Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stuart wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:22 pm There is a simpler solution. Those citing Papias had no clue about the original language, and frankly didn't care. Their objective was to justify the binding order of the four gospels with Matthew first, before Mark. By saying he wrote in Hebrew helped give priority to Matthew, since it dovetailed into the orthodox factions claim of Jewish origin (fought by some of the heterodox). Hebrew was a badge of authenticity, and we see it in the Aramaic phrases in the Gospels, which usually are followed by a "which translated means", showing they were added for effect.

Matthew was the preferred Gospel since it best fit the theology of the orthodoxy. Mark lacked infancy and resurrection stories. John was the other competitor, but even in the Western order it came 2nd, not first.

There is no evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. quite the contrary, the evidence is pretty strong for an underlying Greek source. Otherwise how does one explain the misunderstanding of Psalms 110:1 in Matthew 22:44. Surely a Hebrew speaker would have been scandalized by that.

How do you fit the use of Matthew among Jewish Christians and the orthodox opposition to Jewish Christians into this?

In my scenario, Papias' Hebrew Matthew was not the same as the NT Matthew and the latter incorporated only parts of one or more translations of the former (in the same way it had incorporated Mark). And since the NT Matthew circulated among orthodox Christians, I assume they were responsible for the creation of it and/or whatever additions to it that support orthodoxy. So in that respect, I see the original Hebrew Matthew becoming less "Jewish" in the NT Matthew (e.g., it incorporates a badly translated part of the Hebrew version, as per Gordon regarding 23:3, and has the misunderstanding you refer to), while still retaining things that are in keeping with Jewish Christianity (such as pro-Torah observance), in consequence of its Jewish Christian Hebrew source.

In my view, if the orthodox were so keen on connecting Matthew (and orthodoxy) to Jewish origins, they would not have altered the original Hebrew Matthew and they would not have opposed Jewish Christians.

As for the orthodox giving Matthew priority, I think it's reasonable to suppose that Papias said more about Matthew than the one sentence that Eusebius cites and that he thus could have been Irenaeus' source for this idea and that thus the idea originated with Papias' elders, who were followers of Jewish Christians. So perhaps Irenaeus was simply reporting a matter of fact about the origin of Matthew rather than promoting an orthodox agenda.

John2,

I could take a Ben Smith approach to answer this, either ignoring your request or saying "you said" to deflect away from me, so that I don't have to defend anything. But I'm not Ben Smith, and I'm not worried about being wrong now and again. (OK, Ben we're even in my book ; Friends again?). And to be honest (a Ben Smith answer coming for sure, but correctly), my model, nor any other, is not really relevant to the discussion, as it's about the concept of Matthew using Hebrew, or specifically being a translation of Hebrew. It is really up to the proponents of the Hebrew gospel for Matthew to show how that could work, and examples of how only translations from Hebrew to Greek could explain specific Mathew passages or points. This is so because we have no Hebrew original. And what is more, nearly every theory is based upon a Greek base for the Synoptic gospels.

My model is very different for the Synoptics and Gospels. I developed based on the concept of sectarian competition. Writing books was expensive in time and money. So you used existing material if at all possible, often from rival sects, if you could, and you could explain away the things that were inconsistent with your theology. You only wrote a new gospel if you had to correct those you had to explain your theology for evangelism. The timeline is relative, although I think less than 50 years elapsed from start to finish (that speaks to intense competition). Below is a picture of it (thanks Ben )



One convenience of this model is it separates the issue of theological priority from compositional priority. That was not expected, but is the consequence of the sectarian competition. Basically all the main sects existed before the gospels were written, and each version reflected the theology as one particular sect (or sect writer) saw it. Q vanishes in this model, and so do the naive Jesus communities. It does not explain the diversity within Christianity at the moment of it's eruption in evangelism, but it accounts for it's presence in the texts.

The model of course has nothing to do with the language of the text, although I presume Greek.

to Stuart,

There is a simpler solution. Those citing Papias had no clue about the original language, and frankly didn't care. Their objective was to justify the binding order of the four gospels with Matthew first, before Mark. By saying he wrote in Hebrew helped give priority to Matthew, since it dovetailed into the orthodox factions claim of Jewish origin (fought by some of the heterodox). Hebrew was a badge of authenticity, and we see it in the Aramaic phrases in the Gospels, which usually are followed by a "which translated means", showing they were added for effect.
...
There is no evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. quite the contrary, the evidence is pretty strong for an underlying Greek source. Otherwise how does one explain the misunderstanding of Psalms 110:1 in Matthew 22:44. Surely a Hebrew speaker would have been scandalized by that.

I agree to what you wrote. The way I see it so far is that Papias attributed Hebrew logia to Matthew, one of twelve, but, at the time, that Matthew was not attributed a gospel (to be done later in the time --or by-- Irenaeus).
Did Irenaeus see the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew? Or did he took his clue on Papias?
In both cases, that does not matter, but, at the end of the 2nd century, for the sake of authenticity, there were incentives to create a Hebrew gospel from Greek Matthew.

Cordially, Bernard

Sorry guys, I don't have the energy to answer your posts. But I am not ignoring them even if they go against my viewpoint.

Cordially, Bernard

Stuart wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:22 pmBelow is a picture of it (thanks Ben )

No problem. Here is a larger version, one which my poor eyes will appreciate:

How I fit the gospels together? Anyone interested? With graphjcs and tons of evidence.
See http://historical-jesus.info/107.html, http://historical-jesus.info/86.html, http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html, and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6286&p=106854&hilit ... ly#p106854
Cordially, Bernard

Ho, gLuke written after gMarcion? that goes against the internal evidence as explained here (with examples): http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
Cordially, Bernard

The only thing right on the diagram is Luke being dependent on Mark. But Luke also being dependent on that proto-John is very unsane. As also Matthew dependent on Marcion.
All of that nonsense appears to me is to make Marcion as the first full gospel, Matthew's logia (in Hebrew!) as the reference gospel determining Mark is out of order (but according to the diagram, Mark was written later than Matthew!), and above all, putting Luke (as the reference) out of the way, not even connected to Marcion. And no Q to be seen and with Matthew not being connected with Luke, how did Luke got its Q elements?
The whole diagram seems to have been drawn by a committee leading to a very strange and impossible animal.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:13 pm The only thing right on the diagram is Luke being dependent on Mark. But Luke also being dependent on that proto-John is very unsane. As also Matthew dependent on Marcion.
All of that nonsense appears to me is to make Marcion as the first full gospel, Matthew's logia (in Hebrew!) as the reference gospel determining Mark is out of order (but according to the diagram, Mark was written later than Matthew!), and above all, putting Luke (as the reference) out of the way, not even connected to Marcion.
The whole diagram seems to have been drawn by a committee leading to a very strange and unworkable animal.

Not commenting here to get into a debate, and that diagram is all Stuart's idea (even though I made it), but Marcion and Luke are connected to each other by that thick arrow leading from bottom left to top right, which is meant to imply that every gospel in that sequence was written with every previous gospel in that sequence in full view. IOW, Luke had access to proto-John, Matthew, and Marcion (as well as Mark), according to the diagram. One could draw a straight arrow in between Marcion and Luke (and in that consecutive order) to get the same result, but when I tried that with all four gospels cumulatively in the diagram it came out pretty confusing. Hence the big arrow.

Since everybody is showing off their charts, I guess I show off mine.