.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Yes, I understand that the tradition that the Greek text of “Matthew” was translated from a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, goes back to the early second century bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, as quoted by Eusibius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16) and that the usual translation of the Greek text is the following :

« Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could »

I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that “Matthew” composed his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. But that, unfortunately, Papias’ statement involves more problems than it resolves. What were the logia (“sayings”) – words of Jesus, quotes, or the whole narrative ? Why does Papias say “Hebrew” when it appears certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic ? Were there multiple translations of the Semitic “Matthew” ? Did Papias have any special reasons for making “Matthew’s” gospel prior to and independent of Mark’s gospel ?

Every important element in Papias’ statement is ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of variant translations.

It appears that there is no firm evidence in the Greek text that it was translated from a Semitic original. At any rate, the canonical text of “Matthew” is and always has been the Greek version. It seems reasonable to presume that the gospel was composed in Greek.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that Papias’ five books on the “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord”, written in Greek and dating from about 95–120, were lost. Only a few brief excerpts were reproduced in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c.180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c.320).

These two religious figures (both bishops), Irenaeus and Eusebius, can hardly be considered neutral in their judgment of what Jesus is reported by Papias to have said, verbatim, well over a century earlier.

Naturally, OzSpen, you are free to believe what you will, but, in my humble opinion, matters are not quite as clear-cut as some would have you believe.

More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion.

.

Banjo P,

<<It appears that there is no firm evidence in the Greek text that it was translated from a Semitic original. At any rate, the canonical text of “Matthew” is and always has been the Greek version. It seems reasonable to presume that the gospel was composed in Greek.>>

New Testament researcher, Michael D. Marlowe, disagrees with your conclusion. See: 'The Semitic Style of the New Testament, http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

<<More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion.>>

There you go with another Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

If you continue your irrational reasoning by use of fallacies, I will not respond to you again in this thread. We cannot have a logical interaction when you do this.

Banjo P,

<<I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that “Matthew” composed his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. But that, unfortunately, Papias’ statement involves more problems than it resolves. What were the logia (“sayings”) – words of Jesus, quotes, or the whole narrative ? Why does Papias say “Hebrew” when it appears certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic ? Were there multiple translations of the Semitic “Matthew” ? Did Papias have any special reasons for making “Matthew’s” gospel prior to and independent of Mark’s gospel ?>>

You have taken this information directly from Daniel J Harrington 1991, The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, p. 3. By not giving him credit for what you wrote, you have plagiarised the author - stolen from his writings.

See: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bNf13S3k2w0C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Papias%E2%80%99+statement+involves+more+problems+than+it+resolves.+What+were+the+logia+(%E2%80%9Csayings%E2%80%9D)+%E2%80%93+words+of+Jesus,+quotes,+or+the+whole+narrative+?+Why+does+Papias+say+%E2%80%9CHebrew%E2%80%9D+when+it+appears+certain+that+Jesus+spoke+Aramaic+?+Were+there+multiple+translations+of+the+Semitic+%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%9D+?+Did+Papias+have+any+special+reasons+for+making+%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D+gospel+prior+to+and+independent+of+Mark%E2%80%99s+gospel+?&source=bl&ots=8DYx0OCZ-n&sig=ACfU3U2uaGa3Tsh84oE7xY2TzlPT7AdOwg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzyNul_5HmAhUaQH0KHSYwCSYQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Papias%E2%80%99%20statement%20involves%20more%20problems%20than%20it%20resolves.%20What%20were%20the%20logia%20(%E2%80%9Csayings%E2%80%9D)%20%E2%80%93%20words%20of%20Jesus%2C%20quotes%2C%20or%20the%20whole%20narrative%20%3F%20Why%20does%20Papias%20say%20%E2%80%9CHebrew%E2%80%9D%20when%20it%20appears%20certain%20that%20Jesus%20spoke%20Aramaic%20%3F%20Were%20there%20multiple%20translations%20of%20the%20Semitic%20%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%9D%20%3F%20Did%20Papias%20have%20any%20special%20reasons%20for%20making%20%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D%20gospel%20prior%20to%20and%20independent%20of%20Mark%E2%80%99s%20gospel%20%3F&f=false

Sadly, I couldn't find a shorter link to this quote without using Google Books online, hence the very long URL.

Why oh why must you become this dishonest person, providing no source for your quote, making it look like your research, when they were the words and questions of Daniel J Harrington SJ?

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« New Testament researcher, Michael D. Marlowe, disagrees with your conclusion. See: 'The Semitic Style of the New Testament »
.

As I said earlier, nothing is clear-cut about “Matthew”. I see that even Marlowe cites passages in the other two synoptic gospels that he considers to be Greek translations of original Semitic texts compared to the purely Greek expressions of “Matthew”.

Marlowe makes no bones about his personal religious convictions :

« Concerning the Bible, I believe that it is the inerrant, living and powerful word of God … I have given much of my time and energy to … helping others to believe it … Theologically I am conservative and Reformed. I consider the Westminster Confession of Faith to be an accurate summary of Biblical theology »

That statement does not augur well in my view. It's not exactly a sign of impartiality or independence of mind aimed at objectivity.
.

« <<More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion >>

There you go with another Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy »

I don’t recall having made any previous “ad hominem” remarks, OzSpen, but please accept my sincere apologies if I did. It’s totally out of character so far as I am concerned.

Also, perhaps I should add that I do not see “blind faith” as a pejorative expression. I see it as something common, not just to all human beings, but to all living creatures. Life would be impossible without it. Not everything we think and do is the result of a conscious, rational decision. Much is unconscious and instinctive. Only some of what we think and do is the result of a conscious, rational decision.

As religion is part of our cultural inheritance, it is usually adopted unconsciously. For much of mankind, religious belief takes the form of blind faith. But that does not mean it is irrational. Though the rationale is usually inheritance, it could also be of a psychological or existential nature. Historically, it was often imposed as a result of conquest.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You then wrote :

« You have taken this information directly from Daniel J Harrington … »
.

That’s correct, OzSpen. I’m sure you will recall that I clearly indicated at the beginning of this discussion that though I had heard of “Matthew” ever since my childhood, I had no idea who he was nor what his qualifications were and that I had decided to do some research on him and his gospel.

My subsequent posts were the result of that research. They were based on several sources, the principal of which was Daniel J. Harrington.

I understand your surprise and indignation that I had not referenced the various sources and apologise for that.

I nevertheless confirm that it was, indeed, my personal research which led me to Daniel J. Harrington, among several others.

I do, normally, reference my sources but, as it seemed obvious to me that I was not claiming authorship of anything I discovered (given my opening remarks), I preferred to use my 350-word posting limit for more important matters. I considered that my source details were always available to you and anybody else who may have been interested. That did not seem to mr to be a problem. Obviously, I was wrong.

Allow me to add, OzSpen, that whatever future discussions we may have, I consider that it is important that they be conducted in a spirit of mutual confidence. I do not seek to cheat on you or anybody else, nor do I seek to “steal” anything from you or anybody else.

It so happens that if I have one single regret in life it is that I have never had an original thought. On the few rare occasions that I thought I had finally thought of something that nobody else had ever thought before me, I discovered each time, to my great regret, that I was wrong.

I get the feeling that whatever I think, say, do or write, I am always plagiarising someone. Don’t you ever get that feeling ?

.

Banjo P,

While you said your post would be "continued", in the first part you said not a word about your engaging in plagiarism of the writings of Daniel J Harrington, of which I accused you.

Plagiarism is 'the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own' (Lexico.com/Oxford Dictionary 2019. s.v. plagiarism), http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/plagiarism

This dictionary gives synonyms as: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation.

In citing Harrington, word-for-word without giving him credit, you have stolen his material to make it look like your own research. It's time for you to own up to your theft.