Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 12-28-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Probably. At least that's where he got the notion of an Aramaic Matthew.

I can't see any reason to think this. The portion relates to Pantaenus not Papias. Do you havwe any reason to think Eusebius found out about Pantaenus's mission from Papias?

Quote:

About that time, Pantaenus, a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria. A school of sacred learning, which continues to our day, was established there in ancient times, and as we have been informed, was managed by men of great ability and zeal for divine things. Among these it is reported that Pantaenus was at that time especially conspicuous, as he had been educated in the philosophical system of those called Stoics.

2 They say that he displayed such zeal for the divine Word, that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in the East, and was sent as far as India. For indeed there were still many evangelists of the Word who sought earnestly to use their inspired zeal, after the examples of the apostles, for the increase and building up of the Divine Word.

3 Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,which they had preserved till that time.

4 After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally became the head of the school at Alexandria, and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing

No mention of Papias. :huh:

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-28-2004, 11:58 PM

As you know, Eusebius was not a particularly reliable historian. He reported a number of dubious, even fantastic things and repeated all kinds of spurious anecdotes and rumors. I don't believe there is any corroborative evidence that anyone named Pantaenus travelled to India and found an Aramaic version of Matthew.

Moreover, it is beyond any doubt that Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek. As I've already stated, it is dependent on Greek sources. Leaving Q aside, it's still dependent on Mark and it still uses the LXX even so far as to preserve the infamous parthenos mistranslation.

Unless you want to dispute Markan priority (which I have a feeling you do) then I don't see how you can seriously make a case for any Aramaic origin for Matthew.

As to Papias' logia, I would be willing to offer the following concession. I believe that it is hypothetically possible that a written sayings collection (perhaps more than one) was compiled in Aramaic, that it was translated into Greek and further redacted and that it became the basis for Q. I would even suggest that it is plausible that some of the core sayings had an apostolic origin and could be authentic to HJ (if there was an HJ).

Vivisector · 12-29-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

But does this mean that the initial Christians were either Greek speaking Jews or Gentiles?

Seems tough to answer, because it seems tough to figure out who the initial Christians were. Strictly speaking, I think all one can say is that the Christians who produced the canonical Gospels spoke Greek and used the LXX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Wasn't the first Christian Church called the Greek Orthodox Church?

I tend to think the first Christian "church" was little more than a fairly disorganized group of people who would have considered themselves Jewish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Even more so, does this mean that Jesus himself and his disciples were Greek speaking Jews?

Possible, but I gravitate to doubt on this. Crossan and others suggest that Jesus might have known enough Greek to get by in routine interactions with Greek-speakers in his area (Sepphoris, perhaps), but little more.

Chris Weimer · 12-29-2004, 11:28 AM

1: Origen gives Matthew to be in Hebrew
2: There are Hebraic versions of the LXX found at the Qumran caves, thus Matthew was quoting a different scripture instead of the "faithful" Masoretic text.

http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13

judge · 12-29-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Moreover, it is beyond any doubt that Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek. As I've already stated, it is dependent on Greek sources. Leaving Q aside, it's still dependent on Mark and it still uses the LXX even so far as to preserve the infamous parthenos mistranslation.

It is quite easy to demonstrate that neither Matthew or Mark or Jesus used the septuagint.

Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

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

12-28-2004, 11:58 PM	#12
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	As you know, Eusebius was not a particularly reliable historian. He reported a number of dubious, even fantastic things and repeated all kinds of spurious anecdotes and rumors. I don't believe there is any corroborative evidence that anyone named Pantaenus travelled to India and found an Aramaic version of Matthew. Moreover, it is beyond any doubt that Canonical Matthew was composed in Greek. As I've already stated, it is dependent on Greek sources. Leaving Q aside, it's still dependent on Mark and it still uses the LXX even so far as to preserve the infamous parthenos mistranslation. Unless you want to dispute Markan priority (which I have a feeling you do) then I don't see how you can seriously make a case for any Aramaic origin for Matthew. As to Papias' logia, I would be willing to offer the following concession. I believe that it is hypothetically possible that a written sayings collection (perhaps more than one) was compiled in Aramaic, that it was translated into Greek and further redacted and that it became the basis for Q. I would even suggest that it is plausible that some of the core sayings had an apostolic origin and could be authentic to HJ (if there was an HJ).

12-29-2004, 11:28 AM	#14
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	1: Origen gives Matthew to be in Hebrew 2: There are Hebraic versions of the LXX found at the Qumran caves, thus Matthew was quoting a different scripture instead of the "faithful" Masoretic text. http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.