Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 12-23-2005, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I used oracles because a lot of people a lot more knowledgeable than I have used oracles...

A suggestion. The Papias discussion seems to always hinge around the translation of logia. Why not, when possible, leave in logia with a footnote. If not, however, it does seem that oracles is appropriate.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ben C Smith · 12-23-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

A suggestion. The Papias discussion seems to always hinge around the translation of logia. Why not, when possible, leave in logia with a footnote. If not, however, it does seem that oracles is appropriate.

Not a bad idea. Thanks.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-23-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

This doesn't invalidate the arguments, of course

Of course.

And to be sure there are no "arguments", as such, on this angelfire.com website,

Church Fathers' Witnesses on the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew
http://www.angelfire.com/id/nasrani/pb/HebMatthew.html

There's a lot of evidence though, all coming from primary sources...

The evidence that a lot of people find uncomfortable.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-23-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That may be because that particular page is relatively new (late October, I think)

This may be so, Ben.

However, that angelfire.com website is certainly not new.

Regards,

Yuri.

JoeWallack · 01-06-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that Mr. Carlson has used "reports" in his translation. "Report" is a possible translation according to BDAG when the singular Greek is used but based on my read of the above is not within the definition of the plural. The Ranger's not going to like that translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When I had used "reports" in the translation, I was following Bo Reicke's analysis. Since then, I've changed my mind, particularly after reading Lührmann's analysis. Now, I think that "oracles" is better, and that reports was a stretch to make Papias better fit the Gospels of Mark and Matthew as we know them

JW:
Brown also translates "Sayings":

The Birth of the Messiah, Page 46, Footnote 2:

"Whether or not Papias of Hierapolis was factual when he reported that Matthew collected the sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language (Eusebius Eccl. Hist. III xxxix 16)"

To me "Oracles" is also anachronistic as it has a connotation of "official" in the direction of "Scripture" and the Christianity of Papias' time would not have thought of Jesus' Sayings as "Scripture".

Joseph

andrewcriddle · 01-07-2006, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

This website,

Church Fathers' Witnesses on the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew
http://www.angelfire.com/id/nasrani/pb/HebMatthew.html

seems to be unique on the Net, in so far as it brings together evidence from various Church fathers in support of the idea that Matthew was written originally in a Semitic tongue.

I have no idea about the sources of this website.

But what I find rather curious is that this angelfire.com website doesn't show up in any of the Google searches I've been doing recently... One might get an impression that it is being for some reason censored by Google.

FWIW I found it on Google no problem.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.