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

[Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    I accidently came across this Jerome reference. It is from his commentary on Mat: ... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
      It is from his commentary on Mat:

      "... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
      translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
      authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."

      Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
      "Logia"? Why?
      I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
      Gospels were distorted products.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
    • Wieland Willker
      ... This is possible. But if he is referring to it he is refering to a secondary product. ... What I know about the jewish christian gospel(s) and I think I
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon wrote:
        > Papias could have been referring to GH when he
        > speaks about the "Logia." Does not LOGIA,
        > rather than LOGOI suggest a narrative rather
        > than a sayings list?

        This is possible. But if he is referring to it he is refering to a
        secondary product.

        > Why could not the canonicals be the "distorted
        > products" if the GH was an Aramaic narrative
        > committed to writing by Jesus' own followers
        > and family?

        What I know about the jewish christian gospel(s) and I think I have read
        all the known fragments (Schneemelcher, yes!) does not make this
        impression on me. It might be that the fragments that have come to us
        are the most "heavy" ones, but from what we have I must conclude that
        these Gospels were either similar to the canonical Gospels or distorted
        secondary versions, but not "better or purer ones".


        Stephen Goranson:
        > Why, Wieland, say "they" knew of distortion if
        > Jerome said many consider it authentic?

        That's the problem I see. I think they should know about the distortions
        if they know the Gospel(s). But maybe I am wrong.


        ---
        About: when did Papias live?
        I have in my notes (without source):
        c.70 - 155 Papias
        c.75 - c.160 Polycarp

        Thus it is possible that Papias wrote as late as c. 140-150. Maybe he
        started collecting in 120?
        It is possible that he got earlier reports. He possibly met Polycarp who
        met the apostle John who has met Jesus (reported by Irenaeus).
        I think with the facts we have it is possible that the apostle John said
        to Polcarp something like: "Yes, Matthew, my Sunmatetes wrote down Jesus
        stories in Aramaic."

        (After that his not very successful Greek translations have been
        replaced by THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW from Amazon-antioch.com very fast.)

        Best wishes
        Wieland
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... The Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazarenes was not the canonical Gospel of Matthew although the name of Matthew was associated with it. ... Papias could have been
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland Willker wrote:
          >
          > I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
          > It is from his commentary on Mat:
          >
          > "... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
          > translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
          > authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."

          The Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazarenes was not the canonical Gospel
          of Matthew although the name of Matthew was associated with it.

          >
          > Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
          > "Logia"? Why?

          Papias could have been referring to GH when he speaks about
          the "Logia." Does not LOGIA, rather than LOGOI suggest a
          narrative rather than a sayings list?

          > I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
          > Gospels were distorted products.

          Why could not the canonicals be the "distorted products" if the
          GH was an Aramaic narrative committed to writing by Jesus' own
          followers and family?

          Jack

          --
          ______________________________________________

          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

          Jack Kilmon
          jkilmon@...

          http://www.historian.net
        • David C. Hindley
          ... From: Wieland Willker To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 12:16 PM Subject:
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de>
            To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
            Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 12:16 PM
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome


            >
            >I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
            >It is from his commentary on Mat:
            >
            >"... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
            >translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
            >authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."
            >
            >Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
            >"Logia"? Why?
            >I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
            >Gospels were distorted products.


            Wieland,

            If you have not already done so, I would recommend taking a look at _New
            Testament Apocrypha_ (E.T., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, tr. R. McL. Wilson,
            Cambridge:James Clark & Co/Louisville KY:John Knox Press, 1991, pp. 136-152)
            as it provides an overview of all the testimonies regarding supposed
            Jewish/Christian gospels from Irenaeus to the middle ages. A number of these
            refer to the tradition of a Jewish gospel or sayings list by Matthew.

            It is not usually considered a good idea to trust Jerome too far when he
            claims to have translated a certain work. You will note that he ascribes the
            idea that this Jewish gospel is a Hebrew original of the GMt to "most" (i.e.,
            the consensus opinion in his circles). This is not necessarily mean that they
            were right.

            In several places Jerome indicates that he had translated parts of the works
            of several well known writers into Latin from Greek. However, it is not
            cewrtain that he knew Hebrew or Aramaic. It seems clear that he actually had
            no direct knowledge of the Semetic form of this Jewish gospel, and constantly
            changes the name he gives it and cannot seem to even stick to the language
            (calling it variously "Hebrew," "Chaldean," and "Syriac," sometimes naming
            several of these languages in the same breath). It does not look like he
            actually translated it at all, and everything he knew about it came in the
            form of either hearsay or Greek "translations" of it.

            Regards,

            Dave Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio, USA
          • stephen goranson
            1) I think that Sakari Hakkinen asked (whether on this list or elsewhere I do not recall) why Jerome said he translated to Greek and not Latin. I do not know;
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              1) I think that Sakari Hakkinen asked (whether on this list or elsewhere I
              do not recall) why Jerome said he translated to Greek and not Latin. I do
              not know; perhaps (?) to compare with Greek NT?

              2) Why, Wieland, say "they" knew of distortion if Jerome said many consider
              it authentic?

              3) B. Wilson wrote recently that Papias was basically a tradent. But does
              not Eusebius quote Papias, which may allow that Papias was retelling a
              tradition as he understood it?

              4) S. Hakkinen has an article on Crosstalk which makes useful observations
              on patristic accounts of Ebionites and Ebion. I suggest, however, that the
              analysis could become more historically useful by taking into account that
              the name "Ebionites" came, most probably, from a Hebrew *self-designation*
              predating Justin. Only the bogus "Ebion" was a patristic invention.

              5) David Runia published a worthwhile, relevant article: "Philo of
              Alexandria and the Greek _Hairesis_-Model," Vigilae Christianae 53 (1999)
              117-47. I had noted the previous SBL paper version in my "Others and
              Intra-Jewish Polemic in Qumran Texts," in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty
              Years, vol. 2: 534-51 (ed. P. Flint & J, VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

              Stephen Goranson
              goranson@...

              >I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
              >It is from his commentary on Mat:
              >
              >"... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
              >translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
              >authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."
              >
              >Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
              >"Logia"? Why?
              >I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
              >Gospels were distorted products.
              >
              >Best wishes
              > Wieland
            • Larry J. Swain
              ... These are all possible, but so are earlier dates. Eusebius places him as fl. about 100-contemporary with Ignatius and Trajan s reign and the only
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Wieland Willker wrote:

                > About: when did Papias live?
                > I have in my notes (without source):
                > c.70 - 155 Papias
                > c.75 - c.160 Polycarp
                >
                > Thus it is possible that Papias wrote as late as c. 140-150. Maybe he
                > started collecting in 120?

                These are all possible, but so are earlier dates. Eusebius places him as
                fl. about 100-contemporary with Ignatius and Trajan's reign and the only
                information I know of that would contradict this is Philip of Side. (more on
                dear Philip in a moment). Further, Irenaeus' description of him as a man of
                "old time" suggests that he is an older contemporary of Polycarp and died
                sooner than Polycarp. Given this, it is possible that he was born say
                around 50, died around 120, started collecting say about 75, and wrote
                anytime between 74 and 120. The question is, which is the more likely given
                WHAT he wrote and why he wrote it combined with the information we have: the
                later or earlier date possibilities? I say again, that both are possible
                and reasonable.

                > It is possible that he got earlier reports. He possibly met Polycarp who
                > met the apostle John who has met Jesus (reported by Irenaeus).
                > I think with the facts we have it is possible that the apostle John said
                > to Polcarp something like: "Yes, Matthew, my Sunmatetes wrote down Jesus
                > stories in Aramaic."
                >

                Very likely he received earlier reports. Even if he we give him the late
                date, and even if we say he did not know the "elders" and "disciples of the
                lord" but was talking to their disciples, that puts his information
                comfortably into the first century. Irenaeus is another case in point,
                student of Polycarp, so that although he is writing in the 180s, some of the
                information he argues for goes back to the first century. I'm not saying it
                was right information, meets my criteria for historigraphy, or represents a
                monolithic Christianity, things I've been painted with before here, but I am
                saying that he is a traductor of traditions that go back to the first
                century even though his writings are all too close to the third. Another
                example would be Eusebius some of whose information obviously goes back to
                the first century because someone like Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and the
                like took things they were told and wrote them down....4th century chap
                reporting first century information. How reliable? Different question.
                All of that to say that I think it quite likely that Papias' information
                goes back to the first century. I don't really think we have any grounds
                for doubting Irenaeus' story that Papias and Polycarp knew each other or
                that they were disciples of this John the Elder chap...another Papian
                mystery...so modern equivalence aside (possibly he knew Polycarp, possibly
                knew John...) I would say that it is likely to be true, if for no other
                reason than that I find it unlikely that the Bishop of Smyrna, no mean place
                at the time, and another bishop in the area didn't have at least a nodding
                acquaintance with each other. And this information probably came from two
                sources: Papias probably said it in his work, and Irenaeus knew it from
                Polycarp, and everyone after them accepted it.The last part regarding
                Aramaic Jesus stories depends on what we make of HEBRAIDI DIALEKTW and I'm
                not convinced that it means "Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue", but I'll leave that
                discussion for the moment.

                Finally there is Phillip of Side.....I can only find references to him in
                secondary works. I've searched all the standard works of Patristic fathers
                and editions but find no Phillip published anywhere. Am I missing
                something, because I would really like to check him out.

                Larry Swain
              • Dennis Sullivan
                These jewish-christian Gospels would likely have been considered distorted products by the Gentile dominated church anytime after the end of the first
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  These "jewish-christian"
                  Gospels would likely have been considered "distorted products" by the
                  Gentile dominated church anytime after the end of the first century, and
                  almost certainly would have been considered such by Jerome's time, when a
                  St. John Chrysostum was railing against the Jews and the synagogue. Whether
                  they really are or not may be open to question.

                  Dennis Sullivan Dayton Ohio

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de>
                  To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
                  Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 12:18 PM
                  Subject: [Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome


                  >I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
                  >It is from his commentary on Mat:
                  >
                  >"... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
                  >translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
                  >authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."
                  >
                  >Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
                  >"Logia"? Why?
                  >I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
                  >Gospels were distorted products.
                  >
                  >Best wishes
                  > Wieland
                  >
                • Dennis Sullivan
                  Would anyone have access to an early version of the Vulgate Old Testament , so that it might be compared with an LXX? Maybe we can determine by comparisons
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Would anyone have access to an early version of the Vulgate
                    "Old Testament", so that it might be compared with an LXX? Maybe we can
                    determine by comparisons if Jerome's claim to know Hebrew was valid. Does
                    the early Vulgate follow the Hebrew or the Greek more closely?

                    Dennis Sullivan Dayton Ohio

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: David C. Hindley <dhindley@...>
                    To: Synoptic List <Synoptic-L@...>
                    Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 1:29 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome


                    >-----Original Message-----
                    >From: Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de>
                    >To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
                    >Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 12:16 PM
                    >Subject: [Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome
                    >
                    >
                    >>
                    >>I accidently came across this Jerome reference.
                    >>It is from his commentary on Mat:
                    >>
                    >>"... the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we have recently
                    >>translated from Hebrew to Greek, which is considered by most as the
                    >>authentical (Gospel) of Matthew..."
                    >>
                    >>Why does Jerome think so? Is he confusing this Gospel with Papias
                    >>"Logia"? Why?
                    >>I mean, in his days they knew already that these "jewish-christian"
                    >>Gospels were distorted products.
                    >
                    >
                    >Wieland,
                    >
                    >If you have not already done so, I would recommend taking a look at _New
                    >Testament Apocrypha_ (E.T., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, tr. R. McL. Wilson,
                    >Cambridge:James Clark & Co/Louisville KY:John Knox Press, 1991, pp.
                    136-152)
                    >as it provides an overview of all the testimonies regarding supposed
                    >Jewish/Christian gospels from Irenaeus to the middle ages. A number of
                    these
                    >refer to the tradition of a Jewish gospel or sayings list by Matthew.
                    >
                    >It is not usually considered a good idea to trust Jerome too far when he
                    >claims to have translated a certain work. You will note that he ascribes
                    the
                    >idea that this Jewish gospel is a Hebrew original of the GMt to "most"
                    (i.e.,
                    >the consensus opinion in his circles). This is not necessarily mean that
                    they
                    >were right.
                    >
                    >In several places Jerome indicates that he had translated parts of the
                    works
                    >of several well known writers into Latin from Greek. However, it is not
                    >cewrtain that he knew Hebrew or Aramaic. It seems clear that he actually
                    had
                    >no direct knowledge of the Semetic form of this Jewish gospel, and
                    constantly
                    >changes the name he gives it and cannot seem to even stick to the language
                    >(calling it variously "Hebrew," "Chaldean," and "Syriac," sometimes naming
                    >several of these languages in the same breath). It does not look like he
                    >actually translated it at all, and everything he knew about it came in the
                    >form of either hearsay or Greek "translations" of it.
                    >
                    >Regards,
                    >
                    >Dave Hindley
                    >Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 8/1/1999 5:21:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, densull@megsinet.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 8/1/1999 5:21:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      densull@... writes:

                      << Would anyone have access to an early version of the Vulgate
                      "Old Testament", so that it might be compared with an LXX? Maybe we can
                      determine by comparisons if Jerome's claim to know Hebrew was valid. Does
                      the early Vulgate follow the Hebrew or the Greek more closely?
                      >>

                      Denis,

                      I have a critical edition of the Vulgata (to be distinguished from the
                      Nova Vulgata), if that's what you mean (2 vols., edited by Robertus Weber
                      OSB, and published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart). The
                      expression "an early version of the Vulgate Old Testament" is ambiguous, to
                      say the least. One might mistakenly think you were alluding to the pre-Jerome
                      latin bible which goes under the general designation Vetus Latina. If I am
                      not mistaken, Jerome shows some knowledge of the Hebrew text form where it
                      differs from the LXX. He also translates at times from the Hebrew rather than
                      from the Greek, but I do not believe he does so consistently, in spite of his
                      emphatic stance, in the face of great opposition, on the "veritas hebraica".
                      If you wish, I would be happy to provide a sample Latin translation by Jerome
                      of a particular biblical passage which differs greatly in its Hebrew and LXX
                      form.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.