Was The Gospel Of Matthew The First Gospel Written, Composed Before 70 A.D., And Originally Written In Hebrew?
Source: http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008...rst-gospel.html
Traditionally, the universities of the western world have taught that the Gospel of Matthew was not the first gospel written, that it was written in Greek, and that it was authored after 70 A.D.
However, as more and more discoveries have been made, those assumptions have been shown to be stone cold wrong.
As researchers are looking into the writings of the early church leaders, they are finding that not only was the gospel of Matthew most definitely the first gospel written (almost certainly before 50 A.D.), but that it was originally written in Hebrew!
Just check out what some of the early church writers from the first few centuries of the church have to say on this matter:
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."
Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."
Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.
And did you know that one of the 12 disciples of Jesus named Bartholomew actually carried a Hebrew copy of the book of Matthew into India?
Check out this astounding excerpt from an excellent article I found today:
----
http://www.onlinetruth.org/Articles%20Fold..._of_matthew.htm
This newly uncovered information further confirms that Matthew, an eyewitness to the miracles and events of Jesus' ministry, was indeed the author of the first Gospel and verifies both the Jewishness and early date of the first Gospel.
Now, we have a clear mention that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew - not Greek or Aramaic, as widely thought - and was carried out of Israel by one of the original apostles to the Far East. Two of the earliest Church Fathers and historians, Eusebius and Origen, wrote that a second, long-overlooked apostle, Bartholomew, also went to India and took a Gospel text with him, aacording to Princeton scholar and author Samuel Moffett.
In his ground-breaking book, "A History of Christianity in Asia," Moffett reveals that Pantaenus, a church historian and missionary who traveled to India in 180 A.D., discovered the copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that Bartholomew had taken with him.
"It is reported," wrote Eusebius, a fourth century bishop and church historian, "that among person there who knew Christ, (Pantaenus) found the Gospel according to St. Matthew (which had arrived ahead of Pantaenus by more than a century). For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left them (in India) the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved."
"There is a shock hidden in that matter-of-fact statement. ...The surprise, of course, is the mention of Bartholomew as the pioneer to the East," Moffett says.
Many scholars are unaware of an apostle other than Thomas ever going to India, and some even doubt that Thomas himself went.
Moffett ponders, "What was Bartholomew...doing in India with a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?"
--You can read the rest of this excellent article at the link at the top of the excerpt
Full Version: Was The Gospel Of Matthew
The early Catholic apologists are not perfect sources. But here is a theory accepted by some and it goes on into much more detail.
http://www.craigaevans.com/Jewish%20Matthew.pdf
QUOTE
The complete text of Matthew in Hebrew is preserved in a lengthy, polemical treatise composed in the fourteenth century by Shem Tob ben Isaac (sometimes called Ibn Shaprut). Shem Tob’s purpose was to refute the Christian Gospel story, point by point. Although disputed, Shem Tob may actually preserve an independent textual tradition of Matthew, possibly related to a “Gospel in Hebrew letters,” mentioned by the second-century church father Papias. If so, what does it tell us about the Jewish believers who preserved it? Many readings cohere with early Greek witnesses, many are independent, and it has been shown that Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew is based upon neither the Vulgate nor Byzantine Greek, which, if it had been translated in the fourteenth century, it would have been. It is an important witness to a much earlier tradition, possibly one that is in some way related to a Hebrew version of Matthew that early Church Fathers discuss. What has just been said summarizes some of the principal arguments offered by George Howard, who in 1987 published the text of Hebrew Matthew, along with an English translation, introduction, and critical discussion. A revised edition appeared in 1995.5 Although not all reviewers were persuaded by Howard, leading authorities in the study of early Judaism and Christianity, such as William Horbury and Daniel Harrington,6 agree with some of Howard’s conclusions, thinking that Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew is more than merely a medieval Hebrew translation of either Greek Matthew or Latin Matthew.7
http://www.craigaevans.com/Jewish%20Matthew.pdf
How could it have been written when the author didn't know the meaning of the word "almah"?
Answer, a nonjew, in the fourth century, wrote or rewrote it as part of the fourth century compilation known as the new testament. A jew would have known that Isaiah wasn't referring to a virgin.
Answer, a nonjew, in the fourth century, wrote or rewrote it as part of the fourth century compilation known as the new testament. A jew would have known that Isaiah wasn't referring to a virgin.
QUOTE
The early Catholic apologists are not perfect sources. But here is a theory accepted by some and it goes on into much more detail.
Nicely phrased, Clovis. Lest your remarks be misunderstood, however, please allow me to add the following:
While an early Matthew hypothesis has rightly been associated with the Roman Catholic Church, that is not current RC doctrine.
From the Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Roman Catholic, with a religiously diverse editorial board):
The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity. Although the majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of its composition, the high estimation of this work remains.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
and of course, in the Introduction to Mark
This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written,...
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm
The website belongs the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is just what it sounds like.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 3 2008, 03:14 PM) 
How could it have been written when the author didn't know the meaning of the word "almah"?
Answer, a nonjew, in the fourth century, wrote or rewrote it as part of the fourth century compilation known as the new testament. A jew would have known that Isaiah wasn't referring to a virgin.
Answer, a nonjew, in the fourth century, wrote or rewrote it as part of the fourth century compilation known as the new testament. A jew would have known that Isaiah wasn't referring to a virgin.
The author was using the Septuagint.
When I was in Bible School I was taught that most scholarship believed The Gospel Of Mark to be the first written one, as it had more in common with Luke and Matthew, like it was the source. It is also evident that Mark was the resource text used by Matthew and Luke in compiling their own accounts of Jesus’ life. The likely year of it’s composition is 65 AD. It is also believed that this Gospel was originally penned in Greek, the common language of the Roman Empire, the language of the Roman Christians. This particular Mark is probably the same “John Mark” whose mother, Mary, held the first Christian meetings in her house. (Acts 12: 12) John was his Jewish name and Mark (Marcus) his Roman.
John Mark, our author, had not been one of the twelve Apostles but as seen in Acts 12:12 and in some of Paul’s letters; he was involved in a big way. (Philemon 24; Col. 4: 10) It was John Mark who left for Cyprus with Barnabas when Paul and Barnabas went different ways. (Acts 15: 39) The argument between Paul and Barnabas was actually about John Marks worthiness to continue on the missionary journey.
Mark accompanied Paul until the latter was martyred. Mark also associated closely with Peter (1 Peter 5:13) as sort of an interpreter. It is now understood that most of what Mark wrote down was as a result of Peter’s testimony and reflects his perspective on Jesus activities. But Peter was also crucified; according to tradition he was hung upside down. The deaths of Peter and Paul no doubt spurred Mark on to write it all down before it disappeared or became distorted by the unreliability of oral tradition only. Some speculate that John Mark may have witnessed the crucifixion.
The Gospel may have been written at the request of Roman Christians who wanted an account of Peter’s preaching. As a result of his close associations with Paul, Peter and other missionaries Mark was no doubt very familiar with Jesus’ Galilean ministry. One notable feature Mark’s gospel is its emphasis on the activities of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus are curiously absent and we wonder whether this was because other existing writings already dealt with them. The sayings of Christ were certainly in wide circulation orally.
The reason that Mark’s Gospel is generally credited with first authorship is the phenomenon of the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospel, along with Mark’s are called the Synoptic Gospels. That is because they reflect many of the same sayings and stories with a similar chronology. Much of Matthew and Luke’s work is based on, and even copied from Mark. Mark’s gospel is the shortest of the three. Matthew and Luke embellished Mark’s work, especially in the area of teaching. Either Matthew or Luke had access to information that Mark wasn’t aware of or chose not to include. Mark’s account was written while there were still many witnesses alive that could have challenged any spurious information had Mark included any.
What is likely here, in the case of the synoptic gospels, I feel, however, is the use of an outside, perhaps older source, or the gospel Q if you will. Check out this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
I don't think it was just Mark inspiring Matthew and Luke, I also believe it was the missing Q document. This gives the best solution, in my view, since some of the material in Matthew and Luke is absent from Mark. Check out that link!!
John Mark, our author, had not been one of the twelve Apostles but as seen in Acts 12:12 and in some of Paul’s letters; he was involved in a big way. (Philemon 24; Col. 4: 10) It was John Mark who left for Cyprus with Barnabas when Paul and Barnabas went different ways. (Acts 15: 39) The argument between Paul and Barnabas was actually about John Marks worthiness to continue on the missionary journey.
Mark accompanied Paul until the latter was martyred. Mark also associated closely with Peter (1 Peter 5:13) as sort of an interpreter. It is now understood that most of what Mark wrote down was as a result of Peter’s testimony and reflects his perspective on Jesus activities. But Peter was also crucified; according to tradition he was hung upside down. The deaths of Peter and Paul no doubt spurred Mark on to write it all down before it disappeared or became distorted by the unreliability of oral tradition only. Some speculate that John Mark may have witnessed the crucifixion.
The Gospel may have been written at the request of Roman Christians who wanted an account of Peter’s preaching. As a result of his close associations with Paul, Peter and other missionaries Mark was no doubt very familiar with Jesus’ Galilean ministry. One notable feature Mark’s gospel is its emphasis on the activities of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus are curiously absent and we wonder whether this was because other existing writings already dealt with them. The sayings of Christ were certainly in wide circulation orally.
The reason that Mark’s Gospel is generally credited with first authorship is the phenomenon of the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospel, along with Mark’s are called the Synoptic Gospels. That is because they reflect many of the same sayings and stories with a similar chronology. Much of Matthew and Luke’s work is based on, and even copied from Mark. Mark’s gospel is the shortest of the three. Matthew and Luke embellished Mark’s work, especially in the area of teaching. Either Matthew or Luke had access to information that Mark wasn’t aware of or chose not to include. Mark’s account was written while there were still many witnesses alive that could have challenged any spurious information had Mark included any.
What is likely here, in the case of the synoptic gospels, I feel, however, is the use of an outside, perhaps older source, or the gospel Q if you will. Check out this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
I don't think it was just Mark inspiring Matthew and Luke, I also believe it was the missing Q document. This gives the best solution, in my view, since some of the material in Matthew and Luke is absent from Mark. Check out that link!!
QUOTE (Something Like Laughter @ Jun 3 2008, 05:07 PM)
The author was using the Septuagint.
Funny, the Septuagint only included the five books of the Torah. Isaiah and the other prophets were translated later by Christians. A first century follower of Jesus would not have access to a Greek translation of Isaiah.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
QUOTE
The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy's gracious hospitality, and translated the Torah (also called the Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, 282 BCE is a commonly received date.
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy's project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.
By Philo's time the memory of the seventy-two translators was vibrant, an important part of Jewish life in Alexandria (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they conducted their work. The celebrity of the Septuagint and its translators remained strong in Christianity. The earliest Christian references to the translation, from the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), credit the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, to the seventy-two. Thus Christians conflated the Septuagint with their Old Testament canon (a canon that included the so-called apocrypha). For their part, Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint. By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. By and large, Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of their Septuagint, and Jews rejected it.
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy's project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.
By Philo's time the memory of the seventy-two translators was vibrant, an important part of Jewish life in Alexandria (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they conducted their work. The celebrity of the Septuagint and its translators remained strong in Christianity. The earliest Christian references to the translation, from the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), credit the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, to the seventy-two. Thus Christians conflated the Septuagint with their Old Testament canon (a canon that included the so-called apocrypha). For their part, Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint. By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. By and large, Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of their Septuagint, and Jews rejected it.
Odd that Matthew could access the yet-to be written translation of Isaiah for his virgin birth nonsense.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 3 2008, 02:39 PM)
Funny, the Septuagint only included the five books of the Torah. Isaiah and the other prophets were translated later by Christians. A first century follower of Jesus would not have access to a Greek translation of Isaiah.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
Odd that Matthew could access the yet-to be written translation of Isaiah for his virgin birth nonsense.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
Odd that Matthew could access the yet-to be written translation of Isaiah for his virgin birth nonsense.
gid you never cease to amaze me with your bible expertise, that is an excellent point/post ... just the bible you reference based on what i myself am learning you are indeed a brilliant bible scholar....
you are not ignored my freind not by those interested in learning...
QUOTE (Something Like Laughter @ Jun 3 2008, 02:07 PM)
The author was using the Septuagint.
The Jewish Septuagint only included the Chumash (First five books of Moses). The rest of the Tanakh was later translated by the Christians.
Not to mention that the Septuagint (written in Greek) wouldn't really help the guy if he was writing Matthew in Hebrew....
So are you claiming that LXX was only written in the fourth century AD?
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
thanks, but I am not even close to a biblical scholar. I know what I know. I go to a wonderful Jewish anti-missionary website where they only discuss these kinds of topics.
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
I read a lot in actual books. I was not raised in the Jewish religion, but you have to respect something that has survived 1700 years of institutional xian persecution. That website knows I am a new-age nut, but they respect me more than the xians do here. I am still convinced that the n.t. is a compilation of the fourth century, based on vague memories of Jesus ben Panthera. You gotta go with logic. We don't even know whether "Matthew" was a real person, other than a disciple of Jesus ben Panthera.
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 3 2008, 05:56 PM)
gid you never cease to amaze me with your bible expertise, that is an excellent point/post ... just the bible you reference based on what i myself am learning you are indeed a brilliant bible scholar.... you are not ignored my freind not by those interested in learning...
you are not ignored my freind not by those interested in learning...thanks, but I am not even close to a biblical scholar. I know what I know. I go to a wonderful Jewish anti-missionary website where they only discuss these kinds of topics.
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
I read a lot in actual books. I was not raised in the Jewish religion, but you have to respect something that has survived 1700 years of institutional xian persecution. That website knows I am a new-age nut, but they respect me more than the xians do here. I am still convinced that the n.t. is a compilation of the fourth century, based on vague memories of Jesus ben Panthera. You gotta go with logic. We don't even know whether "Matthew" was a real person, other than a disciple of Jesus ben Panthera.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 3 2008, 08:35 PM)
So are you claiming that LXX was only written in the fourth century AD?
THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES DO NOT INCLUDE ISAIAH. The original septuagint had the five books only. The "LLX"
is a much later compilation, long after "matthew" would have lived. Thus, he couldn't have made the error of thinking Isaiah predicted the "virgin birth". Isaiah was not in Greek in the first century. Ta-Dah. Matthew is a later forgery, like the rest of the new testament. Just a compilation of selected books by a group of old men in dresses. on behest of Constantine, later Theodosius.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 3 2008, 05:44 PM)
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
thanks, but I am not even close to a biblical scholar. I know what I know. I go to a wonderful Jewish anti-missionary website where they only discuss these kinds of topics.
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
I read a lot in actual books. I was not raised in the Jewish religion, but you have to respect something that has survived 1700 years of institutional xian persecution. That website knows I am a new-age nut, but they respect me more than the xians do here. I am still convinced that the n.t. is a compilation of the fourth century, based on vague memories of Jesus ben Panthera. You gotta go with logic. We don't even know whether "Matthew" was a real person, other than a disciple of Jesus ben Panthera.
thanks, but I am not even close to a biblical scholar. I know what I know. I go to a wonderful Jewish anti-missionary website where they only discuss these kinds of topics.
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/1
I read a lot in actual books. I was not raised in the Jewish religion, but you have to respect something that has survived 1700 years of institutional xian persecution. That website knows I am a new-age nut, but they respect me more than the xians do here. I am still convinced that the n.t. is a compilation of the fourth century, based on vague memories of Jesus ben Panthera. You gotta go with logic. We don't even know whether "Matthew" was a real person, other than a disciple of Jesus ben Panthera.
That's a good forum.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 01:48 AM)
THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES DO NOT INCLUDE ISAIAH. The original septuagint had the five books only. The "LLX"
is a much later compilation, long after "matthew" would have lived. Thus, he couldn't have made the error of thinking Isaiah predicted the "virgin birth". Isaiah was not in Greek in the first century. Ta-Dah. Matthew is a later forgery, like the rest of the new testament. Just a compilation of selected books by a group of old men in dresses. on behest of Constantine, later Theodosius.
is a much later compilation, long after "matthew" would have lived. Thus, he couldn't have made the error of thinking Isaiah predicted the "virgin birth". Isaiah was not in Greek in the first century. Ta-Dah. Matthew is a later forgery, like the rest of the new testament. Just a compilation of selected books by a group of old men in dresses. on behest of Constantine, later Theodosius.
I know what the Torah is, Gideon.
The Dead sea scrolls contain a copy of the Greek Septuagint - do they only have the Torah translated in there?
I initially posted this in another thread just a moment ago but it seems adequate here as well. It is really hard to take someone serious when they instantly call something they disagree with just nonsense. Maybe because I believe some issues and especially those we discuss them with both deserve some amount of respect and it shows a lack of tact otherwise. Most of us are here to learn in any case but not sure if it is from those who resort to calling something nonsense because they simply disagree...even if they are saying the truth it discredits their view greatly.
I can provide no evidence for this information, which i have shared before, and rarely contact the source of it. However, a well informed person told me that there are actually many thousands of pieces of evidence ,some smalll and some more extensive, which have been found and identified, catalogued and recorded
This evidence shows that while the extant gospels as such may have been written later, sections of those gospels were written back to within a few years of jesus death, if not even during his life time. Also at least 3, if not all four, of the gospels included in the bible, were originally written down by, or in the presence of, the original apostles.
My assumption is that a lot of those partial remnants of the gospels were written in hebrew, and that only later were they writte down in the form we see them today. At that time they were written in greek.
I want to s/ee the evidence for this myself, and can't remember the organisation responsible for doing the work on this, although from memory it was a joint jewish christian effort which looked at bits of manuscript papyrus etc from all over the world, including christian and jewish museums and churches/ synagogues.
I must admit that it makes sense to me, because, if the life of jesus was as we understand it, then there would have been contemporary writings, and while it is unlikely these would have survived intact ,(how many of your household records are likely to be around in 2000 years time?) remnants of the writings are conceivable.
It also supports the archaelogical and other records that show that within a few years of jesus death, shrines to his worship had sprung up at some of the significant locations in his life, and a band of contemporary followers was worshipping at these sites. Some of these later became the recognised christian sites during the time of the crusades.
This evidence shows that while the extant gospels as such may have been written later, sections of those gospels were written back to within a few years of jesus death, if not even during his life time. Also at least 3, if not all four, of the gospels included in the bible, were originally written down by, or in the presence of, the original apostles.
My assumption is that a lot of those partial remnants of the gospels were written in hebrew, and that only later were they writte down in the form we see them today. At that time they were written in greek.
I want to s/ee the evidence for this myself, and can't remember the organisation responsible for doing the work on this, although from memory it was a joint jewish christian effort which looked at bits of manuscript papyrus etc from all over the world, including christian and jewish museums and churches/ synagogues.
I must admit that it makes sense to me, because, if the life of jesus was as we understand it, then there would have been contemporary writings, and while it is unlikely these would have survived intact ,(how many of your household records are likely to be around in 2000 years time?) remnants of the writings are conceivable.
It also supports the archaelogical and other records that show that within a few years of jesus death, shrines to his worship had sprung up at some of the significant locations in his life, and a band of contemporary followers was worshipping at these sites. Some of these later became the recognised christian sites during the time of the crusades.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 3 2008, 09:11 PM)
I know what the Torah is, Gideon.
The Dead sea scrolls contain a copy of the Greek Septuagint - do they only have the Torah translated in there?
The Dead sea scrolls contain a copy of the Greek Septuagint - do they only have the Torah translated in there?
the dead sea scrolls are in hebrew, not greek. jews did not use the septuagint, it was written at the request of gentiles. there is at least one copy of isaiah, but not in greek.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 03:51 AM)
the dead sea scrolls are in hebrew, not greek. jews did not use the septuagint, it was written at the request of gentiles. there is at least one copy of isaiah, but not in greek.
Not Greek? Not even the 57 fragments found within cave 7, including fragments of Enoch?
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 3 2008, 04:39 PM)
Funny, the Septuagint only included the five books of the Torah. Isaiah and the other prophets were translated later by Christians. A first century follower of Jesus would not have access to a Greek translation of Isaiah.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
Odd that Matthew could access the yet-to be written translation of Isaiah for his virgin birth nonsense.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
Odd that Matthew could access the yet-to be written translation of Isaiah for his virgin birth nonsense.
You know what I'm referring to.
I believe you are overstepping what evidence there is in saying that there was not a Greek translation of Isaiah by the first century. Translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek began in the third century BC and continued perhaps into the first century AD. Other than the Pentateuch, it is not known when each book was translated. Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD? The translator of Sirach, who claims to be the grandson of the author, seems to be aware of translations of "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books." (Sirach, Prologue) That translation would have likely been made sometime in the second or first century BC.
QUOTE (Something Like Laughter @ Jun 4 2008, 12:00 AM)
You know what I'm referring to.
I believe you are overstepping what evidence there is in saying that there was not a Greek translation of Isaiah by the first century. Translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek began in the third century BC and continued perhaps into the first century AD. Other than the Pentateuch, it is not known when each book was translated. Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD? The translator of Sirach, who claims to be the grandson of the author, seems to be aware of translations of "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books." (Sirach, Prologue) That translation would have likely been made sometime in the second or first century BC.
I believe you are overstepping what evidence there is in saying that there was not a Greek translation of Isaiah by the first century. Translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek began in the third century BC and continued perhaps into the first century AD. Other than the Pentateuch, it is not known when each book was translated. Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD? The translator of Sirach, who claims to be the grandson of the author, seems to be aware of translations of "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books." (Sirach, Prologue) That translation would have likely been made sometime in the second or first century BC.
This is a rather bizarre post, not because Sirach is apocryphal, but because it was written in Hebrew. You have losered yourself to just making things up?
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SIRACH,+THE+ALPHABET+OF/
QUOTE
SIRACH, THE ALPHABET OF
Usually called The Alphabet of Ben Sira. The compilation so designated consists of two lists of proverbs, 22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, arranged in each case as alphabet acrostics. Each of these proverbs is followed by a haggadic comm., with legends and tales, many of them indecent. Some of the proverbs in the Alphabets are probably genuine compositions by Ben Sira and are quoted as such in the Talmud, but in their present form the Alphabets are at least as late as the 11th century AD.
LITERATURE.
The only complete copy of the text known is in the British Museum, the copy in the Bodleian being defective. Steinschneider has published a reprint of this last with critical notes (Alphabeticum Syracidis, Berlin, 1854). Cowley and Neubauer (The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus), besides giving a general account of this work, add a translation into English of the Aramaic proverbs. In his brief but excellent articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia (Ben Sira, The Alphabet of), Dr. Louis Ginzberg (New York) also gives a translation of the 22 Aramaic proverbs with useful remarks after each. The work has been translated into Latin, Yiddish (often), Judeo-Spanish, French and German, but never, so far, completely into English.
Usually called The Alphabet of Ben Sira. The compilation so designated consists of two lists of proverbs, 22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, arranged in each case as alphabet acrostics. Each of these proverbs is followed by a haggadic comm., with legends and tales, many of them indecent. Some of the proverbs in the Alphabets are probably genuine compositions by Ben Sira and are quoted as such in the Talmud, but in their present form the Alphabets are at least as late as the 11th century AD.
LITERATURE.
The only complete copy of the text known is in the British Museum, the copy in the Bodleian being defective. Steinschneider has published a reprint of this last with critical notes (Alphabeticum Syracidis, Berlin, 1854). Cowley and Neubauer (The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus), besides giving a general account of this work, add a translation into English of the Aramaic proverbs. In his brief but excellent articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia (Ben Sira, The Alphabet of), Dr. Louis Ginzberg (New York) also gives a translation of the 22 Aramaic proverbs with useful remarks after each. The work has been translated into Latin, Yiddish (often), Judeo-Spanish, French and German, but never, so far, completely into English.
I think you have your Sirach's crossed. SLL's link was to the not-held-to-be-divinely-inspired prologue to the disputed-canonical Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus. Corroboration of the reasonableness of SLL's estimated dating may be found at this link
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/intro.htm
In contrast, the Alphabet of Sirach is a post-biblical work, as your own quoted matter attests.
So, SLL has not stooped "to just making things up."
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/intro.htm
In contrast, the Alphabet of Sirach is a post-biblical work, as your own quoted matter attests.
So, SLL has not stooped "to just making things up."
QUOTE (eight bits @ Jun 4 2008, 06:17 AM)
I think you have your Sirach's crossed. SLL's link was to the not-held-to-be-divinely-inspired prologue to the disputed-canonical Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus. Corroboration of the reasonableness of SLL's estimated dating may be found at this link
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/intro.htm
In contrast, the Alphabet of Sirach is a post-biblical work, as your own quoted matter attests.
So, SLL has not stooped "to just making things up."
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/intro.htm
In contrast, the Alphabet of Sirach is a post-biblical work, as your own quoted matter attests.
So, SLL has not stooped "to just making things up."
From the website that you quote:
QUOTE
Written in Hebrew between 200 and 175 B.C., the text was translated into Greek sometime after 132 B.C. by the author's grandson, who also wrote a Foreword which contains information about the book, the author, and the translator himself. Until the close of the nineteenth century Sirach was known only in translations, of which this Greek rendering was the most important. From it the Latin version was made. Between 1896 and 1900, again in 1931, and several times since 1956, manuscripts were discovered containing in all about two thirds of the Hebrew text, which agrees substantially with the Greek. One such text, from Masada, is pre-Christian in date.
Sirach was still written in Hebrew, while Matthew was not. which is what we are discussing. The point was, that, based on Matthews use of a greek translation of Isaiah, to manufacture the non-existant virgin birth prophecy, from a Greek mistranslation of Isaiah, written after the new testament supposedly was written, indicates that Matthew was written after the translation of Isaiah. Isaiah was not part of the 2nd century translation of the Torah into Greek. Matthew was quoting a source that had not been written yet at the supposed time of jesus. Almah does not mean virgin, unless you mistranslate it into greek as parthenos. Please read your websites you quote more carefully; both Sirach books were not originally written in Greek.
So how do you justify a minor prophet such as Enoch having been translated into Greek prior to the first century BC, whilst maintaining that Isaiah had not been?
I'm not seeing the particular importance of what language Sirach originally wrote in. I don't believe it effects the message he's conveying.
I'm not seeing the particular importance of what language Sirach originally wrote in. I don't believe it effects the message he's conveying.
QUOTE
Please read your websites you quote more carefully; both Sirach books were not originally written in Greek.
The only issue which I addressed in my post was your groundless personal attack on another member. It was uncalled for. What point you were hoping to make is irrelevant. Sirach and the Alphabet of Sirach are different works, contrary to your post.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your lapse reflected an understandable misidentification of the work which the other poster discussed. I see that the difficulty lies elsewhere. Thank you for clarifying that.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 06:47 AM)
So how do you justify a minor prophet such as Enoch having been translated into Greek prior to the first century BC, whilst maintaining that Isaiah had not been?
I'm not seeing the particular importance of what language Sirach originally wrote in. I don't believe it effects the message he's conveying.
I'm not seeing the particular importance of what language Sirach originally wrote in. I don't believe it effects the message he's conveying.
Believe whatever you want. The facts are, that there are no documentable Greek translations of Isaiah prior to the time of Jesus. The book of Matthew anachronistically says that isaiah prophesied that a parthenos would conceive and bear a son named Immanuel. This pretty much proves that matthew was originally not written in Hebrew. This was the original question. The mention of Sirach was this little ad hominen attack:
QUOTE
You know what I'm referring to.
I believe you are overstepping what evidence there is in saying that there was not a Greek translation of Isaiah by the first century. Translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek began in the third century BC and continued perhaps into the first century AD. Other than the Pentateuch, it is not known when each book was translated. Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD? The translator of Sirach, who claims to be the grandson of the author, seems to be aware of translations of "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books." (Sirach, Prologue) That translation would have likely been made sometime in the second or first century BC.
I believe you are overstepping what evidence there is in saying that there was not a Greek translation of Isaiah by the first century. Translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek began in the third century BC and continued perhaps into the first century AD. Other than the Pentateuch, it is not known when each book was translated. Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD? The translator of Sirach, who claims to be the grandson of the author, seems to be aware of translations of "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books." (Sirach, Prologue) That translation would have likely been made sometime in the second or first century BC.
My point was, that, if Sirach was written in Hebrew. "Seemed to be aware"? Like the author of Matthew "seemed to be aware" of a non-existent virgin birth prophecy? When we don't know who the anonymous author of Matthew was? The Dead Sea Scrolls are not written in Greek. Show proof otherwise. The "Great Teacher", mentioned in them, was probably the original basis for the fictional Jesus of Nazareth, anyway. He was probably Jesus ben Panthera. I hate it when you guys refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and don't know what was in them.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 12:35 PM)
I hate it when you guys refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and don't know what was in them.
From Wikipedia's entry on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
QUOTE
Cave 7 contained seventeen Greek documents (including 7Q5, which would be the subject of controversy in the succeeding decades).
Like I said. Cave 7, 57 Greek Fragments including parts of the Book of Enoch.
Proof enough?
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 07:46 AM)
From Wikipedia's entry on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Like I said. Cave 7, 57 Greek Fragments including parts of the Book of Enoch.
Proof enough?
Like I said. Cave 7, 57 Greek Fragments including parts of the Book of Enoch.
Proof enough?
No proof of an early Greek translation of Isaiah. Check your website, however; it mentions fragments that were plagiarized by the author of Mark. More indications of the use of Jesus ben Panthera as the model for the fictional Jesus of Nazareth. Did you know that Nazareth didn't exist until much later, and that Panthera's followers were the Notzrim? Enoch=Isaiah? Apple=Orange? Logic? Lacking on all fronts. Let's look at your page from your beloved Wiki:
QUOTE
If 7Q5 were identified as Mark 6:52-53 and as buried at Qumran by 68 CE, it would become the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, predating P52 by at least some if not many decades.
Since the amount of text in the manuscript is so small, even a confirmation of 7Q5 as Markan "might mean nothing more than that the contents of these few verses were already formalized, not necessarily that there was a manuscript of Mark's Gospel on hand".[7] Since the entirety of the find in Cave 7 consists of fragments in Greek, it is possible that the contents of this cave are of a separate "Hellenized" library than the Hebrew texts found in the other caves.
Since the amount of text in the manuscript is so small, even a confirmation of 7Q5 as Markan "might mean nothing more than that the contents of these few verses were already formalized, not necessarily that there was a manuscript of Mark's Gospel on hand".[7] Since the entirety of the find in Cave 7 consists of fragments in Greek, it is possible that the contents of this cave are of a separate "Hellenized" library than the Hebrew texts found in the other caves.
Gee, a fragment from Mark, written in Greek? Which predates Matthew? Which Matthew was based on? A Hebrew text plagiarized from a Greek text? What is being explored here? Danger Will Robinson! Does not Compute!
Any source that claims that Christians did not exist until the 300s a.d. is very woefully ignorant of history (especially Roman) and would have to have remained blind to that history because of an extreme bias in my opinion.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 01:43 PM)
No proof of an early Greek translation of Isaiah. Check your website, however; it mentions fragments that were plagiarized by the author of Mark. More indications of the use of Jesus ben Panthera as the model for the fictional Jesus of Nazareth. Did you know that Nazareth didn't exist until much later, and that Panthera's followers were the Notzrim? Enoch=Isaiah? Apple=Orange? Logic? Lacking on all fronts. Let's look at your page from your beloved Wiki:
Gee, a fragment from Mark, written in Greek? Which predates Matthew? Which Matthew was based on? A Hebrew text plagiarized from a Greek text? What is being explored here? Danger Will Robinson! Does not Compute!
Gee, a fragment from Mark, written in Greek? Which predates Matthew? Which Matthew was based on? A Hebrew text plagiarized from a Greek text? What is being explored here? Danger Will Robinson! Does not Compute!
Correct. There's no definitive proof of an earlier translation of Isaiah. There's very few fragments of first /second BC Greek biblical writings extant.
I think you'll find that those fragments that were originally thought to be Mark are actually Enoch.
My point still stands. Why bother translating Enoch into Greek and not Isaiah?
GM:
You never answered my question in my earlier post, so I will repeat it.
Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD?
You never answered my question in my earlier post, so I will repeat it.
Do you have anything to indicate that the translation of Isaiah did not occur until the late first century AD?
Gotta go, guys. I promised my little brother Joshua I would go with him to the dentist.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 03:47 AM)
So how do you justify a minor prophet such as Enoch having been translated into Greek prior to the first century BC, whilst maintaining that Isaiah had not been?
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 06:01 AM)
Correct. There's no definitive proof of an earlier translation of Isaiah. There's very few fragments of first /second BC Greek biblical writings extant.
I think you'll find that those fragments that were originally thought to be Mark are actually Enoch.
My point still stands. Why bother translating Enoch into Greek and not Isaiah?
I think you'll find that those fragments that were originally thought to be Mark are actually Enoch.
My point still stands. Why bother translating Enoch into Greek and not Isaiah?
Because Judaism (Orthodox) does not consider the book of Enoch to be a pertinent book. Nor are his prophesies considered to be of great concern to Judaism.
Which is pretty much my point. Why bother translating Enoch before Isaiah?
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 07:32 AM)
Which is pretty much my point. Why bother translating Enoch before Isaiah?
I don't know much about the Dead Sea scrolls, but who wrote them?
The Essenes authored them. They were considered a heretical group by Orthodox Judaism. Anything they wrote is mostly non-important because the Jews (Orthodox) have always had their books. So...why did the Essenes translate Enoch? They thought it was important. The dead sea scrolls only really have importance with christianity and well, Jews (mostly) aren't christian.
Good question. They were found in caves, 20 miles East of Jerusalem. The initial theory was that it was a monastic settlement of Essenes, a strict Jewish sect, though from this article from the New York Times, it would seem that there is currently no overall consensus amongst Historians.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 07:43 AM)
Good question. They were found in caves, 20 miles East of Jerusalem. The initial theory was that it was a monastic settlement of Essenes, a strict Jewish sect, though from this article from the New York Times, it would seem that there is currently no overall consensus amongst Historians.
Yeah, I know that they really hold no weight in Judaism because the (Orthodox) Jews have never really stopped having their books. The dead sea scrolls are only really important to christianity which seeks to claim everything it can as evidence of it being a legitimate religion to follow.
QUOTE (~Kaizen CJM~ @ Jun 4 2008, 03:38 PM)
The Essenes authored them. They were considered a heretical group by Orthodox Judaism. Anything they wrote is mostly non-important because the Jews (Orthodox) have always had their books. So...why did the Essenes translate Enoch? They thought it was important. The dead sea scrolls only really have importance with christianity and well, Jews (mostly) aren't christian.
Possibly. 25 copies of 1 Enoch were found. Then again, 22 copies of Isaiah were also found. I still find it unlikely that one would have been translated and not the other.
I find it slightly difficult to believe that the oldest Jewish biblical texts in existence aren't important to Jews.
QUOTE
Was The Gospel Of Matthew The First Gospel Written, Composed Before 70 A.D., And Originally Written In Hebrew?
Good morning. GMatthew was not the first Gospel written. It was, indeed, GMark (70-75 CE). This is consensus amongst scholars. GM was the second Gospel written c. 80-85 CE, and Luke not long after that. Both used Mark -- nearly the entirety of Mark! -- as their source, hence the term "Synoptics". Both Matthew and Luke also used other sources designated as "M" and "L" ... and probably the Sayings Gospel Q as well.
Hebrew ... Again, the consensus among scholars, is that all four gospels were written in Koine Greek. There is simply no evidence to support this theory. The Hellenistic world in which Jesus lived spoke the common tongue of the day -- Greek. The evangelist were writing for a Gentile world -- all of which, again, spoke Greek.
Are the Gospels eyewitness accounts...? No, they are not. All four gospels are anonymous texts -- as are all of the New Testament books -- save for seven of the 13 epistles written by Paul. None of the four gospels found the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John until sometime in the second century. Some may argue for the Gospel of Mark being an eyewitness account -- an interpreter for Peter -- but the evidence for this is practically nil. In fact, none of the gospels even claim to be eyewitness accounts! They are "gospel" -- "good news"! The gospels were written to address the numerous questions being asked by various communities concerning Jesus. They are--as even the Vatican has admitted!--faith documents. There is also a heavy dose of Midrash going on here.
Mark
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
Matthew
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
From Jesus to Christ: What are the Gospels (eyewittnes accounts etc.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ry/gospels.html
The Identity of the Evangelists: Second Century Guesses
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/guess.html#tradition
Great source lists provided above from leading exegetes in the field.
Most kindly,
Sean
Shaun, my only disagreement with you is that we don't even know if paul existed or who wrote the letters. I know that 7 are considered "real".
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 01:39 PM)
Shaun, my only disagreement with you is that we don't even know if paul existed or who wrote the letters. I know that 7 are considered "real".
indeed gid, i have also understaood only 7 are valid... i had not considered if he was real or not though that is interesting what leads you to this if I may ask???
i do think you are brilliant gid very insightful...
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jun 4 2008, 05:55 PM)
indeed gid, i have also understaood only 7 are valid... i had not considered if he was real or not though that is interesting what leads you to this if I may ask???
i do think you are brilliant gid very insightful...
i do think you are brilliant gid very insightful...
at the time in question it was very common to write in the name of the founder of a school of thought in which you were a member. This was not considered forgery. There are no records outside the n.t. of Paul. Draw your own conclusions. Many of the letters don't indicate the author. read them.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ Jun 4 2008, 07:58 AM)
Possibly. 25 copies of 1 Enoch were found. Then again, 22 copies of Isaiah were also found. I still find it unlikely that one would have been translated and not the other.
I find it slightly difficult to believe that the oldest Jewish biblical texts in existence aren't important to Jews.
I find it slightly difficult to believe that the oldest Jewish biblical texts in existence aren't important to Jews.
It's not that they're unimportant, its that the Jews (Orthodox) always had their texts to read and study. The Essenes were considered a heretical group. So, writing done by the Essenes holds little to no weight. It's like reading a Conservative Judaism Tanakh. Orthodox Jews don't use it.
Basically what I'm saying is that for the Jews, the Dead Sea scrolls wouldn't hold much weight because the Essenes weren't considered a valid theological source.
QUOTE (GIDEON MAGE @ Jun 4 2008, 03:52 PM)
at the time in question it was very common to write in the name of the founder of a school of thought in which you were a member. This was not considered forgery. There are no records outside the n.t. of Paul. Draw your own conclusions. Many of the letters don't indicate the author. read them.
you know you are indeed correct it was not uncommon to write under another author......
you know you bring in an excellent reason to inquire further........
Good morning GM.
The Apostle Paul ... I certainly understand your position regarding Paul. Primary sources concerning him are basically his own letters, Acts of the Apostle, and Luke. He is also mentioned in some of the Clementine and Marcion literature. I'm sure there are others, but I can not think of them at the moment. That said, I believe the sources to be robust enough to conclude that Paul did, indeed, exist. Now, how much of the information provided by these sources is true? I think therein lies the question.
Did Paul write his own letters? For the most part, Timothy is the one who is Paul's personal "secretary" if you will. And Paul makes it clear why this is so -- his handwriting is rather large and ugly so forth and so on. However, there are several passages in which Paul makes it clear that he, himself, has signed and/or written a personal greeting or some such. These can be found -- and I hope I have provided them here correctly -- in 2 Thessalonians 3,17, Colossians 4, 18, Galatians 6, 11 Philippians 19 and 1 Corinthians 16, 21.
You're spot-on GM -- It was very much the norm of the day for a student to continue the writings of his teacher. This tradition goes all the way back to ancient Greece and was a show of respect and honor. The same is true regarding the Apostle Paul. Written, and generally accepted by most scholars, in Paul's name are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. That said, whomever wrote these epistles did so, not only in a different style, but quite a different theology! A good example of this would be the pastoral epistles -- which have a completely different take on the role of women in the church. Paul did not share the same strict theology. Many of his most ardent supporters were women. So, it seems, a later orthodoxy has been inserted here -- one, I think, Paul would have vehemently opposed.
Most kindly,
Sean
The Apostle Paul ... I certainly understand your position regarding Paul. Primary sources concerning him are basically his own letters, Acts of the Apostle, and Luke. He is also mentioned in some of the Clementine and Marcion literature. I'm sure there are others, but I can not think of them at the moment. That said, I believe the sources to be robust enough to conclude that Paul did, indeed, exist. Now, how much of the information provided by these sources is true? I think therein lies the question.
Did Paul write his own letters? For the most part, Timothy is the one who is Paul's personal "secretary" if you will. And Paul makes it clear why this is so -- his handwriting is rather large and ugly so forth and so on. However, there are several passages in which Paul makes it clear that he, himself, has signed and/or written a personal greeting or some such. These can be found -- and I hope I have provided them here correctly -- in 2 Thessalonians 3,17, Colossians 4, 18, Galatians 6, 11 Philippians 19 and 1 Corinthians 16, 21.
You're spot-on GM -- It was very much the norm of the day for a student to continue the writings of his teacher. This tradition goes all the way back to ancient Greece and was a show of respect and honor. The same is true regarding the Apostle Paul. Written, and generally accepted by most scholars, in Paul's name are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. That said, whomever wrote these epistles did so, not only in a different style, but quite a different theology! A good example of this would be the pastoral epistles -- which have a completely different take on the role of women in the church. Paul did not share the same strict theology. Many of his most ardent supporters were women. So, it seems, a later orthodoxy has been inserted here -- one, I think, Paul would have vehemently opposed.
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 5 2008, 03:46 PM)
Good morning GM.
The Apostle Paul ... I certainly understand your position regarding Paul. Primary sources concerning him are basically his own letters, Acts of the Apostle, and Luke. He is also mentioned in some of the Clementine and Marcion literature. I'm sure there are others, but I can not think of them at the moment. That said, I believe the sources to be robust enough to conclude that Paul did, indeed, exist. Now, how much of the information provided by these sources is true? I think therein lies the question.
Did Paul write his own letters? For the most part, Timothy is the one who is Paul's personal "secretary" if you will. And Paul makes it clear why this is so -- his handwriting is rather large and ugly so forth and so on. However, there are several passages in which Paul makes it clear that he, himself, has signed and/or written a personal greeting or some such. These can be found -- and I hope I have provided them here correctly -- in 2 Thessalonians 3,17, Colossians 4, 18, Galatians 6, 11 Philippians 19 and 1 Corinthians 16, 21.
You're spot-on GM -- It was very much the norm of the day for a student to continue the writings of his teacher. This tradition goes all the way back to ancient Greece and was a show of respect and honor. The same is true regarding the Apostle Paul. Written, and generally accepted by most scholars, in Paul's name are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. That said, whomever wrote these epistles did so, not only in a different style, but quite a different theology! A good example of this would be the pastoral epistles -- which have a completely different take on the role of women in the church. Paul did not share the same strict theology. Many of his most ardent supporters were women. So, it seems, a later orthodoxy has been inserted here -- one, I think, Paul would have vehemently opposed.
Most kindly,
Sean
The Apostle Paul ... I certainly understand your position regarding Paul. Primary sources concerning him are basically his own letters, Acts of the Apostle, and Luke. He is also mentioned in some of the Clementine and Marcion literature. I'm sure there are others, but I can not think of them at the moment. That said, I believe the sources to be robust enough to conclude that Paul did, indeed, exist. Now, how much of the information provided by these sources is true? I think therein lies the question.
Did Paul write his own letters? For the most part, Timothy is the one who is Paul's personal "secretary" if you will. And Paul makes it clear why this is so -- his handwriting is rather large and ugly so forth and so on. However, there are several passages in which Paul makes it clear that he, himself, has signed and/or written a personal greeting or some such. These can be found -- and I hope I have provided them here correctly -- in 2 Thessalonians 3,17, Colossians 4, 18, Galatians 6, 11 Philippians 19 and 1 Corinthians 16, 21.
You're spot-on GM -- It was very much the norm of the day for a student to continue the writings of his teacher. This tradition goes all the way back to ancient Greece and was a show of respect and honor. The same is true regarding the Apostle Paul. Written, and generally accepted by most scholars, in Paul's name are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. That said, whomever wrote these epistles did so, not only in a different style, but quite a different theology! A good example of this would be the pastoral epistles -- which have a completely different take on the role of women in the church. Paul did not share the same strict theology. Many of his most ardent supporters were women. So, it seems, a later orthodoxy has been inserted here -- one, I think, Paul would have vehemently opposed.
Most kindly,
Sean
Aside from the academic issues of the origin of Paul's writings, I am of the opinion that we are seeing a continuation of the old efforts to find sufficient evidences to place the gospels at an earlier date, to make them more contemporary with the time of Jesus. I personally doubt that this can be legitimately done but it is an old and ongoing mission.
Just out of interest, Gideon - if you believe that the New Testament wasn't written until the fourth century AD, how do you explain the P52 manuscript,
which has a fragment of John 18:31-33 on the front and 18:37-38 on the back, and has been dated using mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating to between 117-138 A.D?
which has a fragment of John 18:31-33 on the front and 18:37-38 on the back, and has been dated using mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating to between 117-138 A.D?
I certainly agree with you to a point EXP. It certainly is a mission by conservative Christians and theologians to try and push back the dates of the gospels. They've lost that battle! However, when it comes to Paul, his epistles are, indeed, dated quite early -- mid-fifties plus. That said, his "gospel" is a total joke! From whom did he receive it? A blinding light and disembodied voice -- a resurrected Jesus! And it was a "gospel" that he proclaimed superior to that of even Jesus' disciples! No wonder they had a falling out! And, it seems, they (disciples) even sent out missionaries to counter his theology!
Old debate regarding said issue here ...
What Paul Really Meant
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1974321
Where Did the Apostle Paul Get His Authority?
Several readers of this site who do not like my book The Jesus Dynasty (to put things mildly), have written that I have ignored the strong historical link between what Paul writes in his letters, shortly after Jesus' death, and the teachings of Jesus and the early followers in Jerusalem. It is true that Paul uses a number of times in his letters a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).
For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”
However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.
So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?
REST HERE (Professor James D. Tabor, UNC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2J3MVDRHB4T47
Most kindly,
Sean
Old debate regarding said issue here ...
What Paul Really Meant
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1974321
Where Did the Apostle Paul Get His Authority?
Several readers of this site who do not like my book The Jesus Dynasty (to put things mildly), have written that I have ignored the strong historical link between what Paul writes in his letters, shortly after Jesus' death, and the teachings of Jesus and the early followers in Jerusalem. It is true that Paul uses a number of times in his letters a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).
For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”
However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.
So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?
REST HERE (Professor James D. Tabor, UNC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2J3MVDRHB4T47
Most kindly,
Sean
For those interested ...
TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
Most kindly,
Sean
TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 5 2008, 08:43 AM)
For those interested ...
TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
Most kindly,
Sean
TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
Most kindly,
Sean
I am so glad you are on Seany P, i had made a mental note to self to ask you about your psoit on paul being a real person.....thanks for the sources ((((Hugs)))
i agree the NT is really nothing more than a biusness plan for christainity IMO.....the NT outlines how paul if he was a real person accomplished this basically the gospels the conversion tool, the epistles setting up the churches etc........I wouldn't take it serious though personally..... ..
according to current research its possible paul had a form of epileptic seizures that would explain his visions....
Inner space has an amazing thread on here about this subject....for anyone who is interested
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=120688&hl=
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.