Orthodox_Freethinker

Then why do Syrian Christians utilize the Aramaic rather than Greek? One thing that Western scholars tend to forget is how common of a language Aramaic really was.

Chris Weimer

Why would it offend you? No one is saying you're the one who is blindly accepting Papias' words...

This is just plain false. First of all, Matthew was no Jew, and he was writing to no Jewish audience, and very few modern scholars would agree with that. Did you even bother to acquire the article I cited for you? For a journalist, you do shoddy research.

Irrelevant. Syrian Christians are not the Jews of the diaspora.

Orthodox_Freethinker

But if the early church fathers blindly accepted Papias, it is rather offensive that they would do such a thing.

The attention paid to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and the keeping of Jewish law demonstrates that it was written by a Jew and for a Jewish audience. This is something that even secular scholars take for granted, which is why some argue that it was written by an orthodox Jew who wrote his Gospel as a polemic against Saint Paul. For example, this is what Bart D. Ehrman does in Lost Christianities, a book which I am currently reading:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

Amaleq13

Sounds reasonable to me.

IIRC, logia doesn't actually restrict the text to a collection of sayings as I had previously thought. It might be more accurate to say that the word does not preclude that some of the "sayings" were given within a narrative.

Chris Weimer

Why? Are they above reproach? Things were looked at differently in those days - a careful observation was a rarity until the enlightenment. You think differently than they do.

Wrong on all three counts. The reasons why have already been explained to you. Do some "journalistic" work and find our answers to these already. (Let me give you a hint: look in this thread).

Chris Weimer

No, it doesn't necessarily have to, but in this context, it probably does. More often euangelion is used instead for the narrative of Jesus. Does Papias refer to euangelion at all?

Amaleq13

I don't think so.

Is it just that a different word was more commonly used to refer to narrative or is there more reason to assume "sayings"?

Would we expect Papias to refer to something like Q, as it is commonly understood, as logia or euangelion? What about GTh?

S.C.Carlson

Among non-Christians, the term logia was used for oracles spoken by a prophet(ess) of a god(dess) that had been preserved from past (see Dieter Lührmann's discussion in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. Ronald A. Piper, Brill, 1997). I therefore suspect that Papias used the word logia because he felt that the sayings of Jesus were divinely inspired without necessarily according a similar status to the surrounding narrative text.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Out of curiosity, what do you make of the Papian claim that Mark did not order the dominical oracles (ουχ ωσπε�? συνταξιν των κυ�?ιακων ποιουμενος λογιων) but Matthew did (τα λογια συνεταξατο)? Would that be a recognition of the Matthean blocks of teaching material, or something else entirely?

Ben.

pharoah

XL. 16:21

AND from that time began Jeshu to show to his disciples that it was to be that he should go to Urishlem, and suffer much from the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and the third day arise again. Then Kipha took him (apart ?) and began to expostulate with him, and said, Far be it from thee, my Lord, that this should be to thee ! But he turned and said to Kipha, Get thee behind me, Satana ! thou art a stumbling-block to me, because thou thinkest not from Aloha, but from the sons of men ! Then said Jeshu to his disciples. Whosoever willeth to come after me, let him deny himself, and let him take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever willeth to save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what shall a man be profited, if the whole world he shall acquire, and his soul shall perish? or what equivalent shall a man give for his soul? For it is to be, that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels, and then shall he render unto every man according to his works.

XLI. 16:28

AMEN, I say unto you, There are men standing here who shall not taste death, until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days, Jeshu took Kipha, and Jakub, and Juchanon his brother, and led them to a high mountain by themselves. And Jeshu was changed before them; and his countenance shone like the sun, and his vestments were resplendent as the light. And there were seen with them Musha and Elia talking with him. Then answered Kipha, and said to Jeshu, My Lord, it is good for us to be here; and if thou art willing, we will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Musha, and one for Elia. But while he spake, behold, a bright cloud overspread them, and the voice was from the cloud, saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I have delighted: to him attend. And when the disciples heard, they fell upon their faces and feared greatly. And Jeshu approached them and touched them, and said, Arise, fear not. And they lifted up their eyes and saw no man, except Jeshu by himself. And while they were descending from the mountain, Jeshu charged them, and said to them, Before no man declare this vision,* until the Son of man be risen from the dead.�* And the disciples asked and said to him, Why therefore say the scribes that Elia must come first ? Jeshu answered and said to them, Elia cometh first that he may fulfil every thing; but I say to you, that, behold, Elia hath come, but they knew him not, and have done to him as they would. So also is the Son of man to suffer from them. Then understood the disciples that concerning Juchanon the Baptizer he spake to them.

This is how the relevant passages look in the link that you gave me. The groupings that they made here were an arbitrary choice, based on how they percieved the subject matter. I bolded the two verses in question. They shifted the 2nd verse to the 2nd paragraph to make it seem that it had no relationship to the 1st verse when clearly it does. Notice that paragraph 1 deals with Jesus's speech to his dsiciples and paragraph 2 deals with the transfiguration, which took place 6 days later. What other reason than apologetics can you give for them placing a verse that was part of Jesus's speech in the paragraph about an event that took place 6 days later? They want to make it seem that the verse refers to the transfiguration when clearly it doesn't. This is amateurish sophistry.


You've given me explanations which I've already shown you do not hold water. Care to try again?