translated from the Greek?

Religions > Bible > translated from the Greek?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 12

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Yuri Kuchinsky"
Date:	27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM
Object:	translated from the Greek?

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	18 Nov 2003 11:18:29 AM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB98E2B.6042EA35@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

: The name "Matthew" was most likely pinned on that book
: because of the reported statement by Papias.

You're speculating.

===>Aren't we all?
Is there any other reason?

Just a moment: IMHO we would need some actual evidence of the link
with Papias to make a statement that positive. This is not present in
any discussion of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Now Eusebius had a copy
of Papias, and it would not be unreasonable to suppose that he made
the connection. But as you observe, in fact he does not make this
connection.

We don't know that Epiphanius, or Jerome had Papias, both of whom knew
the text for themselves. (They did have copies of Eusebius). Let's
not rush to judgement: these are guys who could read the text and form
their own opinion.

It's probably safest to restrict ourselves to statements that are to
be found in the historical record by assembling the testimony and
comparing it. More than that can only be a guess.

Incidentally, may I say that this has been a very interesting thread,
and brought out a lot of useful material on the Gospel of the
Hebrews. Perhaps one of us should write it up and shove up a
web-page.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

===>Feel free to do so, Roger, if you have time and
inclination. Best wishes. -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	19 Nov 2003 07:50:41 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBA5465.70FBA4BF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Incidentally, may I say that this has been a very interesting thread,
and brought out a lot of useful material on the Gospel of the
Hebrews. Perhaps one of us should write it up and shove up a
web-page.

===>Feel free to do so, Roger, if you have time and
inclination. Best wishes. -- L.

Ah, I was hoping either you or Yuri might feel inclined. It relates
more closely to Yuri's site than it does to mine.
I'll do it if no-one else will, but I am *hideously* busy at the
moment. I've just had copyright clearance for a Latin text and
apparatus of Ps.Tertullian, Carmen Adversus Marcionitas; also to scan
some Dutch translations of Tertullian; also to put online digital
photographs of a medieval Tertullian manuscript at Balliol College
Oxford; and today a friary in Rome has just agreed to allow me to
photograph and place online another manuscript. In fairness to all
these people, I ought to get on with it. And there is the little
matter of earning a living as well.
But let's see if Yuri fancies doing it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	13 Nov 2003 07:31:35 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

[SNIPALOT]

As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.

===>Certainly. But that is not the point.

My apologies if I have misunderstood -- I understood this to be part
of the question at issue.

Further, this is
identified by Jerome as the Nazorean gospel mentioned by Epiphanius:
"According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the
Nazaraeans read," which means that it is indeed a version of Matthew.

===>How and why does it mean that?
Because you say so?

Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
said.
1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
He says it's a recension of Matthew.
2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.
Of course it would be possible to invent extra documents to get around
this identity, but I don't see why we should suppose them.

Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.

Doesn't the above discussion suggest pretty clearly, even without
Papias that at least the first version of Matthew was written in a
hebraic tongue?

===>No, it does not.
It only shows that there was SOMETHING called a "Gospel",
that was written in a "Hebraic tongue". Of course in addition
to that there may have been another COLLECTION OF SAYINGS
(LOGIA), as quoted from Papias, which Papias attributed to a
"Matthew".

I can't agree, because all of the evidence is in a 'Matthew' context.

Why else do these documents exist, with Matthew's name
on them, if no such tradition existed?

===>What documents exist with the name of "Matthew" on them?

I do not understand the question, I'm afraid.

With Papias' testimony, I
would have thought that this rather adds up to testimony to a first
composition in a Hebraic language.

===>It adds up to *A* composition in that tongue, which is not
likely to be EITHER the "Gospel of the Hebrews" OR the
"Gospel according to Matthew" we are familiar with.

But as far as I can see, all of this testimony comes in the context of
a gospel of Matthew, in various versions. I don't see why these all
have to be different documents, when those who refer to them all do so
in the context of recensions of the canonical gospel.

Or have I perhaps misunderstood
the point at issue?

===>It appears you probably have.
Hope this clears it up. -- L.

A bit -- thanks.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	13 Nov 2003 12:25:31 PM

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?
: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.
: 1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
: He says it's a recension of Matthew.
: 2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
: Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.
Seems logical to me, Roger...
BTW, did someone already post the following quote from Epiphanius? (I
already got confused a bit about all these citations, after all, there are
so many of them!) If not, it would be quite relevant.
"They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
"According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
Williams translation, Brill, 1987)
Best,
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	14 Nov 2003 08:26:14 AM

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<v0Qsb.1446$MR4.456079392@news.nnrp.ca>...

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

: 1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
: He says it's a recension of Matthew.
: 2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
: Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.

Seems logical to me, Roger...

BTW, did someone already post the following quote from Epiphanius? (I
already got confused a bit about all these citations, after all, there are
so many of them!) If not, it would be quite relevant.

"They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
"According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
Williams translation, Brill, 1987)

No -- thank you. I thought the Ebionites had something to offer on
this one, but hadn't been to look. That rather confirms it, doesn't
it? I wonder if the Nazorean and Ebionite versions of the Gospel of
the Hebrews were the same? Perhaps they were.
Did you buy a copy of Williams complete Epiphanius too, then? It cost
so much that I really hesitated, until it was actually marked out of
print by Amazon. But I found I could get it from Brill, and thought
it was simply too useful not to have. However I think part 1 has been
reprinted, which suggests Brill intend to keep it in print. (I added
a review to Amazon which just lists which heresies are dealt with.)
Another book I came across recently was marked out of print by Amazon,
but since I was negotiating for rights to put part online, I
communicated with the publisher and found that they still had 125
copies (25% of the print run) to sell. So it seems that 'out of
print' on Amazon does not necessarily mean a book is actually out of
print.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	17 Nov 2003 06:32:20 PM

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<v0Qsb.1446$MR4.45607
: 9392@news.nnrp.ca>...
:> In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:> : Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3
: FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
:>
:> :> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> :> Because you say so?
:>
:> : Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
:> : said.
:>
:> : 1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
:> : He says it's a recension of Matthew.
:> : 2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
:> : Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.
:>
:> Seems logical to me, Roger...
:>
:> BTW, did someone already post the following quote from Epiphanius? (I
:> already got confused a bit about all these citations, after all, there are
:> so many of them!) If not, it would be quite relevant.
:>
:> "They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
:> Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
:> "According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
:> the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
:> in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
:> Williams translation, Brill, 1987)
: No -- thank you. I thought the Ebionites had something to offer on
: this one, but hadn't been to look. That rather confirms it, doesn't
: it?
Yes, I think so, Roger.
: I wonder if the Nazorean and Ebionite versions of the Gospel of
: the Hebrews were the same? Perhaps they were.
There were probably more than one recension...
: Did you buy a copy of Williams complete Epiphanius too, then? It cost
: so much that I really hesitated, until it was actually marked out of
: print by Amazon. But I found I could get it from Brill, and thought
: it was simply too useful not to have. However I think part 1 has been
: reprinted, which suggests Brill intend to keep it in print. (I added
: a review to Amazon which just lists which heresies are dealt with.)
Actually, I've used a library copy.
: Another book I came across recently was marked out of print by Amazon,
: but since I was negotiating for rights to put part online, I
: communicated with the publisher and found that they still had 125
: copies (25% of the print run) to sell. So it seems that 'out of
: print' on Amazon does not necessarily mean a book is actually out of
: print.
: All the best,
: Roger Pearse
And the same to you,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	13 Nov 2003 03:47:56 PM

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

: 1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
: He says it's a recension of Matthew.
: 2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
: Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.

Seems logical to me, Roger...

BTW, did someone already post the following quote from Epiphanius? (I
already got confused a bit about all these citations, after all, there are
so many of them!) If not, it would be quite relevant.

"They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
"According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
Williams translation, Brill, 1987)

===>Which he contradicts by writing:
"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,
and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse
of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,
and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I
said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some,
as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have
accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be
reckoned among the disputed books." (EH Book III. 25)
Would you call that a reliable witness? -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	14 Nov 2003 08:29:29 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

: 1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
: He says it's a recension of Matthew.
: 2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
: Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.

Seems logical to me, Roger...

BTW, did someone already post the following quote from Epiphanius? (I
already got confused a bit about all these citations, after all, there are
so many of them!) If not, it would be quite relevant.

"They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
"According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
Williams translation, Brill, 1987)

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.
Secondly, why is the statement in Eusebius contradicting that in
Epiphanius? They seem the same to me.
The citation from Eusebius, tho, suggests (a bit) that the Gospel of
the Hebrews was a pre-existing document, and not the production of the
Ebionites or Nazoreans.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	14 Nov 2003 07:10:33 PM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	15 Nov 2003 08:41:39 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB57D09.6BDD241D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.

You are citing Eusebius. Look in <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>.
You might like to know that Epiphanius "Panarion" is not divided into
books... Who told you this was by Epiphanius?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	15 Nov 2003 09:35:44 AM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB57D09.6BDD241D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.

You are citing Eusebius. Look in <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>.

You might like to know that Epiphanius "Panarion" is not divided into
books... Who told you this was by Epiphanius?

===>I stand corrected.
My notes were mixed up.
You are right, it was Eusebius.
Still, the point is, at least in his view, GH was not the
same as GM.
Thanks for the correction. -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	15 Nov 2003 02:29:37 PM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB647D0.7A3DEC7E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB57D09.6BDD241D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.

You are citing Eusebius. Look in <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>.

You might like to know that Epiphanius "Panarion" is not divided into
books... Who told you this was by Epiphanius?

===>I stand corrected.
My notes were mixed up.
You are right, it was Eusebius.

No problem.

Still, the point is, at least in his view, GH was not the
same as GM.

Well, since Matthew is in Greek, and the Gospel of the Hebrews was in
aramaic, that must be so up to a point. But I'm not sure I see that
that stops the GotH being a version of Matthew.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	15 Nov 2003 03:59:21 PM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB647D0.7A3DEC7E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB57D09.6BDD241D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.

You are citing Eusebius. Look in <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>.

You might like to know that Epiphanius "Panarion" is not divided into
books... Who told you this was by Epiphanius?

===>I stand corrected.
My notes were mixed up.
You are right, it was Eusebius.

No problem.

Still, the point is, at least in his view, GH was not the
same as GM.

Well, since Matthew is in Greek, and the Gospel of the Hebrews was in
aramaic, that must be so up to a point. But I'm not sure I see that
that stops the GotH being a version of Matthew.

===>More like both being versions of or incorporating
portions of some earlier pieces of writing.
Eusebius saw it to be different enough from GMatthew
to reject it as apocryphal. -- L.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	17 Nov 2003 11:22:01 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB6A1B9.6BE3EAB8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB647D0.7A3DEC7E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB57D09.6BDD241D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>Incorrect.
I cited Epiphanius. Book III, Chapter 25 -- L.

You are citing Eusebius. Look in <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>.

You might like to know that Epiphanius "Panarion" is not divided into
books... Who told you this was by Epiphanius?

===>I stand corrected.
My notes were mixed up.
You are right, it was Eusebius.

No problem.

Still, the point is, at least in his view, GH was not the
same as GM.

Well, since Matthew is in Greek, and the Gospel of the Hebrews was in
aramaic, that must be so up to a point. But I'm not sure I see that
that stops the GotH being a version of Matthew.

===>More like both being versions of or incorporating
portions of some earlier pieces of writing.

These are not necessarily contradictory positions, of course.

Eusebius saw it to be different enough from GMatthew
to reject it as apocryphal. -- L.

Agreed: but rejected as dubious, not heretical. But others saw it
similar enough to comment on the relation. So I think one could see
this either way.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	14 Nov 2003 06:22:41 PM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>You are mistaken, again.
I cited Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Book III, Chapter 25.

Secondly, why is the statement in Eusebius contradicting that in
Epiphanius? They seem the same to me.

===>Eusebius (which I DID CITE) differentiates between "Matthew"
and the "Gospel according to the Hebrews".

The citation from Eusebius, tho, suggests (a bit) that the Gospel of
the Hebrews was a pre-existing document, and not the production of the
Ebionites or Nazoreans.

===>How does it suggest that?
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	15 Nov 2003 08:46:19 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB571D1.7656B9C8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB3FC0C.82EFFBC7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

In soc.history.ancient Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

:> ===>How and why does it mean that?
:> Because you say so?

: Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
: said.

Firstly, you have not noticed that Yuri is citing Epiphanius, while
you are citing Eusebius.

===>You are mistaken, again.

In what respect?

I cited Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Book III, Chapter 25.

Not above you didn't, -- "He contradicts" -- nor in the other response
you made to this.

Secondly, why is the statement in Eusebius contradicting that in
Epiphanius? They seem the same to me.

===>Eusebius (which I DID CITE) differentiates between "Matthew"
and the "Gospel according to the Hebrews".

They are different works. But the point is that the Gospel of the
Hebrews seems to be a recension of Matthew.

The citation from Eusebius, tho, suggests (a bit) that the Gospel of
the Hebrews was a pre-existing document, and not the production of the
Ebionites or Nazoreans.

===>How does it suggest that?

Because he doesn't reject it as a heretical forgery, but says that
Jewish Christians like it. That gives us three groups all using the
work, including the orthodox: to me this is a bit suggestive that it
does not originate from either of the heresies?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW	13 Nov 2003 02:57:22 PM

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB26383.B588366B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

[SNIPALOT]

As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.

===>Certainly. But that is not the point.

My apologies if I have misunderstood -- I understood this to be part
of the question at issue.

===>How and why does it mean that?
Because you say so?

Why else? <sigh> You're responding too quickly to read what the post
said.

1. Epiphanius knows the gospel -- just one -- used by the Nazoreans.
He says it's a recension of Matthew.

===>Perhaps he identified it with another, similar Gospel.
Some people have claimed that "Mark" is an abbreviated version
of "Matthew".

2. The Gospel of the Hebrews is identified as that being used by the
Nazoreans. Thus it is plainly a recension of Matthew.

===>Not so "plainly". As the Encyclopedia Catholica states, the four Gospels
"...are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.),
which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.
The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Iren�us bear distinct witness to
the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era.
....It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels
were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed,
and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the
four Gospels was actually made." (Article: Gospel and Gospels)
Re. the Gospel of the Hebrews, tyhe article states:
"Eusebius (died 340), when sorting out the
universally received books of the Canon,
in distinction from those which some have
questioned writes: "And here, among the first,
must be placed the holy quaternion of
the Gospels", while he ranks the
"Gospel according to the Hebrews" among the
second, that is, among the disputed writings
(Hist. Eccl., III, xxv)."
Thus, Eusebius, et least, saw "Matthew" and the
GH as TWO DIFFERENT books.

Of course it would be possible to invent extra documents to get around
this identity, but I don't see why we should suppose them.

Doesn't the above discussion suggest pretty clearly, even without
Papias that at least the first version of Matthew was written in a
hebraic tongue?

I can't agree, because all of the evidence is in a 'Matthew' context.

===>Well, it seems it is NOT.
Certainly some writers may have associated the two in some way, but
a reading of GH shows it is NOT the same as what we know as GM.

Why else do these documents exist, with Matthew's name
on them, if no such tradition existed?

===>What documents exist with the name of "Matthew" on them?

I do not understand the question, I'm afraid.

===>See above.
The name of "Matthew" is NOT associated with anything before
the "latter part of the second century." Nor are the other names
associated with the other Gospels. In fact one theory is that
the Greek word "KATA" this and "KATA" that does not
designate authorship, only that it is a book associated with a
school or orientation. Thus e.g. the "Gospel According to the Hebrews"
does not mean it was AUTHORED BY "the Hebrews", nor was the
Gospel According to the Egyptians authored by "the Egyptians."

With Papias' testimony, I
would have thought that this rather adds up to testimony to a first
composition in a Hebraic language.

===>It adds up to *A* composition in that tongue, which is not
likely to be EITHER the "Gospel of the Hebrews" OR the
"Gospel according to Matthew" we are familiar with.

But as far as I can see, all of this testimony comes in the context of
a gospel of Matthew, in various versions.

===>Only because various gospels are subsumed as variations
of "Matthew", when in fact they are productions of different
authors/editors/redactors.

I don't see why these all
have to be different documents, when those who refer to them all do so
in the context of recensions of the canonical gospel.

===>Well, Eusebius did not (see above), but perhaps it is more convenient
to look at those as variations on the same book.
One could just as well call "Matthew" and "Luke" variations of "Mark".
All the best,
Libertarius
==========
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	07 Nov 2003 11:56:45 AM

Bob Weigel wrote:

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...

"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message

news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:Eignb.970$ou1.254660625@news.nnrp.ca...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?

Try

to be more clear...

Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.

My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.

It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.

Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell? The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.

===>Typical weigelism!
A bunch of fundy garbage double-talk, claiming spirit possession.
Sounds like acute schizophrenia . Get a shrink, Bobby Boy! -- L.
=============================================

As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of

Aramaic

very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north

across

that border!

Somebody is saying this? Who? Why would it be impossible?

This was my use of irony. In real life, of course it's possible, and
even probable, that the original teachings of Jesus had indeed been
transmitted north into Syria at a very early stage. And because Jesus
taught in Aramaic, those ancient Old Syriac Aramaic manuscripts are
likely to preserve a lot of the original teachings of Jesus.

So then why these ancient Aramaic manuscripts are still being ignored
by our biblical professionals?

Well..they're not 'my' biblical professionals. :-) They may be other
people's. The people who did the NIV and Living made a lot of moola off the
venture...well the people who marketed them anyway. I guess some of the
guys who actually 'did' the NIV died peculiar horrible deaths I heard.
Details anyone?

That's probably why I'm not even finishing this article.

It's your loss...

Or...gain. The spirit will lead us into all truth. IF YOU were going to
have to pick either a book perfectly translated, or...the spirit...which
would you take Yuri? :-) EACH of us has either confusion or a leading from
God's holy spirit I believe. I will not judge YOU saying 'it is your loss
that you preoccupy yourself with working out fine details in translations
such that everything reads exactly as it was.' while I'm focusing on how I
can relieve the burden God has placed on MY heart.... It may WELL BE that
God has led you to do this. Praise God. Do it to his glory if so. Amen.
It...may however be your loss that you didn't absorb the heart of what I was
saying in this...while we were here together for a moment in time. Each of
us obviously has different burdens. It doesn't mean one is righter than the
other. God leads people to do different things. The text was very
confusing to me. Thanks for clarifying it. -Bob

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief"
-- Henry George

User: "Helmut Leinfellner"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	05 Nov 2003 02:41:12 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:59:22 -0700, Bob Weigel wrote:

That's probably why I'm not even finishing this article. It just doesn't
interest me. John 10 says it all. His sheep will know his voice. If
people lie whether through 'scripture' or whatever, a person with the spirit
of truth will have something bear witness in their heart that this isn't
right. I often refer to my first reading of the bible; much of which I did
in NIV translation. The spirit quickened my heart to see several bobbles in
the translation and I referred to a Hebrew interlinear for instance in
Ezekiel and found that they had added words to 'smooth over' what the
scripture was really saying.
Walking with the spirit calls a person to have principles...not to be
socialized or compromised by society. I can tell many stories in my growing
up of people trying to influence me towards being involved in secret orders,
conspiracies to hurt others and make ourselves look good, etc. When you
humble yourself before God, that all just grieves your heart and you wind up
being a social outcast with just about everyone. Religious people hate me
the most I find. Occasionally I meet someone who is like me and they love
God and have become outcast themself and we hit it off. Not too often. But
God is a comfort to those who love him and his spirit does led them into all
truth. It's worth it. It really is. I don't worry about how God managed
to preserve history with as good integrity as their is. He used some
unorthodox vehicles for sure. But the bible is, logically, an amazing piece
of literature like no other which is why it's still preserved and considered
the word of God ...EVEN by people who abuse it! -Bob

Hey Bob!
I'm writing to tell you that I can relate to what you are saying.
This has been my experience for many years now.
Thanks for writing so openly and honestly.
Blessings in Him!
Helmut
---
http://go.to/yeshua
.

User: "Trotter960"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	27 Oct 2003 06:19:40 PM

From: Yuri Kuchinsky

So let's suppose.....

Let's not suppose. Let's find the evidence.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	27 Oct 2003 04:35:59 PM

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...

Greetings, all,

Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...

THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!

As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!

It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!

So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."

And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

===>It is a cute story, and might even be plausible, were it not for
the fact that all of the "Gospels" show the influence of the teachings of
Saul/Paul of Tarsus, and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.
.

User: "Trotter960"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	27 Oct 2003 06:23:12 PM

From: Libertarius
and there is NOTHING to show that any >"Gospel"
existed before the second century.

This is a hollow argument. If applied to other ancient writers, none of their
writings
would exist in the appropriate time periods.
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	27 Oct 2003 09:36:06 PM

Trotter960 wrote:

From: Libertarius

and there is NOTHING to show that any >"Gospel"
existed before the second century.

This is a hollow argument. If applied to other ancient writers, none of their
writings
would exist in the appropriate time periods.\

===>So, what?
Does that prove anything?
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	29 Oct 2003 04:25:34 PM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F9D9DCF.8124FF6E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...

Greetings, all,

Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...

THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!

As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!

It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!

So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."

And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

===>It is a cute story,

Thanks, Libertarius!

and might even be plausible, were it not for
the fact that all of the "Gospels" show the influence of the teachings of
Saul/Paul of Tarsus,

Yes, if we accept the conventional interpretation of who Saul/Paul of
Tarsus was, and of what he stood for, then this would be so.
But there's also room to doubt if this conventional interpretation is
entirely correct... Myself, I think that the real Saul/Paul stood a
lot closer to Judaism than most people believe.

and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.

Yes, together with Alfred Loisy, I believe that the conventional
gospels (as we see them now) only started to emerge ca. 100 CE.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	29 Oct 2003 04:54:55 PM

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3F9D9DCF.8124FF6E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...

Greetings, all,

Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...

THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!

As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!

It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!

So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."

And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

===>It is a cute story,

Thanks, Libertarius!

and might even be plausible, were it not for
the fact that all of the "Gospels" show the influence of the teachings of
Saul/Paul of Tarsus,

Yes, if we accept the conventional interpretation of who Saul/Paul of
Tarsus was, and of what he stood for, then this would be so.

But there's also room to doubt if this conventional interpretation is
entirely correct... Myself, I think that the real Saul/Paul stood a
lot closer to Judaism than most people believe.

===>The opposite of that is apparent from the fragmentary
Ebionite material. And, of course, as Christianity turned out, it
is indeed a product of someone familiar with, if not believing in,
the Mystery Religion and adopting the "Jesus messianism" to
create a new form of it, as the character Saul/Paul was most
equipped and most likely to do.

and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.

Yes, together with Alfred Loisy, I believe that the conventional
gospels (as we see them now) only started to emerge ca. 100 CE.

===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.
.

User: "Didymos"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	04 Nov 2003 06:21:11 PM

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FA0453F.A4D58906@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message

news:<3F9D9DCF.8124FF6E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...

Greetings, all,

Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about

the

gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the

ancient

Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels

should

be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern

New

Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...

THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!

As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of

Aramaic

very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible

that

anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north

across

that border!

It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided

itself

on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see,

they

could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from

Israel

in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service!

Yes,

Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with

Galilee

to direct traffic!

So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking

missionaries of

Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such

early

preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to

Syria

to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always

welcome

them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into

Greek

the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for

you in

Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some

other

Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."

And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking

cousins in

Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but

since

the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in

your

guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's

paying your

salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

===>It is a cute story,

Thanks, Libertarius!

and might even be plausible, were it not for
the fact that all of the "Gospels" show the influence of the teachings

Saul/Paul of Tarsus,

Yes, if we accept the conventional interpretation of who Saul/Paul of
Tarsus was, and of what he stood for, then this would be so.

But there's also room to doubt if this conventional interpretation is
entirely correct... Myself, I think that the real Saul/Paul stood a
lot closer to Judaism than most people believe.

and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.

Yes, together with Alfred Loisy, I believe that the conventional
gospels (as we see them now) only started to emerge ca. 100 CE.

===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.

How then can you explain the existence of P-52, P-104, and Egerton? Do not
all of these come periously close to rendering your 100 A.D. date
untenable?
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek?	05 Nov 2003 10:52:14 AM

Didymos wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FA0453F.A4D58906@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message