Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-02-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
No authorial manuscript of any ancient literary text exists for any work composed before the 13th century (so Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars).

Does this mean Mountainman is a thousand years too early and it is all a Templar invention?

Roger Pearse · 05-02-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

The fact that we have the Greek versions of the gospels does not mean necessarily that their initial versions were written in Greek.

But the fact that there is direct word for word copying among them does.

Well, it is quite normal, when texts are translated into some other language, for portions that already exist in a version in that language to be copied from that version. It makes sense if you imagine yourself doing it. If we translate Eusebius' Chronicle, a large chunk of which is a quotation from Josephus, would we really retranslate that bit? Of course we wouldn't -- we'd crib an existing English translation, and maybe read through and tweak a bit at places as we saw fit.

So I'm afraid that I can't agree with you here. That said, as far as I know no-one in antiquity suggests anything about three of the gospels except that they were composed in Greek.

It is very difficult to integrate all the references in the fathers to the text or texts under the name of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That a Hebrew Matthew did exist in some form is clear from Papias, and Jerome has a Hebrew text (not necessarily the same as that referred to by Papias). Just what it was or how it relates to whatever text was used by Ebionites or Nazoreans is deeply unclear.

Quote:

Plus there are many other good linguistic reasons that show that Mark was originally written in Greek, probably by a Latin speaker, same goes for Luke.

I'm probably not alone in regarding any such 'linguistic' certainties with a certain degree of scepticism. Philology can teach us much, but in a politicised discipline, the barriers to subjectivism are probably rather too few for my comfort.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151 · 05-02-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

It is very difficult to integrate all the references in the fathers to the text or texts under the name of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That a Hebrew Matthew did exist in some form is clear from Papias, and Jerome has a Hebrew text (not necessarily the same as that referred to by Papias). Just what it was or how it relates to whatever text was used by Ebionites or Nazoreans is deeply unclear.

All that Papias says is:

Quote:

Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as lie has recorded them; for lie was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts. ... Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able.
- Papias, 130 CE

First off, we have good reason not to trust that Papias knows what he is talking about, as he obviously wasn't aware that the author of Matthew copied from the author of Mark, and Mark surely didn't hang out with and get his info from Peter.

Papias just plain seems to be full of it if you ask me.

Secondly, how would they know the original language something was composed in anyway?

If it were written in Greek, then someone saw an Aramaic translation, how would they know that what they saw was original or a translation, etc?

This was just wishful thinking on their part because it made it sound more authoritative if it was written in "the same language that Christ spoke".

Cheerful Charlie · 05-02-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

I've seen many threads on who the authors of the gospels were and the probable dates, but none that I can recall as the where they were writting. (My memory is leaky, so there might well have been one that I forgot about.)

In any event, could people sum up the current view on who the authors of the four gospels actually were, when they were written and, most importantly, where they were written.

The fact that they were written in Greek has always struck me as bizarre.

RED DAVE

In short, nobody knows. An ancient writer named Papias said a man named Mark had heard Peter speak at Rome, and had written down some of what the had heard, but in any real order. Some have theorized our Gospel of Mark may have been written by him, but that is doubtful as Mark is well ordered and arranged.

Luke is theorized as being written by a man named Luke mentioned in Paul's epistles but that is doubtful. Acts shows the Luke who wrote that was not an apostle.

Later, Peter supposedly wrote a gospel, but that has also disappeared, except for some scraps which may not have been from the same supposed work.

Other than that, all is surmize and guess.

Luke and Matthew obviously used Mark as a starting template, compare Mark 13, Luke 21, Matthew 24.

The only apostle that is said to have written something (again Papias) was Matthew who wrote a book of logia, sayings of Jesus, in Aramaic. This was lost.

Since the early followers of Jesus expected the world was going to end any day now, nobody saw the need to write anything down for posterity and sake of history.

All our present day gospels were written in Greek, some better than others. All were probably written any place else than Jerusalem.

Anything else other than this is a guess.

Cheerful Charlie

mountainman · 05-04-2007, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

In any event, could people sum up the current view on who the authors of the four gospels actually were, when they were written and, most importantly, where they were written.

In my view the gospels were written in the fourth century
under the sponsorship of Constantine, and his editor-in-chief
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, either in Rome or close
to this city, and during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Quote:

The fact that they were written in Greek has always struck me as bizarre.

The greek Hebrew Bible was available to Constantine as
something old and respectable. It was an innocent bystander
and got hijacked by Constantine, when it was bound by him
in the Constantine Bibles of 331 CE, to his newly created
literature, the gospels and "the new testament".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Does this mean Mountainman is a thousand years too early and it is all a Templar invention?

Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" (1890)
has a chronology of fiction set in the 14th century, as does also
Jean Hardouin, who always referred to the fiction writers generically
as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'.

spin · 05-04-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In my view the gospels were written in the fourth century
under the sponsorship of Constantine, and his editor-in-chief
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, either in Rome or close
to this city, and during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Too bad you can't get past your views. You take every opportunity to express them, yet you don't have a shred of evidence for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The greek Hebrew Bible was available to Constantine as
something old and respectable. It was an innocent bystander
and got hijacked by Constantine, when it was bound by him
in the Constantine Bibles of 331 CE, to his newly created
literature, the gospels and "the new testament".

Same opinion with same lack of support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" (1890)
has a chronology of fiction set in the 14th century, as does also
Jean Hardouin, who always referred to the fiction writers generically
as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'.

You didn't answer Clivedurdle's question. But then you haven't answered any questions on your conspiracy theory either.

spin

mojuang · 05-04-2007, 03:38 AM

say something to spin ooooh mountainman!!

judge · 05-04-2007, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In my view the gospels were written in the fourth century
under the sponsorship of Constantine, and his editor-in-chief
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, either in Rome or close
to this city, and during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Previously you have indicated not that you actually believe this but that you wanted to test this as a theory.
Now you say you actually believe it. Can you explain the evidence that moved you from not believing it (and merely testing it) to believing it?

Thanks

judge · 05-04-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

So I'm afraid that I can't agree with you here. That said, as far as I know no-one in antiquity suggests anything about three of the gospels except that they were composed in Greek.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger, I wonder who, in antiquity, specifically mentioned the other gospels being penned in greek?

Added in edit:

It is a bit vague, but apparently Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22) that:

"Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,)
made some quotations from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel"

Could this indicate more than one semitic gospel?

judge · 05-04-2007, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

It is far from exhaustive.

Ben.

I think I have some other references if you are interested?

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

05-04-2007, 03:38 AM	#37
mojuang Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: mombasa,Kenya Posts: 52	say something to spin ooooh mountainman!!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.