If any religion claims to have a book of Matthew in Aramaic from 50AD, isn't that Chruch false?

Because there is no NT book written in Aramaic from the 1st century, all books were found in Greek.





So if any man, claims to have a book of Matthew from 50ad written in Aramaic, isn't that man false?If any religion claims to have a book of Matthew in Aramaic from 50AD, isn't that Chruch false?
I would say so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A copy of Matthew published before Mark, upon which Matthew is clearly based, is implausible in the highest.If any religion claims to have a book of Matthew in Aramaic from 50AD, isn't that Chruch false?
We have only Greek versions of the gospel of Matthew. However, there is some speculation that the original might have been written in Aramaic, and that what we have is a translation.





If that were indeed the case, there is no reason that a copy of the Aramaic original couldn't turn up. Obviously, anyone claiming to have found one would need to get it authenticated, a process which could take a long time.





Because no Aramaic version has come to light in a couple millennia, I would be suspicious of such a claim, but there's no proof it's false until independent experts have examined the manuscript and found such proof. If the holder of the manuscript refuses to allow authentication, that would be a stronger reason to doubt the claim.





No matter how strong your reasons for doubt, it's precipitous to dismiss the claim as false without serious examination. You can dismiss the claim as unlikely to be true, until it's verified. You can dismiss the claimant as untrustworthy and unwilling to allow the claim to be tested if no allowance is made for verification. Neither of these is quite the same thing.



If any man has a fake ten dollar bill in his wallet along with the real thing, is that man automatically a counterfeiter? So why does possessing one document of questionable authenticity invalidate the veracity of an entire Church?





And in any event, the entire Gospel of Matthew is of questionable origin. Most scholars agree that the Gospel probably wasn't written by Matthew at all, but rather, a Jewish convert or scholar whose first language wasn't Greek. Many believe that the gospel was first written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek at a later date.





So does that mean that any church with a copy of Matthew in its Bible is false? I mean, they're preaching and teaching from a gospel that was written under 'false' pretexts. By your logic, that would pretty well invalidate just about 99.99% of all Christian churches.





Your questions are getting more and more off the wall as time goes by.





Edit:





If the only rebuttal you've got is a cheap innuendo like that last comment of yours, you might as well give it up. You've already lost the war, and all you're doing is making yourself look ridiculous.
I am not familiar with that particular book.





I do know that ALL the canon was voted on, and that the (what would later be Catholic) Church Fathers had political agendas to fulfill with their votes and choices.





Some of the best books were made apocryphal, and some of the worst made canon.
The guy making the claim is wrong.


I don't know about the Church.





There are a handful of scholars who believe that Matthew was written in Aramaic, or that the Peshita version of Matthew is closer ot the original. Mainstream scholars reject that view altogether. (They have yet to explain why Matthew would quote an Aramaic phrase and then translate into Aramaic...)



There is no 1st person participant (I, We, Our, Us, etc) in any of the gospels...the only place outside of the epistles and apocolypse that the 1st person participant appears in the narrative is in a short passage in Acts (the writer traveled for a short time with Paul)...therefore, it would be a bit of a reach to believe any of the gospels were written were by eyewitnesses - as for a claim of such a gospel, it has not been proven that it was 50AD or even that Aramaic was it's original language. Travel was very difficult in the ancient Mediterranean World - is was much easier to letters/scrolls to each other. Whatever this document you are referencing says, it could very easily be a book copied into Aramaic from the Greek instead of the other way around....no one could possibly know that - dating techniques on ink, paper/papyrus would not be able to be so accurate as to date such an artifact within better than a century + or - ...making such a test useless in a world that was copying texts within months of each other.
Give or take a decade, Matthew was written 80-90





Author by Traditional Attribution: Matthew, a tax collector amond the Twelve, wrote either the Gospel or a collection of the Lord's saying in Aramaic. Some who reject this picture ALLOW that something written by Matthew may have made its way into the present Gospel.





Author Detectable from Contents: A Greek-speaker, who knew Aramaic or Hebrew, or both and was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, drew on Mark and a collection of the saying of the Lord, as well as on other available traditions, oral or written. Probably a Jewish Christian.








Do you get it?
False? Have you slipped into another era?
Or does that perhaps mean your whole religion is?

wavy hair