Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 01-13-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
Hi judge,

(snip)

Thus, we have reference to a work of Matthew, (used by the Nazarenes), which provides two quotes, i.e., "Out of Egypt . ." and ". . .called a Nazarene" which Jerome may have only had described to him, rather than copied and translated.

We also have a reference to a work of Matthew (again, used by the Nazarenes) which is called both "The Gospel of the Hebrews" and "The Gospel of Matthew" and, further, possibly called "The Gospel among the Hebrews" (Irenaeus). This gospel, written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, was definitely translated by Jerome into Latin and Greek. However, the quote referenced from this work, i.e., (Jesus says) "What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?", is not extant in any canonized work.

Thus, it is still unclear at this point whether the various allusions to a "Gospel of Matthew" in the Hebrew/Aramaic language are referring to a document consistent with our canonical Matthew, or to a different document which is also referred to as "The Gospel according to (or among) the Hebrews".

Regardless, I do find it additionally interesting that we have, (in addition to the above referenced works), a work attributed to Matthew, written in the Hebrew by his own hand, in which it is stated that Matthew records the infancy narratives of Jesus. And though this work is clearly differentiated from the Gospel of Matthew, it is interesting that a manuscript purporting to be from Matthew's own hand should fail to make the canon.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Thanks for the reply amlodhi ,it must have taken some time to go through this. You seem to sum things up pretty well here and have given me food for thought.

gregor · 01-14-2004, 05:29 AM

Pardon the (perhaps) ignorant question, who do you think would have told Jerome that these items

1. Gospel of Matthew
2. Gospel to the Hebrews
3. Infancy narratives

were authored by Matthew? Or where would he have read that these were Matthew's works. Does he say elsewhere in his writings that "according to Mr. X, these are Matthew's works."

Jerome is writing roughly 300 years after the earliest that the three Matthew stories could have been written. I suppose it would have been heresy for him to write in his books "the Gospel that tradition indicates was written by Matthew. . . "

Amlodhi · 01-14-2004, 10:24 AM

Hello gregor,

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor

Pardon the (perhaps) ignorant question, who do you think would have told Jerome that these items

It's not an ignorant question, it's a very intelligent question. I just wish you had a very intelligent answer to go with it; because I would also like to know.

The only information I have on Jerome's sources is that he was told by the Nazarenes in Borea about a "Gospel of Matthew" and by Nazarenes (of unspecified location) about a "Gospel according to the Hebrews" which was "maintained to be the Gospel of Matthew".

Note also that Jerome writes:

Quote:

Jerome: The Four Gospels.

Addressed to Pope1 Damasus, a.d. 383.

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies . . .

And also:

Quote:

Jerome; on Matthew: Preface to Vulgate

The first evangelist is Matthew, the publican, who was surnamed Levi. He published his Gospel in Judaea in the Hebrew language . . .

In addition, the ante-Nicene father Irenaeus makes reference to Papias whose writing dates from the early 2nd century:

Quote:

From the text of Irenaeus; reproduced here from Peter Kirby's website, "Early Christian Writings".

[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person (Papias) uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Thus, while their are some early traditions regarding the oracles or "the words" of Jesus being recorded by Matthew in Hebrew, there is still uncertainty as to whether or not this is a reference to our extant canonical "Matthew". Also, it is unknown, (at least to me) what the "chain of custody" was regarding the passing of this information from the original composition to the Nazarenes who, in turn, informed Jerome.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

judge · 01-14-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi

(snip)

Jerome: The Four Gospels.

Addressed to Pope1 Damasus, a.d. 383.

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies . . .

(snip)
Namaste'

Amlodhi

Thanks for this very interesting quote.
is this avaliable online ..to your knowlwedge?

Amlodhi · 01-14-2004, 02:28 PM

Hi judge,

Quote:

Originally posted by judge

Thanks for this very interesting quote.
is this avaliable online ..to your knowlwedge?

Yes. I should have repeated the accreditation, but it is the same ccel.org site cited above. For this quote, it is specifically:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0....htm#TopOfPage

Under "Addressed to Pope1 Damasus, a.d. 383.", you will find the quote a little over halfway down that block of text.

Once on site, note the page prompts at the top of the screen to access more pages of Jerome's writings.

As always, namaste'

Amlodhi

Jack the Bodiless · 01-15-2004, 03:03 AM

Magus55:

From your link, http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_name.htm :

Quote:

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible gives a prophecy of the name of Jesus. It says, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."1 If we go to Matt. 1:21, it says, "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (See also, Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:31; 2:21). Is this a contradiction? No. It is not.

In ancient times names were often given as representations of the hopes and dreams of the parents or even of recognition of divine assistance. Names in the Old Testament had understandable meanings. For example: Abram means "exalted father," but Abraham means "Father of a multitude." Some names could even be translated into complete sentences as in Uzziel (�God is my strength� - Ex. 6:18), Adoniram (�my lord is exalted� - 1 Kings 4:6), and Ahimelek (�my [divine] brother is king� - 1 Sam. 21:1).2

So names are more descriptive in the Hebrew and Greek then they are in English. They often refer to the character, purpose, etc., of the one being named. The closest we come to understanding this is in Native American culture. We are familiar with such names as "Running Bear," or "Pretty Eagle, "or "White Owl" as names. These names meant something and were far more descriptive than "Bob," or "Tom," or "Sue."

When we come to Isaiah 7:14, we encounter a prophecy about the Messiah stating that his name will be Immanuel. Immanuel literally means "God is with us." This is a significant because Jesus is God in flesh: ...(etc)

Note that this author is making exactly the same blunder as in the "virgin" translation article you posted on another thread. It repeats Matthew's blunder.

This is NOT a prophecy about Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 is a "prophecy" of the birth of Isaiah's own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

This is quite clear from the context of Isaiah 7, I suggest you read the whole chapter. King Ahaz is to be given a sign, that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people". That sign is the birth of a child by an "almah" (a young woman, not a virgin). That child is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isaiah 8:3).

What use would Jesus be as a sign for Ahaz? "Yes, Ephraim will be broken within 65 years. As a sign to you that this will come to pass, a special child will be born several hundred years later".

Does the CARM site address this? I haven't found an article that does.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-15-2004, 03:31 AM

...Here is an article from the II Library, A Virgin-Birth Prophecy? , which addresses both problems with Matthew's misuse of Isaiah: the "virgin" mistranslation, and the fact that the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus anyhow:

Quote:

Indeed, Isaiah's word for "sign" was 'ot, which in the Hebrew Bible invariably indicated an imminent sign or omen, not one in the far future. Keep reading, in fact, and you will see Isaiah's sign appear just a few verses later (Is. 8:3-4 ), when a certain prophetess gives birth to a son--a child whom God called "Immanuel" in verse 8. By contrast, nowhere in the New Testament did any character ever call Jesus Immanuel...

...The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734 B.C.). Wicked King Ahaz of Judah was frantic about Ephraim (another name for the northern kingdom, Israel) and Damascus (capital of Syria), which were plotting a preemptive strike. Isaiah enters, offering a sign. Ahaz demurs. Isaiah storms at him for his lack of faith and then provides a sign anyway: A male child would be born. Before this child is old enough to know to "refuse evil and choose the good," Assyria would lay waste both Samaria and Damascus (7:16 ). [This sub-prophecy, in fact, came true in 2 Kings 16:9 ; 17:5-6 .] Then, to punish Ahaz, Assyria itself, with Egypt, would arise as a far greater threat.

Think about this. If Ahaz was concerned with an imminent attack from Samaria and Syria, why offer a sign that would not occur for seven centuries? To Ahaz this would be no sign at all. Also, if the Immanuel child was God incarnate, how could Isaiah speak of a time when Immanuel would not know enough to choose good over evil? What about divine omniscience? Note also the striking parallel between verses 7:16 and 8:4 . Here is Isaiah prophesying almost identically about both children. The more closely you look, the more difficult to deny that these two are identical.

itsallsemantics · 01-30-2004, 09:58 AM

A question on the death of Judas...

The notes in my NASB Study Bible for Acts 1:18 say:

Quote:

this man acquired a field Judas bought the field indirectly: The money he returned to the priests (Matt 27:3) was used to purchase the potter's field (Matt 27:7). falling headlong. Matt 27:5 reports that Judas hanged himself. It appears that when the body finally fell, either because of decay or because someone cut it down, it was in a decomposed condition and so broke open in the middle. Another possibility is that "hanged" in Matt 27:5 means "impaled" (the Hebrew of Esth 2:23 can be translated impaled) and that the gruesome results of Judas's suicide are described here."

Is the "impaled" theory valid at all? Is the book of Matthew even written in Hebrew? Isn't it in Greek? Why are they referencing a Hebrew text (Esther) for an alternate translation?

Doctor X · 01-30-2004, 05:42 PM

itsallsemantics:

Welcome to the forums.

The "impaled" theory is apology to try harmonize the different accounts. It does not work. The funniest is trying to state that the body rotted off and then exploded--hung bodies doe not do that! Of course, one would have to accept that the Lk-Acts author somehow "forgot" that Judas hung himself and months past.

Mt and the other texts were, indeed, written in Greek. There is controversy on how "Jewish" Mt was--was he a Jewish author. However, from the point of view of the apology, it is irrelevant.

References to other books are relevant if they demonstrate a source--such as Mk as a source of Mt--or demonstrate a valid use of the word. For example: "based on such-and-such" texts, it is clear that "this word" was used to mean "blech." To give an actual example, Mk's "last joke" is missed by English translations. The Centurian states--"truly, truly, this the man (a) son of (a) god was." "(a) son of (a) god"--no indefinite article in Greek"--is the equivalent of stating that "Michael Jordan is a god!" English translations that render it, "truly, truly this man was the Son of God," changes the meaning.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-02-2004, 08:24 AM

An exchange between myself and Ed, on this thread, regarding Biblical contradictions:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I knew about most of those when I took a secular religion course 20 years ago in college and they can almost all be easily refuted. I was hoping he was going to come up with something I hadn't seen before!

jtb: So you admit that some of them cannot be refuted?

I don't intend to present examples on this thread, because this is off-topic for both the thread itself and the "Moral Foundations & Principles" forum. But I'll gladly address this on the relevant forum if you wish.

No, ALL of them can be refuted but some take greater research than the rest.

Well, we've discussed numerous contradictions already with no contribution from Ed, and I've given him another link to this thread. I'd just like to add a set that I've used before, from the SAB's Are we punished for the sins of others?

YES:

Quote:

Gen.9:21-25 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father .... And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan [Ham's son]; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

Ex.20:5 , Dt.5:9"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Ex.34:7 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation."

Num.14:18 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Dt.28:18 "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body."

2 Sam.12:14 "The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

2 Sam.21:6-9 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD .... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD."

1 Kg.2:33 "Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever."

1 Kg.21:29 "Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house."

2 Kg.5:27 "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever."

Is.14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."

Jer.16:10-11 "Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? ... Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord."

Jer.29:32 "Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed."

Jer.32:18 "Thou ... recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them."

NO:

Quote:

Dt.24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Jer.31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity."

Ezek.18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

I like referring to this set, because it's just the tip of the iceberg. This whole issue blows Christianity wide open. The punishment of innocents for the sins of others is a common theme throughout Christianity, from the punishment of humanity for the sins of Adam and Eve, to the punishment of Jesus for the sins of everyone else.

...And this contradicts the notion that God is "perfectly just", because "justice" must link the punishment of individuals to the crimes of those individuals.

Yes, there are certain stock-phrases that apologists will recite when confronted by this (or any other) contradiction. However, I would like to point out that the claim that the Bible is "inerrant" is an entirely unremarkable one: if standard Christian apologetic techniques are employed, so is every other book ever written.

So here's my counter-challenge to inerrantists: provide me with an example of a text that is "errant". I am reasonably confident that I can use apologetic BS to "resolve" any discrepancy in any such text.

The "inerrantist" then needs to explain how the Bible differs from all the other "inerrant" texts.

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

01-14-2004, 05:29 AM	#102
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Pardon the (perhaps) ignorant question, who do you think would have told Jerome that these items 1. Gospel of Matthew 2. Gospel to the Hebrews 3. Infancy narratives were authored by Matthew? Or where would he have read that these were Matthew's works. Does he say elsewhere in his writings that "according to Mr. X, these are Matthew's works." Jerome is writing roughly 300 years after the earliest that the three Matthew stories could have been written. I suppose it would have been heresy for him to write in his books "the Gospel that tradition indicates was written by Matthew. . . "

01-30-2004, 05:42 PM	#109
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	itsallsemantics: Welcome to the forums. The "impaled" theory is apology to try harmonize the different accounts. It does not work. The funniest is trying to state that the body rotted off and then exploded--hung bodies doe not do that! Of course, one would have to accept that the Lk-Acts author somehow "forgot" that Judas hung himself and months past. Mt and the other texts were, indeed, written in Greek. There is controversy on how "Jewish" Mt was--was he a Jewish author. However, from the point of view of the apology, it is irrelevant. References to other books are relevant if they demonstrate a source--such as Mk as a source of Mt--or demonstrate a valid use of the word. For example: "based on such-and-such" texts, it is clear that "this word" was used to mean "blech." To give an actual example, Mk's "last joke" is missed by English translations. The Centurian states--"truly, truly, this the man (a) son of (a) god was." "(a) son of (a) god"--no indefinite article in Greek"--is the equivalent of stating that "Michael Jordan is a god!" English translations that render it, "truly, truly this man was the Son of God," changes the meaning. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.