Might John and Matthew Have Switched Places in Order?

[Secret Alias]

And you have to figure Origen had the fuller context too (not just the excerpt as we get from Eusebius).

[Ben C. Smith]

Just waking up and looking at the Greek you provided Ben. Do you think that ερμηνειαν = translation is a bit strong? Don't you think 'interpretation' might be the right rendering here.

Well, of course ἑρμηνεία can mean either translation (from one language to another) or interpretation. But I got the sense of the word in this particular context from μεθερμηνεύω in the previous clause, for which LSJ gives only translate as an option. I have no special knowledge of how this compound word is used elsewhere in Greek literature, beyond what I find in the lexicon. But it obviously affects how I interpret ἑρμηνεία a few words later.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

Sure and you were looking only at a fragment with the rest of the passage lost (but not for the ancients). I just see Origen as interpreting the statement in another way as well as other ancients (who may have only been repeating what they read in Origen). I can't help but feel (with all my biases well testified at the forum) that Luke 'interpreting' Hebrews is key to getting out from under the dominance of the 'existing Pauline corpus as sancrosact' paradigm that some at the forum accept (Bernard for instance).

Once you have 'Luke' reinterpreting the gospel (= Marcionite position presumably), Acts (evident from Epiphanius's statement about the Ishim = Christians in Hebrew) and now Hebrews (= the Marcionite epistle to the Alexandrians? cf. Muratorian canon - perhaps a leap too far for some or many) it becomes plainly apparent (to people who share my biases = Marcionophiles) that the depreciation of our canon wasn't just 'sour grapes' on the part of the Marcionites. Our canon is corrupt and this was accomplished almost certainly by the person writing to Theophilus (almost certainly again in the middle to late second century).

[Secret Alias]

FWIW my 'liberal' position on the testimony of the anti-Marcionite Church Fathers with regards to the differences between the Marcionite and Orthodox texts (when shared) is that large portions (over 50 %) of the Pauline letters were corrupted. Admittedly I haven't done a study of whether sections of the Pauline letters have 'Lukan' traits (which is what I should do if I am going to make a serious claim rather than just an observation). But I think if, as many (Trobisch etc) suppose that the story about Luke 'helping' Paul write the gospel was planted in the gospel as a kind of hint to that effect that this 'assistance' couldn't have stopped at just the gospel. Noticeably again Origen speaks of Luke 'writing' the gospel and 'writing' Hebrews. The same terminology is used twice I think (from memory).

[Secret Alias]

Again FWIW my major piece of evidence was the Ignatian corpus and supposing that:

1. the Syriac texts were original
2. the Greek texts (long and longer of Ignatius) were corrupted in a method and pattern which resembled the Pauline epistles

Maybe I might suggest whether Peter can determine whether Lukan traits appear in the Pastorals and then the ends of the Pauline epistles deemed authentic (i.e. when Paul starts referencing how many friends he has like a socialite).

[Ben C. Smith]

I have to say, however, that even when I find the term ἑρμηνεία by itself, without a potentially stronger term like μεθερμηνεύω in its vicinity, I am always thinking of translation (not just interpretation) when actual languages are being named (in this case Hebrew).

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

So then Origen was misinterpreting his teacher presumably.

[Secret Alias]

I am going through Book Five of the Stromata of Alexander's (?) English translation and the term is consistently rendered 'interpret' as far as I can see:

In the same opinion also concurs Neanthes of Cyzicum, who writes that the Macedonian priests invoke Bedu, which they interpret (ἑρμηνεύουσιν) to mean the air, to be propitious to them and to their children. And Zaps some have ignorantly taken for fire (from zesin,boiling); for so the sea is called, as Euphorion, in his reply to Theoridas: "And Zaps, destroyer of ships, wrecked it on the rocks." [Strom 5.8.47.2]

Rightly then Moses says, that the body which Plato calls "the earthly tabernacle" was formed of the ground, but that the rational soul was breathed by God into man's face. For there, they say, the ruling faculty is situated; interpreting (ἑρμηνεύοντες) the access by the senses into the first man as the addition of the soul. [Strom 5.14.94.4]

And what? Were not also those expressions of Thales derived from these? The fact that God is glorified for ever, and that He is expressly called by us the Searcher of hearts, he interprets (ἑρμηνεύει). For Thales being asked, What is the divinity? said, What has neither beginning nor end. And on another asking, "If a man could elude the knowledge of the Divine Being while doing aught?" said, "How could he who cannot do so while thinking?" [Strom 5.14.96.4]

[Secret Alias]

The closest we get to 'translate' is the bit about 'Yahweh' being 'interpreted' something or other. But I don't think Clement means 'translate' even here and neither does Alexander (or whom ever translated this).

[MrMacSon]

Once you have 'Luke' reinterpreting the gospel (= Marcionite position presumably), Acts (evident from Epiphanius's statement about the Ishim = Christians in Hebrew) and now Hebrews (= the Marcionite epistle to the Alexandrians? cf. Muratorian canon - perhaps a leap too far for some or many) it becomes plainly apparent (to people who share my biases = Marcionophiles) that the depreciation of our canon wasn't just 'sour grapes' on the part of the Marcionites. Our canon is corrupt and this was accomplished almost certainly by the person writing to Theophilus (almost certainly again in the middle to late second century).

Theophilus; the person to whom gLuke and Acts are addressed? (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)

• Who was Theophilus at the beginning of Luke and Acts?
  
  • Theophilus of Caesarea Maritima (†195), teacher of Clement of Alexandria? or
    Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181)?
    (Theophilus of Alexandria was late 4th C)