Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bathory · 11-17-2004, 07:20 AM

I am still unsure exactly how "different" the purported, originally Aramaic-written Gospel of Matthew was from what ended up in our bible. And, why would people have called the Matthew gospel one written BY the Apostle Matthew when it wasn't? To what PURPOSE?Any informed links, please?

Vorkosigan · 11-17-2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bathory

I am still unsure exactly how "different" the purported, originally Aramaic-written Gospel of Matthew was from what ended up in our bible. And, why would people have called the Matthew gospel one written BY the Apostle Matthew when it wasn't? To what PURPOSE?Any informed links, please?

Go to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com and read up on GMatt. There are numerous links and references there.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 11-17-2004, 04:00 PM

The purpose was to claim historical legitimacy for the church, by connecting it directly back to Jesus and his original disciples.

Matthew on earlychristianwritings

Quote:

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. . . . .

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." . . . .

It is clear that the gospel that is now called the Gospel according to Matthew cannot be the same as the document that Papias mentioned, since it was written in Greek (and not Hebrew or Aramaic). It is also a narrative story, not just the "oracles of the Lord."

No hint of anything like the document that Papias mentions has ever been identified.

judge · 11-17-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is clear that the gospel that is now called the Gospel according to Matthew cannot be the same as the document that Papias mentioned, since it was written in Greek (and not Hebrew or Aramaic). It is also a narrative story, not just the "oracles of the Lord."

No hint of anything like the document that Papias mentions has ever been identified.

For what it is worth Eusebius did not seem to think the original was any different from the one around in his time. He writes of an Egyptian father named Pantaneus who lived in the 2nd century.

Quote:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Pantaneus did not seem to indicate the one found in india was any different.

Alternate translation of Eusebius

11-17-2004, 07:20 AM	#1
Bathory Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Burlington,Vermont Posts: 38	Any Recent Input on the Original Matthew Gospel? I am still unsure exactly how "different" the purported, originally Aramaic-written Gospel of Matthew was from what ended up in our bible. And, why would people have called the Matthew gospel one written BY the Apostle Matthew when it wasn't? To what PURPOSE?Any informed links, please?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.