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

[Synoptic-L] Re: AMatt's attempt to make his source "suitable"]

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... To insure that I understand what you are claiming, may I have answers to the following questions?: 1. What is the date (or range of dates) you assign to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Deardorff wrote:

      > Your (a) implies that AMt had known what the historical Jesus actually
      > taught and then abandoned it. Instead, the modified AH finds it most
      > plausible, as many others have also, that he had once been a Jew, probably a
      > Pharisee and quite likely even a rabbi, before converting to early
      > Christianity. He hadn't been brought up on the true teachings and hadn't
      > heard of them. Nor presumably, by that time, did most within the early
      > church know of them except for what they had heard from some of the
      > gnostics. When AMt did acquire the source document for his gospel, in the
      > early 2nd century, he therefore did not believe the truth of any of the
      > by-then heretical statements within it any more than a present-day staunch
      > Christian would. Yet there was so much other material in it of great value
      > to him, especially Jesus' healing ministry and succession of events within
      > it, that he used this document, which I equate with the Logia, as the basis
      > for his gospel. Obviously, this source document, once it reached the hands
      > of AMt, could not be publicized by him or his church. Hence it did not
      > survive, unless a previously made transcription of it elsewhere survived.
      >

      To insure that I understand what you are claiming, may I have answers to
      the
      following questions?:

      1. What is the date (or range of dates) you assign to your AMatt's
      finding and using
      this (from his point of view) "heretical" document upon which his work
      (our
      canonical Matthew?) was based.

      2. What is the date (or range of dates) in which AMatt produced and
      "published" his
      edited (sanitized?) version of the Logia?

      3. When did Papias compose his commentary on the Logia?

      4. When did Papias utter the testimony about the origin of Matthew's
      Logia?

      And another question: One of your reasons for saying that the Logia was
      "heretical"
      -- at least from the point of view of late first cent/early second cent.
      (Pauline
      "authored") Christianity -- is the following chain of reasoning:

      1. The Logia and Papias' commentaries on the Logia of the Lord have not
      survived

      2. Works that have not survived, let alone commentaries on them, are
      works that were
      suppressed because they were viewed by the "orthodox" as heretical.

      3. Therefore the Logia upon which Papias commentated, and his
      commentaries on the
      Logia which embodied it, were "heretical". at least from the point of
      view of the
      "orthodox"

      I'd like to know if you can point to any actual testimony from anywhere
      in the full
      spectrum of early Christian writings, including those from the Gnostics
      and other
      heretics, that confirms what, after all, is really only an
      **inference** (and an
      instance of bifurcation). Given that there were other reasons than their
      being
      heretical that early Christian documents did not survive and/or were not
      mentioned
      in writings that **have** come down to us, your claim would seem to need
      additional
      evidence before it could be entertained as valid.

      So .. . Is your **only** reason for saying that the Logia or works which
      contained
      it but did not edit it this chain of thought. Or do you know of
      additional positive
      evidence, say, any quote from any first to 4th cent source, that the
      Logia Papias
      mentions, or his commentaries upon them, were ever actually regarded as
      you claim
      they were, that is, as heretical or as dealing with and passing on
      heretical
      material? Funny that Eusebius, who was certainly orthodox and who was
      well aware of
      the Logia that Papias testifies to AND the commentaries based upon
      them, says
      nothing like this about them. And yet he is quite ready to pronounce as
      heretical
      other works of which he was aware which have not survived.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.