Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:38 pm
From Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron:
Not sure that the understanding goes back to Ephrem who used a harmony gospel. The comments about the four are likely from someone after Ephrem's time.
Maybe. Not trying to solve all problems and answer all questions with one set of quotations. Just citing the available texts from the SQE.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

I just wanted to clarify that the issue here is not people who thought that Matthew had written a gospel in Hebrew but people who could have gotten that information directly from Papias, and as far as I am aware that would be Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Secret Alias »

Maybe. Not trying to solve all problems and answer all questions with one set of quotations. Just citing the available texts from the SQE.
I am just repeating what McCarthy says in her translation. I used to have photocopies in my garage (just threw them out with nothing else to do). There are signs the text as we have were reworked. Not the original text.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Secret Alias »

It survives as an Armenian translation of the (presumed) Syriac original. But intro and extro statements are notoriously prone to editorial additions.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Secret Alias »

“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
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to John2,
John2 wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:47 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:21 pm to John2,
I understand that logia can be interpreted to mean that Papias is not referring to a gospel, but it can also be interpreted to mean that he is, and that makes the most sense to me not only from the context but also because that is how everyone who had access to Papias' writings in antiquity (and thus had even more to go on than we do) understood it.
Everyone is only 3 authors. And It is far from certain that Origen and Jerome read Papias.
I was thinking of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (possibly) and Eusebius. And even if "only" two of them count, that would be enough for me.
OK, I was wrong with my "only 3" but Clement of Alexandria does not seem to be on the list. But that does not matter. However none on the list (mine plus Ben's) seems to have known about Papias and the multiple translations/renditions from Hebrew to Greek. Actually Jerome and pseudo-Athanasius suggested that only one translation was made. They were taking their cues from Irenaeus or any previous authors who wrote on the matter, and then added on some invented details.
I'd like to ask you something about
your idea that Mark knew "Q," though. It sounds to me like you take what Papias says about Matthew seriously, i.e., that Matthew wrote something about Jesus in Hebrew (which in your view was "Q").
Obviously, you did not read my web page on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
In it, I only mention Papias on a detail.
But Papias also says where Mark got his information, i.e., from Peter, and he says that the reason his gospel was "not in order" was because that is how Peter taught. So if Mark learned about Jesus' "sayings or doings" (i.e., logia) from Peter, why would he need Matthew's logia, and if he did use Matthew's logia, why doesn't Papias say so? It seems to me like you are creating an unsupported and unnecessary step.
That's a bit complicated. Papias treated Mark "sayings and doings" as totally separated from Matthew's logia. Papias did not need Mark knowing about Matthew's logia to explain why Mark's gospel was out of order.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:44 pm
Everyone is only 3 authors. And It is far from certain that Origen and Jerome read Papias.
I was thinking of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (possibly) and Eusebius. And even if "only" two of them count, that would be enough for me.
OK, I was wrong with my "only 3" but Clement of Alexandria does not seem to be on the list. But that does not matter. However none on the list (mine plus Ben's) seems to have known about Papias and the multiple translations/renditions from Hebrew to Greek. Actually Jerome and pseudo-Athanasius suggested that only one translation was made.

As I've said, the issue is not people who thought Matthew was written in Hebrew but people who could have gotten that information directly from Papias, and Irenaeus and Eusebius appear to have known Papias' writings directly.

And since Eusebius knows what Papias says about the Hebrew Matthew being translated multiple times and associates the Hebrew Matthew with the NT Matthew, he thus arguably thought that the latter was a translation of the former (and never says anything to the contrary, to my knowledge).

And Clement of Alexandria at least had information about Mark that Eusebius said was in keeping with Papias and also cites a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews (aka the Hebrew Matthew), so I think it's possible that he knew Papias' writings directly too and thus knew that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated multiple times. But in any event he was at least aware of one translation (or two if you count the NT Matthew), which is in keeping with what Papias says.

And while Irenaeus doesn't say that the Hebrew Matthew was translated multiple times, since he knew Papias then he too was aware that Papias says this, and since he also associates the Hebrew Matthew with the NT Matthew, it is arguable that he thought the latter was a translation of the former too (and he never says anything to the contrary either, to my knowledge).


I'd like to ask you something about your idea that Mark knew "Q," though. It sounds to me like you take what Papias says about Matthew seriously, i.e., that Matthew wrote something about Jesus in Hebrew (which in your view was "Q").
Obviously, you did not read my web page on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
In it, I only mention Papias on a detail.

You seem to think in your link that Papias is saying that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew (i.e., "Q"), like I had said. Is this not a fair assessment of your thinking?

But Papias also says where Mark got his information, i.e., from Peter, and he says that the reason his gospel was "not in order" was because that is how Peter taught. So if Mark learned about Jesus' "sayings or doings" (i.e., logia) from Peter, why would he need Matthew's logia, and if he did use Matthew's logia, why doesn't Papias say so? It seems to me like you are creating an unsupported and unnecessary step.
That's a bit complicated. Papias treated Mark "sayings and doings" as totally separated from Matthew's logia. Papias did not need Mark knowing about Matthew's logia to explain why Mark's gospel was out of order.

I think the similarities you see between Mark and Matthew are due to Peter being aware of the same oral tradition that the author of Matthew had access to.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:10 pmAs I've said, the issue is not people who thought Matthew was written in Hebrew but people who could have gotten that information directly from Papias, and Irenaeus and Eusebius appear to have known Papias' writings directly.
If Irenaeus got his information about Matthew writing in Hebrew from Papias, then it stands to reason that anyone who knows Irenaeus may well have gotten that information from Irenaeus directly, and thus from Papias indirectly.

Clement of Alexandria seems to have had access to Irenaeus:

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.13.9: In [the Stromata Clement] promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. In his book on the Passover he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Irenaeus, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.

So too Hippolytus (Refutation 6.42.1; 6.55.2) and Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 5.1). It is also well established that Eusebius and Epiphanius had access to Irenaeus. Finally, there is a very early papyrus fragment of his work which was found in Egypt: papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405. Most of these exact connections are not directly meaningful for the matter at hand, but I am trying to show how widespread Against Heresies was; therefore, access to Papias is not even necessarily a requirement; access to Irenaeus, who himself had access to Papias, would suffice.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:47 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:10 pmAs I've said, the issue is not people who thought Matthew was written in Hebrew but people who could have gotten that information directly from Papias, and Irenaeus and Eusebius appear to have known Papias' writings directly.
If Irenaeus got his information about Matthew writing in Hebrew from Papias, then it stands to reason that anyone who knows Irenaeus may well have gotten that information from Irenaeus directly, and thus from Papias indirectly.

Clement of Alexandria seems to have had access to Irenaeus:

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.13.9: In [the Stromata Clement] promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. In his book on the Passover he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Irenaeus, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.

So too Hippolytus (Refutation 6.42.1; 6.55.2) and Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 5.1). It is also well established that Eusebius and Epiphanius had access to Irenaeus. Finally, there is a very early papyrus fragment of his work which was found in Egypt: papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405. Most of these exact connections are not directly meaningful for the matter at hand, but I am trying to show how widespread Against Heresies was; therefore, access to Papias is not even necessarily a requirement; access to Irenaeus, who himself had access to Papias, would suffice.

Okay, but doesn't Eusebius cite things from Papias that Irenaeus doesn't? So while he knew Irenaeus he also had access direct access to Papias, right? And one of the things he cites is not only that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew (as per Irenaeus) but also that multiple translations were made of it (which Ireneaus doesn't mention).

And while Clement knew Irenaeus, he says more things about Mark than Irenaeus does (in AH 3.1.1 at least, and I'd be interested to see if Irenaeus elsewhere says anything like what Clement says).


AH 3.1.1:

After their [Peter and Paul's] departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.



Cf. Clement according to Eusebius in EH 2.15.1-2 (and which Eusebius says is in agreement with Papias):

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.

You've questioned before about how much of "this account" is from Clement or Papias, but there is also Cassiodorus' translation of Clement's Outlines, which has some similar details that aren't mentioned in AH 3.1.1:

Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter ...
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew's gospel first written in Hebrew?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:29 amOkay, but doesn't Eusebius cite things from Papias that Irenaeus doesn't? So while he knew Irenaeus he also had access direct access to Papias, right?
Correct.
And one of the things he cites is not only that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew (as per Irenaeus) but also that multiple translations were made of it (which Ireneaus doesn't mention).
Also correct.
You've questioned before about how much of "this account" is from Clement or Papias, but there is also Cassiodorus' translation of Clement's Outlines, which has some similar details that aren't mentioned in AH 3.1.1
I am pretty sure that "this account" is all Clement and that Eusebius' saying that Papias agrees with him is in an overall sort of sense. And I am suspicious of the details in Cassiodorus; I think that Cassiodorus could be a bit expansionist. But I have more to study on that topic before committing to anything.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply