Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7105
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri May 26, 2017 5:24 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
therefore, it may be Matthew that Thomas is referring to
"Matthew" was not assigned a gospel yet, not before around 180 CE.
Wow, you really double down on Q. :D
And "logia" as "words (of God)" or "oracles" is far from being synonymous of "gospel".
Sure. But what does the term logia mean, in your judgment, when it comes to Papias' description of what Mark wrote?

«Καὶ τοῦθ' ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. Οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστε ρον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. Ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.»

"And the elder would say this: 'Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly logia, so that Mark did not err having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.'"

What does it mean that Peter did not make an orderly arrangement of the logia, thus accounting for the lack of order in Mark? What was Peter preaching? And is Papias or his elder talking about something close to "our" Mark, in your opinion?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri May 26, 2017 10:14 am

to Ben,
What does it mean that Peter did not make an orderly arrangement of the logia, thus accounting for the lack of order in Mark?
Yes, it means as you said.
What was Peter preaching?
First I do not think Peter was preaching, but rather telling anecdotal stuff about his days with Jesus. (but that does not mean that "Mark" did not add and embellish)
Papias emphasized "sayings" rather than "deeds" in "but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's logia" (Eusebius HofC, III, 39,15)
And is Papias or his elder talking about something close to "our" Mark, in your opinion?
Yes, he is because "things said or done by Christ" (HofC, III, 39, 15) is a good description of a gospel and Mark's gospel was written well before Papias' times and therefore was available.

In the segment about Papias (HofC, III, 39), Eusebius used the word 'logia' also here:
"There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of logia of the Lord." (1). Here, can "logia" mean gospels? I do not think so. Actually, sections 4, 7 & 15 give us an idea on the content of these oracles and their sources.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7105
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri May 26, 2017 10:38 am

Bernard Muller wrote:Papias emphasized "sayings" rather than "deeds" in "but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's logia" (Eusebius HofC, III, 39,15)
This is the part that makes little sense to me. If Peter was preaching logia, but not in order (according to Papias), and Mark was recording accurately (according to Papias) and ended up with "things said and done" by the Lord, then obviously logia can be "things said and done" by the Lord.

Which means that Matthew's logia may be "things said and done" by the Lord. They do not have to be, but there is zero actual evidence here of a sayings gospel. Papias obviously intends the term logia to mean a spoken or written account of Jesus' words and deeds.
In the segment about Papias (HofC, III, 39), Eusebius used the word 'logia' also here:
"There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of logia of the Lord." (1). Here, can "logia" mean gospels? I do not think so. Actually, sections 4, 7 & 15 give us an idea on the content of these oracles and their sources.
Logia (for Papias) = spoken or written accounts about the Lord.

ETA: Oh, and I think that, for Papias, logia had to be authoritative spoken or written accounts about the Lord, not just any old thing somebody said. I think Papias insisted that logia derive from an authorized eyewitness.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri May 26, 2017 12:55 pm

Very few scholars think that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, despite what some "fathers" claimed. Only that would prevent the logia of Matthew as referring to the gospel.
Furthermore because "Matthew" copied on gMark (sometimes word by word), and gMark was written in Greek, it is very likely gMatthew was written in Greek initially.

But Papias took the fact that the logia of Matthew were written in Hebrew/Aramaic in order to explain the different translations. But do we have these different translations? I do not think so.
Sure there is some wording variations in the ancient manuscripts of gMatthew, but can they be explained by translations from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek? I can only think of a few on the Q part, but generally, on Markan & Matthean material, I do not think so.

Anyway, these arguments would preclude that the logia of Matthew refer to gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:20 pm

λόγ-ιον , τό,
A. oracle, esp. one preserved from antiquity, Hdt. 4.178,203, 8.60.γ́, Plu.Thes.26, Lys.22: more freq. in pl., oracles, Hdt.1.64, 8.62, 141, E.Heracl.405, Ar.Eq.120, al., Plu.Fab.4, Marc.3: distd. fr. χρησμοί, Th.2.8 (the former being prose, the latter verse, acc. to Sch., but this distn. does not hold), cf. Plu.Pel.20, Nic.13, 2.412c.
2. τὰ λ. Κυρίου the sayings of the Lord, LXX Ps.11(12).6, cf.Act.Ap.7.38, Ep.Rom.3.2, 1 Ep.Pet.4.11.
II. τὸ λ. τῶν κρίσεων the oracular breastplate worn by the Jewish High-Priest, LXX Ex.28.26(30), cf. Ph.2.154; τὰ λόγια Aristeas 158.
For the end, A Psalm of David, upon the eighth. Save me, O Lord; for the godly man has failed; for truth is diminished from among the children of men.
Every one has spoken vanity to his neighbour: their lips are deceitful, they have spoken with a double heart.
Let the Lord destroy all the deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaks great words: who have said, We will magnify our tongue; our lips are our own: who is Lord of us?
Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set them in safety; I will speak to them thereof openly.
The oracles of the Lord (τὰ λόγια κυρίου) are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.
The ungodly walk around: according to thy greatness thou has greatly exalted the sons of men.
אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה = λόγια κυρίου, sing. אִמְרַֽת יְהוָ֥ה

From the Letter of Aristeas
158 For also with food and drink, he has commanded those who have offered first fruits to avail themselves of them right away. And indeed also he has given us a symbolic reminder on our clothes, just as also on doors and gates he has prescribed that we set up the sayings (τὰ λόγια) to serve as a reminder of God. §159 And also he has commanded us expressly to fasten the sign upon our hands, showing clearly that every activity must be accomplished with righteousness, keeping in mind our own constitution, and above all the fear of God. §160 And he has also commanded that when sleeping and rising we study God’s provisions,not only in word, but also in judgment, observing their own movement and impression when sleeping and waking, that there is a certain divine and incomprehensible interchange between them.
Image

It is very hard to construe Papias as meaning 'acts' or 'actions.' Irenaeus (Adv Haer 3.1.2) clearly interpreted - or better yet 'twisted' - Papias's words to apply to the gospel of Matthew. But this is not what Papias is describing. I imagine something more like the Gospel of Thomas albeit ascribed to someone named 'Matthew.' Logia are literally the words or oracles (again words) delivered by someone.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:35 pm

Romans 3:2 the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ).
Not the Torah of course but the Ten Commandments cf. τά δέκα λόγια, the Ten Commandments of God
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:38 pm

properly, "a little word (so Schol. ad Aristophanes ran. 969 (973)), a brief utterance, in secular authors a divine oracle" (doubtless because oracles were generally brief); Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Euripides; Polybius 3, 112, 8; 8, 30, 6; Diodorus 2, 14; Aelian v. h. 2, 41; of the Sibylline oracles, Diodorus, p. 602 (from 50:34); Plutarch, Fab. 4; in the Sept. for חֹשֶׁן the breast-plate of the high priest, which he wore when he consulted Jehovah, Exodus 28:15; Exodus 29:5, etc.; (once for אֹמֶר, of the words of a man, Psalm 18:15 ()); but chiefly for אִמְרָה of any utterance of God, whether precept or promise; (cf. Philo de congr. erud. grat. § 24; de profug. § 11 under the end); of the prophecies of God in the O. T., Josephus, b. j. 6, 5, 4; νόμους καί λόγια θεσπισθεντα διά προφητῶν καί ὕμνους, Philo vit. contempl. § 3; τό λόγιον τοῦ προφήτου (Moses), vit. Moys. 3:35, cf. (23, and) de praem. et poen. § 1 at the beginning; τά δέκα λόγια, the Ten Commandments of God or the Decalogue, in Philo, who wrote a special treatise concerning them (Works edition Mang. ii., p. 180ff (edited by Richter iv., p. 246ff)); (Apostolic Constitutions 2, 36 (p. 63, 7 edition Lagarde))
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:40 pm

At some point after Irenaeus the natural implication of logia (brief words) was changed owing to misapplication of Matthew's narrative gospel = logia.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:42 pm

Papias of Hierapolis composed around AD 100 a work, now lost, entitled Exegesis of the Dominical Logia, which Eusebius quotes as an authority on the origins of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.[6][7]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

And the brief excerpt regarding Matthew says:

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

So, Papias uses logia in his title and once in regard to each Gospel. Eusebius, who had the complete text before him, understood Papias in these passages as referring to the canonical Gospels.

In the 19th century, however, scholars began to question whether this tradition actually refers to those texts, especially in the case of what Papias ascribes to Matthew. In 1832, Schleiermacher, believing Papias to be writing before these Gospels were regarded as inspired Scripture and before the formation of any New Testament canon, argued that logia could not be understood in its usual sense but must rather be interpreted as utterances (Aussprüche), and that Papias was referring to collections of the sayings of Jesus. Soon afterwards, a new theory of the Synoptic problem emerged, the two-source hypothesis, positing that the double tradition in Matthew and Luke derived from a lost document containing mostly sayings of Jesus. Holtzmann's defense of this theory, which has dominated scholarship ever since, seized upon Schleiermacher's thesis and argued that Papias was attesting a Logienquelle (logia-source), which he designated Λ (lambda). When later scholars abandoned the evidence of Papias as an argument, this hypothetical source came to be more neutrally designated as Q (for Quelle), but the reinterpretation of the word logia already had firmly taken hold in scholarship.[5][8][9]

Modern scholars are divided on what Papias actually meant, especially with regard to the logia he ascribes to Matthew, and what underlying historical facts this testimony alludes to.[10] Some see this logia as referring still to the Old Testament, thus a collection of prophecies and prooftexts[clarification needed] regarding Jesus. Others still hold that Papias is speaking of a now-lost collection of sayings, noting that canonical gospel of Matthew is especially focused on the sayings of Jesus. Others, noting how in the account of Mark, the parallel to "things said or done by the Lord" requires the meaning of logia at least to be extended to deeds, see Papias as referring to some account more closely resembling the canonical Gospels. Still others hold that Papias was indeed referring to the canonical Gospels as we know them—arguably even using logia in the sense of Scriptures, and "dominical logia" as an early term for "Gospels"—and that the account of Papias thus amounts to our earliest testimony of their existence and recognition.

Another point of controversy surrounds the statement that Matthew wrote in the "Hebrew dialect", which in the Greek could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic.[10] Some, noting that "dialect" could mean not only language but also, in a technical sense, style, understand Papias to be referring to a Greek language gospel but written in a Semitic style. Others hold that Matthew wrote a Semitic-language work first, before producing a Greek recension recognized as canonical Matthew. Still others hold that whatever lost work Matthew allegedly wrote—whether a collection of sayings, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or a prototype of canonical Matthew—was composed in Semitic but translated freely into Greek by others. And some regard Papias as simply mistaken and telling nothing of value.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logia
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ancient notices of the differences between Matthew and M

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 26, 2017 1:44 pm

In Philo logia only mean 'prophetic oracles' https://books.google.com/books?id=Ruwod ... lo&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply