It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
Here is what Papias said:
And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman31 who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.] (Source)
What is important is not what Matthew wrote down, but that fact that he did.
What is your proof of this claim?
What reason would there be? The only thing that made him notable was his authorship of the gospel, so if you want to take that away from him, there is no reason for anyone to "assign" that text to him -- Peter, Andrew or James would have been far more likely choices.
Already addressed in the OP.
Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Really ?
I wish I was there to slap these apostles in the face. Following an important figure in their lives, and then cause numerous ways of what could be regarded for the truth... Bloody fools should have worked together to spread the words of Jesus, as a single strong story.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Originally posted by Unity_99
1. a certain passage was competitive with the gospels, ie matthew. hmmm.... that would put it in the same time frame actually.
That does not follow at all.
The logic is that if it deliberately offers an alternative view to Matthew, it would have to come after Matthew in time, but there's no necessity that it should be soon after.
It could be written a hundred years later.
In other words, the order in his gospel is simply the order in which Peter recalled the stories.
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
How is that the case when Matthew is almost entirely based on Mark, which was written in Greek?
From what I've researched, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that points toward Matthew ever being written in Aramaic or Hebrew.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
Have you heard of the two-source hypothesis? It's the most widely accepted theory that solves the synoptic problem, and it states that Matthew is largely based on the Greek Mark and a Q source.
Well, most real scholars agree that no Aramaic version of Matthew's gospel ever existed
The Greek gospel doesn't show any signs of it being a transliteration either, so most scholars also agree that the Greek version is the original.
What is your evidence of that statement? If there is an academic consensus regarding Matthew in another language, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to positively say that there was.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It is commonly believed that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown.
I don't remember claiming that the Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
What is your evidence of that statement? If there is an academic consensus regarding Matthew in another language, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to positively say that there was.
Funny, because you had this to say earlier:
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It is commonly believed that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown.
So it's not commonly believed anymore? Now there isn't sufficient evidence to assume an Aramaic version existed?
I don't remember claiming that the Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew.
You implied in the earlier post that I quoted that there was a possibility that it is a translated version of the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, when evidence points to the Greek version being the original.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
Since their is no known Aramaic version, your statement doesn't make any sense unless you were implying that the Greek version was the transliteration. You'd have to assume the Aramaic version does exist for the statement to apply at all.
Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown