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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Papias/Jerome

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 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      (After that his not very successful Greek translations have been
      replaced by THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW from Amazon-antioch.com very fast.)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
    • 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 2 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
      • 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 3 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
        • 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 4 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
          • 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 5 of 9 , Aug 1, 1999
            • 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.