[Synoptic-L] Re: AMatt's attempt to make his source "suitable"]
- Jim Deardorff wrote:
> Your (a) implies that AMt had known what the historical Jesus actuallyTo insure that I understand what you are claiming, may I have answers to
> 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.
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
canonical Matthew?) was based.
2. What is the date (or range of dates) in which AMatt produced and
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
And another question: One of your reasons for saying that the Logia was
-- at least from the point of view of late first cent/early second cent.
"authored") Christianity -- is the following chain of reasoning:
1. The Logia and Papias' commentaries on the Logia of the Lord have not
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
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
heretics, that confirms what, after all, is really only an
**inference** (and an
instance of bifurcation). Given that there were other reasons than their
heretical that early Christian documents did not survive and/or were not
in writings that **have** come down to us, your claim would seem to need
evidence before it could be entertained as valid.
So .. . Is your **only** reason for saying that the Logia or works which
it but did not edit it this chain of thought. Or do you know of
evidence, say, any quote from any first to 4th cent source, that the
mentions, or his commentaries upon them, were ever actually regarded as
they were, that is, as heretical or as dealing with and passing on
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
nothing like this about them. And yet he is quite ready to pronounce as
other works of which he was aware which have not survived.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626