Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben wrote:

I think that there was an early tradition that someone named Matthew penned the Logia, and that ... Various Greek texts claimed to be (translations of) Matthew's Logia, or at least to bear some formative connection to Matthew.

I think we both agree that "logia" (as per Papias) means "sayings and doings" and not just sayings, and though you may not agree that that there actually was an original "Hebrew Matthew" of which "various Greek texts claimed to be translations," thus far I think this could still be the case. It just looks like the Ebionites' version was "quite divergent" due to their vegetarian doctrines and such (though perhaps the same could be said, with respect to orthodox doctrines, about the NT version).

But at the same time I'm fascinated by how similar (if not entirely) the Ebionites' version is to Mark regarding Jesus' baptism. It makes me appreciate what you mean about discerning what is "Markan" in Matthew or vice-versa. Now I'm starting to think that maybe Mark and Matthew are more interrelated than I had been thinking, in the sense that maybe they could both be passing on (independently and in their respective ways) the same "logia." But at the same time as that, it still "seems" (to my amateur eyes) that at least the NT Matthew does (also?) incorporate and "correct" Mark, beyond just independently sharing the same "logia" as Mark.

I'm thinking that the gospel the Nazarenes used might be a better reflection of the original Hebrew Matthew (if not actually be it) than the Ebionites' version and the NT version, since according to Epiphanius the Nazarenes only read and spoke Hebrew and went back to the time of Jesus, and if I recall correctly, Jerome says he actually saw it and translated it. And as he puts it in the first citation in Ben's second link ("the gospel of the Hebrews"):

But according to the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written up in Hebrew speech ...

But I still need to read the rest of the link.

I don't have a lot of time left at the moment, but I wanted to add that if we think of the NT Matthew as being just as "divergent" (to use my word) or "corrupt" and "mutilated" (to use Epiphanius' words) in its particular way, then perhaps that would explain why it doesn't have these citations of Jerome from the Hebrew version (i.e., because of orthodox interest in downplaying James' status and relationship to Jesus?):

Also the gospel which is named according to the Hebrews, and which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which also Origen often used, refers after the resurrection of the savior: "But the Lord, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the chalice of the Lord until he saw him risen from among those who sleep." And again after a little bit: "Bear forth, said the Lord, a table and bread." And immediately is added: "He bore bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the just, and said to him: My brother, eat your bread, because the son of man has resurrected from among those who sleep."

John2 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 6:46 pmBut at the same time as that, it still "seems" (to my amateur eyes) that at least the NT Matthew does (also?) incorporate and "correct" Mark, beyond just independently sharing the same "logia" as Mark.

I agree that something resembling our canonical Mark predates something resembling our canonical Matthew, which incorporated it. Things are probably a lot more complicated than that, but I think that Matthew made sure to include all of Mark's miracles.

Ben wrote:

I think that there was an early tradition that someone named Matthew penned the Logia ...

I'm starting to think that the "logia" (with our understanding of them as sayings and doings) are the key to the various Matthews (NT, Ebionite and Nazarene) and that each version that was called Matthew (whether it be in Hebrew or Greek) needn't otherwise be in harmony (or near-harmony) with each other. I'm thinking there were "logia" floating around (and I would have no issue with the idea that they could be genuine) and these were eventually used (and framed) by Mark and in the various Matthews (along with whatever else their authors cared to say as literary artists and to support particular doctrines). In that sense, Mark would be a "Matthew" too, only (in my view) one that was written by a Gentile (who may have actually been called Mark, as per Papias). And thus the NT version (1) independently shares logia in common with Mark and also (2) incorporated Mark during the process of its translation from (3) the original Hebrew Matthew.

So then the question would be how to distinguish (2) from (1) and (3).