Julian

I took a section of a sentence from the website you linked and plugged it into google and it sent me right to Carlson's website where I found the text verbatim. I gather from Carlson's comment that he wrote the material in question. This last is an assumption on my part.

This doesn't invalidate the arguments, of course, but it is in bad taste if he copied it and gave no credit.

Julian

judge

Whilst I can aggree it is fairly obvious the NT (with the possible exception of the 'disputed five books') was penned in Aramaic and translated into greek, I think Steve Caruso is way off course with his arguments here.

The simplest way to work out what ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvtho), means in Aramaic is to look at it's uses in the NT.

If you go to the Aramaic lexicon and concordance here and type in the word generation you will see what it means.

One can just as easily argue that generation in english means "family branch".

I was present during the discussions at peshitta.org when Steve began to put thgis idea together. Unfortunately as the forum is closed I cannot find the original discussions but IIRC it was accepted that sharvtho basically means what generation does in english and in the same way one could argue that generation can mean family branch so can sharvtho.

If you check out the usage in the peshitta you will see that this is an attempt to force theology into the plain meaning IMHO.


There are of course many many more verses pointing to Christ coming in Power, in His kingdom within the lifetime of his hearers.
The senssible solution IMHO , if one is to accept the words of Christ is the later generations introduced new ideas and new underdtandings.....or as we see on many occaisions on the NT even Christ's disciples misunderstood him when he spoke of these things.
All the best

Steven Avery

Stephen, could you give us the URL for the original web page source ?

One weakness of these resource lists is that they don't do justice to the complex situation with Jerome.

As an example, consider this text.
http://www.aroundomaha.com/ecf/volume29/ECF00026.htm
AGAINST THE PELAGIANS
In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find, "Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance." And in the same volume, "If thy brother sin against thee in word, and make amends to thee, receive him seven times in a day." Simon, His disciple, said to Him, "Seven times in a day?" The Lord answered and said to him, "I say unto thee until seventy times seven."

Notice that this is not canonical Matthew.

Some of this has been covered here, as in ..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-72816.html

There are good references for some Matthew in a semitic tongue. And as we recently discussed, there are real problems in this being canonical Matthew, including the internal translations from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, as well as the fact that scholars don't see canonical Matthew as a 'translation Greek'. (Mark has a far better shot at that status, from Latin or Graeco-latin).

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

Ben C Smith

That may be because that particular page is relatively new (late October, I think); what I did was to go through my more general page on the Jewish gospels and classify each reference there as Ebionite gospel, Nazoraean gospel, Judaic gospel, gospel of the Hebrews, or Hebrew Matthew. And none of those new pages yet appears on Google.

On the other hand, however, Google is really a mystery to me. In late September I uploaded all three of my synopses of the passion predictions within a day or two of each other and linked to all three in exactly the same manner, from my inventory pages. As of today, the second and third are indexed in Google, but the first is still not there. Furthermore, only the third is cached. (Can someone explain this?)

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
This entire Thread has been a Lightning Rod for Bad Scholarship and Boo-Boo's but I tell you the Truth, I'm still obsessed by Gakusei-Don's (G-D) post in another thread that explained to Orthodox-Freethinker (OF) that he had Filtered Steve Carr! G-d Damn! This is one of those classic statements that try as you might you just can't get out of your head for days:

Third Hour JW sends Electronic Blue Mountain Greeting Card to Bill O'Reilly saying "Happy Holidays!" and then thinks "G-D told OF he filtered Steve Carr". JW giggles and than goes to work.

Sixth Hour JW tells tenant that having Christmas wreath on door of office is a violation of the terms of the Lease and then thinks "G-D told OF he filtered Steve Carr". JW chuckles and then leaves work.

Ninth Hour JW drives by Nativity scene in front of city hall and flings snowball at baby Jesus and then thinks "G-D told OF he filtered Steve Carr". JW guffaws and then goes hoMe to watch The Daily Show.

Here's Carlson's translation (should look very familiar to Yuri Bar):

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

"15 καὶ τοῦθ' á½? Ï€Ï?εσβύτεÏ?ος ἔλεγεν· ΜάÏ?κος μὲν ἑÏ?μηνευτὴς �*έτÏ?ου γενόμενος, ὅσα á¼?μνημόνευσεν, ἀκÏ?ιβῶς ἔγÏ?αψεν, οá½? μέντοι τάξει Ï„á½° á½?πὸ τοῦ κυÏ?ίου η λεχθέντα á¼¢ Ï€Ï?αχθέντα. οὔτε γὰÏ? ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυÏ?ίου οὔτε παÏ?ηκολούθησεν αá½?Ï„á¿·, ὕστεÏ?ον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, �*έτÏ?ῳ· ὃς Ï€Ï?ὸς Ï„á½°Ï‚ χÏ?είας á¼?ποιεῖτο Ï„á½°Ï‚ διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ' οá½?χ ὥσπεÏ? σύνταξιν τῶν κυÏ?ιακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οá½?δὲν ἥμαÏ?τεν ΜάÏ?κος οὕτως ἔνια γÏ?άψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. á¼?νὸς γὰÏ? á¼?ποιήσατο Ï€Ï?όνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παÏ?αλιπεῖν á¼¢ ψεύσασθαί τι á¼?ν αá½?τοῖς.

15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them."


JW:
Let's look specifically at "κυÏ?ιακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων". Here's BDAG's definition of "Logia" (It's my BDAG Baby):

"δ. the pl. (οἱ) λόγοι is used, on the one hand, of words uttered on various occasions, of speeches or instruction given here and there by humans or transcendent beings (TestAbr A 14 p. 94, 19 [Stone p. 36]; Jos., Ant. 4, 264; Just., D. 100, 3) á¼?κ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ (καταδικασθήσῃ) Mt 12:37ab; 24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 21:33; Ac 2:40; 7:22 (á¼?ν λόγοις καὶ á¼”Ï?γοις αá½?τοῦ. On the word-deed pair cp. Dio Chrys. 4, 6 the λόγοι and á¼”Ï?γα of Diogenes; s. α above). οἱ δ�*κα λόγοι the ten commandments (Ex 34:28; Dt 10:4; Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 168, Decal. 32; Jos., Ant. 3, 138; cp. 91f; Did., Gen. 36, 10) B 15:1. Ac 15:24; 20:35; 1 Cor 2:4b, 13; 14:19ab; κενοὶ λ. Eph 5:6; AcPl Ox 6, 13 (cp. Aa 1, 241, 14); Dg 8:2; πλαστοὶ λ. 2 Pt 2:3. λ. πονηÏ?οί 3J 10.—Also of words and exprs. that form a unity, whether it be connected discourse (Jos., Ant. 15, 126; Just., A II, 12, 6, D. 11, 5; 81, 3 al.), a conversation, or parts of one and the same teaching, or expositions on the same subject (Diod. S. 16, 2, 3 μετ�*σχε τῶν �*υθαγοÏ?ίων λόγων; Dio Chrys. 37 [54], 1; Ael. Aristid. 50, 55 K.=26 p. 519 D.: οἱ �*λάτωνος λόγοι; PsSol 17:43 [words of the Messiah]; AscIs 3:12 οἱ λόγοι τοῦ ΒελχειÏ?ά) πᾶς ὅστις ἀκοÏ?ει μου τοὺς λόγους τοÏ?τους Mt 7:24; cp. vss. 26, 28; 10:14; 19:1; 26:1; Mk 10:24; Lk 1:20; 6:47; 9:28, 44. á¼?πηÏ?ώτα αá½?τὸν á¼?ν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς he questioned him at some length 23:9. τίνες οἱ λ. οὗτοι οὓς ἀντιβάλλετε; what is this conversation that you are holding? 24:17; J 7:40 (s. γ); 10:19; J 14:24a; 19:13; Ac 2:22; 5:5, 24; 16:36; 2 Ti 4:15; 1 Cl 13:1; 46:7. λόγοις φθοÏ?ιμαίοις AcPlCor 1:2."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
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.

My question here, primarily for Chris, Ben and Huon (and of course anyone else who'd care to answer) is what do you think is the best translation for "λογίων" here? Ben, I know you used "oracles". Can you define that as more "Sayings" or more "Narrative"?

I believe that until relatively recently Christian Bible scholarship simply translated "Sayings" as that would seem to be the Lexical meaning. Father Brown confesses to us that until modern times it was official Catholic policy that "Matthew" was an eyewitness. When Christianity retreated to a position that "Matthew" was not an eyewitness but was based on eyewitnesses Christian Bible scholarship saw that only having a supposed link of witnesses to Sayings of Jesus was a problem. So Lightfoot created The Translation that was something more than just Sayings.

Christianity has another problem here as according to the Original "Mark" and as preserved by "Luke" the Tax collector was in fact "Levy". As Vork notes at his excellent site the presentation of "Levy" as a "tax collector" is more ammunition for a Fictional Markan story. ("Levy" = Priesthood = Sacrificial Tax = Understand dear Reader?). Origen appears to confirm that Levy, the Tax Collector, was a different person than "Matthew", the tax collector. Perhaps the Gospel "Matthew" was originally known as "Levy" but subsequent Christianity decided that "Levy" was "Too Jewish". So maybe "Matthew" was used anachronistically to label the Gospel. Instead of Papias preserving witness that "Matthew" was the author maybe it was the other way around. Maybe subsequent Christianity attributed the name "Matthew" to this Gospel because of Papias.

From a Natural standpoint it makes sense that if there was a historical Jesus the Possible Sayings of Jesus would be passed on before the Impossible Actions would be. There could have been Real witnesses to Jesus' Sayings. There could not have been Real witnesses to Jesus' Gospel actions. "Q" before the Gospels? Makes sense (in my opinion though, this was still Judaism). The problem with the Original Gospel "Mark", from a believability standpoint is that it's all Jesus' Impossible Actions and not much Possible Sayings.

So, Chris and Ben. What do you get out of the Picnic Basket, "Sayings" or "Story"?



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

S.C.Carlson

The table of contents URL is here: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/.../ext/index.htm

Jerome's evidence is indeed complicated. Until somebody puts all of it online, I recommend A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition (Brill, 1992), for a convenient collection of the data (comprising 56 testimonia).

Stephen

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

Stephen

Chris Weimer

Perhaps a link so we know what the heck you're babbling aobut? :huh:

Narrative is never the correct translation. As Amaleq13 pointed out a while back, in can be used to refer to a narrative, but that's like judge saying that "gbrh" should be translated as "father". It just doesn't fly.

Ben C Smith

I should be able to get hold of that book sometime in January or February; in the meantime, do you know approximately how much is there that is not already on my Jewish gospels page? I know I still lack a passage from Didymus the blind (about Matthias, Matthew, and Levi), but by my count I have 73 testimonia on that page, so I imagine there would be a great deal of overlap.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I used oracles because a lot of people a lot more knowledgeable than I have used oracles, and also because the same word in Romans 3.2 comes out as oracles in some of my favorite translations. My instincts tell me that these oracles would be actual sayings from the god, divine man, prophet, son of God, or what have you, but my instincts have been wrong before.

Ben.