Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Case against The Logia, Thomas, or Q

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... Ken, NT scholars don t always use the word gospel in the same sense. The variation in meaning parallels almost exactly the variation in meaning between
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 4, 2012
      Ken Olson wrote:

      > I am assuming that what Papias says in other places (according to Eusebius‚
      > reports) may be used to interpret
      > what he says here. Particularly when he uses groups of words together
      > (interpret, arrange, logia) in relation to the evangelists on different
      > occasions, they mean something close to the same thing .....

      Ken,

      NT scholars don't always use the word "gospel" in the same sense. The
      variation in meaning parallels almost exactly the variation in meaning
      between Eusebius/Papias, where logia usually refers to general traditions
      (c.f. e.g. Luke's gospel), and what I think Papias meant re what Matthew
      produced - logia as sayings (c.f. the 'Gospel of Thomas'). Why should we
      expect the ancients to be more consistent than the highly educated products
      of modern universities?

      > Papias' concern is to show that the gospels are the authentic witness of the
      > apostles to Jesus and have not been adulterated in transmission, and the
      > variation between them is due differences in translation of the underlying
      > material .....

      There appears to be a significant weakness in your assessment of the
      statement by Papias, namely your interpretation of his "translation".
      Firstly it assumes that Eusebius' HE 3.24.6 reflects the understanding of
      Papias, which is not necessarily the case (and I think you admitted this).
      Secondly I don't see any evidence that Papias (or Eusebius) was making
      inadequate translation an excuse for variations between the gospels.
      Thirdly, if I've understood you correctly, your interpretation envisages an
      awkward sentence in which Matthew did a good job with the logia, yet is
      included in the "each one" whose ability at translation was being
      questioned. This doesn't seem to me likely. In my interpretation, Matthew
      (the apostle) is not included in the "each one". Indeed I'm wondering
      whether it could have been this very statement which Eusebius and/or others
      misunderstood, leading to the apostle Matthew being taken to have been the
      author of the gospel which we know as Matthew's gospel.

      > You can't simply set aside the larger context of what Papias and Eusebius say
      > elsewhere as a tool for interpreting what he says here about Matthew.

      But what about the wider context of the synoptic problem? There are
      phenomena in NT books that can only be explained satisfactorily if there
      existed in the first century a written Aramaic document containing sayings
      attributed to Jesus, and if copies of this document were available to the
      synoptic writers.

      1. mistranslations
      2. Aramaic word play
      3. extensive Semitic parallelism
      4. blocks of aphorisms in each of the synoptic gospels
      5. comments by Paul (esp. in 1 Cor) which seem to be best understood as
      allusions to such a document

      Such observations should lead us to *expect* that there was an Aramaic
      sayings source, and surely it would be reasonable to take this expectation
      as tipping the balance as to what Papias actually meant.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
    • Ronald Price
      ... Ken, NT scholars don t always use the word gospel in the same sense. The variation in meaning parallels almost exactly the variation in meaning between
      Message 52 of 52 , Jul 4, 2012
        Ken Olson wrote:

        > I am assuming that what Papias says in other places (according to Eusebius‚
        > reports) may be used to interpret
        > what he says here. Particularly when he uses groups of words together
        > (interpret, arrange, logia) in relation to the evangelists on different
        > occasions, they mean something close to the same thing .....

        Ken,

        NT scholars don't always use the word "gospel" in the same sense. The
        variation in meaning parallels almost exactly the variation in meaning
        between Eusebius/Papias, where logia usually refers to general traditions
        (c.f. e.g. Luke's gospel), and what I think Papias meant re what Matthew
        produced - logia as sayings (c.f. the 'Gospel of Thomas'). Why should we
        expect the ancients to be more consistent than the highly educated products
        of modern universities?

        > Papias' concern is to show that the gospels are the authentic witness of the
        > apostles to Jesus and have not been adulterated in transmission, and the
        > variation between them is due differences in translation of the underlying
        > material .....

        There appears to be a significant weakness in your assessment of the
        statement by Papias, namely your interpretation of his "translation".
        Firstly it assumes that Eusebius' HE 3.24.6 reflects the understanding of
        Papias, which is not necessarily the case (and I think you admitted this).
        Secondly I don't see any evidence that Papias (or Eusebius) was making
        inadequate translation an excuse for variations between the gospels.
        Thirdly, if I've understood you correctly, your interpretation envisages an
        awkward sentence in which Matthew did a good job with the logia, yet is
        included in the "each one" whose ability at translation was being
        questioned. This doesn't seem to me likely. In my interpretation, Matthew
        (the apostle) is not included in the "each one". Indeed I'm wondering
        whether it could have been this very statement which Eusebius and/or others
        misunderstood, leading to the apostle Matthew being taken to have been the
        author of the gospel which we know as Matthew's gospel.

        > You can't simply set aside the larger context of what Papias and Eusebius say
        > elsewhere as a tool for interpreting what he says here about Matthew.

        But what about the wider context of the synoptic problem? There are
        phenomena in NT books that can only be explained satisfactorily if there
        existed in the first century a written Aramaic document containing sayings
        attributed to Jesus, and if copies of this document were available to the
        synoptic writers.

        1. mistranslations
        2. Aramaic word play
        3. extensive Semitic parallelism
        4. blocks of aphorisms in each of the synoptic gospels
        5. comments by Paul (esp. in 1 Cor) which seem to be best understood as
        allusions to such a document

        Such observations should lead us to *expect* that there was an Aramaic
        sayings source, and surely it would be reasonable to take this expectation
        as tipping the balance as to what Papias actually meant.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.