebrew.  
For example, Eusebius quotes Origen as saying he learned of it by a "tradition" that it was published in Hebrew [Aramaic].  Eusebius also refers to a "tradition" that someone named Pantaenos (of Alexandria) brought back a copy of a Hebrew Matthew from India that had been left there by the apostle Bartholomew.  However, we have nothing from Pantaenos and nothing is known about him other than someone by that name was associated with the church in Alexandria.  Origen's tradition may also be referring to Pantaenos, so that there is only one and not two "traditions".

Jerome, the son of Eusebius, alleged that a copy existed in the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea.  However, it has been noted that both of these men lied in making other claims regarding their own written works.

A confusion of names may have been the source of the whole Matthew/Hebrew legend.  
While in Chalis (a Greek island), between 373-376 AD, Jerome received a copy of "The Gospel of the Hebrews", what is now considered a "lost gospel" that is preserved only in fragments within the writings of the (Catholic) "church fathers".  
It is said to have been an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth  detailing his story from the events of his Baptism to his Resurrection", but a separate work from the KJV Matthew and the book of Hebrews.  
Jerome said that the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes who gave it to him, considered it to be the original gospel of Matthew. "Jerome considered that the Gospel of the Hebrews, was written in the Chaldee and Syriac (Aramaic)  language but in Hebrew script."

"Occam’s razor is more commonly described as ‘the simplest answer is most often correct.’"

"There was a strong tradition in the early church, mentioned for by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, that Matthew had written a gospel in the Hebrew language.
Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with this Hebrew gospel of Matthew."
W. R. Schoemaker, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, The University of Chicago Press. 1902, p.199 [quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews]

"Scholarship generally holds that it was probably composed in Egypt in the 2nd century and originally in Greek, though Jerome considered the copy he obtained to be an original composition in Hebrew (Against Pelagius 3.2)."
Bart D. Ehman The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (9780195154627) 2000

"The Gospel of the Hebrews. This Gospel was also written in Greek and was in use among Jewish Christians in Alexandria, Egypt."
Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, 1999. p 43  [as quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews ]

"The original Hebrew of which so many speak, no one of the witnesses ever saw (Jerome . . . is no exception).  And so little store has the church set upon it that it has utterly perished."  "But it is certain that a Gospel, not the same as our canonical Matthew, sometimes usurped the Apostle's name; and some of the witnesses we have quoted appear to have referred to this in one or other of its various forms or names."
"Dictionary of the Bible: comprising its antiquities, biography, geography and natural history", 1863, 1893, Vol. 3 by Sir William Smith, p. 1835
[as found at books.google.com/books ]


That Matthew (c. 1st cent.) even preached to the Jews of Judea, beyond Acts 6:2, is based solely on a statement of Eusebius (c. AD 263–339).   [Notice Acts 8:4.]

We also disagree because the language experts who comment on the Greek version, say that it is not written as a translation would have been written, but is in an original Greek form.

Some among the sacred names groups claim that a complete copy in Aramaic was found at Qumran.  We have not seen any confirmation of this, and Aramaic is not Hebrew.

[A list of those documents is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls ]

3. That the language of Judea in the first century was Hebrew. That the literate Jews read and wrote primarily, or exclusively in Hebrew.

We agree that the more literate Jews could read O.T., or Classical Hebrew, because of the Sabbath Day readings from the scrolls in the synagogues.  However, it is generally understood that the language of the native Judeans in the first century, Jewish or otherwise, was Aramaic, also called Syro-Chaldaic, as demonstrated by Christ in Mat. 27:46.

Judea's physical importance though out history has been its location as a crossroads of three continents, making language and international communication a critical matter (Acts 2:6-11).   The international language of the first century was Greek as seen in Luke 23:38.  


In the context of your question, the Jews do not object to the name of God being written, only that it be treated with respect and not written on any document that will be discarded. It must be given a kosher burial.

It is when speaking or using the Internet that they most often use hashem (lit. the name) to avoid the chance of appearing to show disrespect.  The practice of writing "G-d" obviously dates from sometime after the beginning of the English language.  The name yhvh was used in writing Hebrew, at least, until 397 BC (Malachi 4:5).
[Re: yhvh, see "Jehovah", Gesenius's lexicon ]
[ For quick reference see "Ask the Rabbi" http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/212/Q4/
or, discussion at  http://askville.amazon.com/origin-divine-Hashem-familiar-names-God/AnswerViewer.... ]

Since there are no original copies of Matthew in Hebrew, (but) if he did in fact write one, we can only speculate what word he used in the phrase "kingdom of .......".   Would he have used  elohiym, yhvh (considered the one true name), or el?   
Since the vowel points for pronouncing adonai were not added until 900 AD, these appear to be the only choices.
Since the Greek version does not appear to be a translation, but an original work, then Matthew could have used any of the alternate terms such as kingdom of heaven (Mat. 3:2), or, my father's kingdom (26:29).


What we do have is the Greek theos, translated into English as God.

What we also have is the Jewish religious leadership trying to stamp out the teachings of Jesus Christ, to the point of burning books and arresting, beating and even killing his followers (Acts 8:3-4, 9:1, 22:4 26:10-11).  
In that context, the question of theos (God) rather than ouranos (heaven) appears moot, since the leadership would have been offended by the entire book.
For believers in Christ, the book of Matthew would have been shown respect.  For non-believers, the entire book was heresy regardless of which word was used.

The simplest answer is that Matthew was quoting Christ, who taught the avoidance of giving offense to "little ones", but purposely provoked the Pharisees, priests and scribes over their oral "traditions", which they insisted on adding to our Father's Law (Mk. 7:13).

We hope that this has been of help in some way.  If you have further questions, feel free to ask anytime.

Sincerely,

Mel and Guyna