The French mythicist Alfaric translated it as:
If the latter was the original sense , then Papias reported only presumed prophecies and oracles concerning the Christ (who had therefore an entirely passive role as not the author of these sayings).
Well, G, the day has come when I agree with you on something!Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:56 am "Logiôn kuriakôn exègèseis" is translated generally as :
"explanations of the sayings of the Lord".
The French mythicist Alfaric translated it as:
"explanations of the oracles concerning the Lord".
If the latter was the original sense , then Papias reported only presumed prophecies and oracles concerning the Christ (who had therefore an entirely passive role as not the author of these sayings).
Among those American churches which sponsored my father's mission, yes, absolutely: tracts with 100+ prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Laughably, some of those tracts were actually nominally intended for Jews, to create more "Jews for Jesus" by persuading them that Jesus really was/is their Messiah.DCHindley wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:00 pmTo see this kind of imaginative prophesy mining in action today, in our country, all you have to do is visit a "fundamentalist" church, and pick out a tract from the wall rack. I remember seeing some tracts that had hundreds of passages listed. Ben has probably seen that kind of thing among the churches his dad was a missionary for.
I have a hard time buying this argument since Eusebius is under the impression that Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew (like in his preceding comment about the gospel of Mark).Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:56 am "Logiôn kuriakôn exègèseis" is translated generally as :
"explanations of the sayings of the Lord".
The French mythicist Alfaric translated it as:
"explanations of the oracles concerning the Lord".
If the latter was the original sense , then Papias reported only presumed prophecies and oracles concerning the Christ (who had therefore an entirely passive role as not the author of these sayings).
These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
frankly what matters here are the words reported by Papias, not their late interpretation or "impressions" by Eusebius. But I see that even you admit the revelatory origin of these "sayings" insofar they were a mere list of OT prophecies to be used on Jesus (my suspicion: to judaize him?):
So where are you disagreeing with me precisely? Yourself are saying that these "sayings" were not really spoken by a man named Jesus but were (believed by Papias as) spoken by others (the OT prophets) about Jesus (who could be also a celestial entity, for that matter).a list of OT prophecies "about" Jesus in Hebrew
I think your first instinct is closer to correct. As probable as I think it is that such catenae of prooftexts from the Hebrew scriptures existed early, and as certain as I am that they existed later, I do not think that Papias' words have anything to do with them.John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:21 pmI have a hard time buying this argument since Eusebius is under the impression that Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew (like in his preceding comment about the gospel of Mark).
EH 3.39.15-16:
These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
I suppose the options are that someone named Matthew compiled a list of OT prophecies "about" Jesus in Hebrew which was translated a number of times into Greek (or interpreted by more than one person, whether in writings or orally), or Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew, like Eusebius says, and it was originally written in Hebrew and translated a number of times into Greek (like the Hebrew and variant Greek versions of Matthew that are said to have been used by Jewish Christians).
I'm saying that of the two options I mentioned above I prefer the second one, that Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew and translated a number of times into Greek. This fits with what church fathers say about Jewish Christians, that they used a Hebrew Matthew and variant Greek Matthews.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:39 pmfrankly what matters here are the words reported by Papias, not their late interpretation or "impressions" by Eusebius. But I see that even you admit the revelatory origin of these "sayings" insofar they were a mere list of OT prophecies to be used on Jesus (my suspicion: to judaize him?):
So where are you disagreeing with me precisely? Yourself are saying that these "sayings" were not really spoken by a man named Jesus but were (believed by Papias as) spoken by others (the OT prophets) about Jesus (who could be also a celestial entity, for that matter).a list of OT prophecies "about" Jesus in Hebrew
There is no certainty in this field. Nor, however, is there any use in pointing out how little certainty there is every time someone prefers one theory over another. It certainly does not stop you from preferring one theory over another.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:00 pm But don't you see how incompatible (a) our desire for certainty is while (b) we have will-o-wisp allusions to texts and traditions? This doesn't apply just to Papias but Marcion and virtually every other 'thing' in the early Christian world. We should take a pledge from the outset to acknowledge that all of our theories are about as certain as a determining a person through his shadow.