.

Yes, I answered that in the second part, above, OzSpen. You must have missed it.

Sorry about that. I was a bit long in replying. I’m afraid I got tied up with something else between the first and second parts.

Have a nice day.

.

Banjo P,

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

You made an exact quote from Daniel J Harrington's commentary from the Book of Matthew. When you did this, you mentioned not a word about its coming from Harrington. It read as though it was your material.

Thus, you stole Harrington's material.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

All I can do is assure you once again that it was never my intention to steal anything from anybody nor to lead you or anybody else into thinking that I had suddenly become an expert on “Matthew” and his gospel after having clearly indicated that I knew nothing about either of them.

I see that Daniel J. Harrington, (July 19, 1940 – February 7, 2014), was Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Biblical Studies Department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry (formerly Weston Jesuit School of Theology) and considered an authority in his domain.

There is no way I could ever pretend having his knowledge, expertise or qualifications. I am totally illiterate in Hebrew, Aramaic (the language of Jesus) and Greek and ignore just about everything of the historical contexts of both “Matthew” and his gospel.

It was only after spending several hours on the internet that I managed to gather some information and confront different expert opinions in order to form my own.

If you re-read my post carefully, you will see that I wrote (Friday, 29 November 2019 10:58:24 PM) :

« 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 … »

« I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that … »

I was not affirmative about anything, nor was I pretending to be an expert. I simply (and faithfully) related what I had read and considered to be of interest. I even took the precaution of indicating that it was “my understanding” of what I had read, which left the door open to the possibility of other interpretations as well as different points of view to that which I presented.

I repeat that I understand your surprise and indignation at my not having referenced the various sources (as I usually do) and, once again, apologise for that.

.

Banjo P,

In your research of the Gospel of Matthew you've given a very lop-sided theologically liberal view. Any researcher of ancient literature (and in many other fields) must deal with the positives and negatives of that position. You haven't.

It's too bad you didn't read R C H Lenski's, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, where he gives a very different understanding to the one you presented.

Take a read of Lenski under his headings:

+ The earliest use of Matthew;

+ John and Matthew;

+ The hypothesis of an original Hebrew Matthew;

+ The hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew breaks down;

+ Is the Greek Matthew a translation?

+ The old tradition;

+ The date of Matthew.

You'll find Lenski's careful research on this topic at pp 7-20:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nQ9rJ9bc83kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=R+C+H+Lenski+The+Interpretation+of+St.+Matthew%27s+Gospel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo7c7E-ZfmAhVk63MBHbXiB7wQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=R%20C%20H%20Lenski%20The%20Interpretation%20of%20St.%20Matthew's%20Gospel&f=false

.

Thanks, OzSpen. I’m afraid I’ve got no time now, but I’ll try to look into Lenski’s “The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel” tomorrow and get back to you just as soon as I can.

However, I note that Google books indicates : “pages 3 to 17 are not shown in this review".

I also note that Lenski (September 14, 1864 – August 14, 1936), was an Evangelical Lutheran.

I’ll see if the missing pages are available elsewhere.

.

Banjo P,

<<I also note that Lenski (September 14, 1864 – August 14, 1936), was an Evangelical Lutheran.>>

When will you quit using logical fallacies? Here you have resorted to the use of a Genetic Fallacy, which is 'basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises', http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy

The author of this comprehensive list of fallacies stated that 'if I make an argument defending anything Catholic [he was raised a Catholic], the argument should be evaluated on the argument itself, not on the history of the one making the argument or how I came to hold the claims as true or false'.

By your one statement you seem to have found Lenski's research suspect because he is 'an Evangelical Lutheran'. You have perpetrated erroneous reasoning.

<<However, I note that Google books indicates : “pages 3 to 17 are not shown in this review".>>

That is strange as they are all there with the browser I use, Firefox. It takes you directly to all of the pages I mentioned. Pages 3-17 are included.

I will not pursue this topic any further as we are not dealing with the content of my article - FitzSimons' fake news and deconstruction of what Margaret Court stated.

Margaret Court is not homophobic. She has stated she loves homosexuals (not sexually) and has them in her church, but she upholds the biblical requirement of heterosexual marriage, promoted by the Mosaic Law and Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-6&version=NIVUK

God commands all of us, especially his people, like Margaret Court and me, to 'not tell lies about others' (Matthew 19:18), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A18&version=ERV.