An earlier dating of the Gospels?

[patrick457]

The thing about Thiede’s claim that the Magdalen Papyri (Papyrus 64-67) containing text from the gospel of Matthew is that he claims that the style of handwriting - or to be more accurate, the forms of certain letters - is similar to that found in a few other Greek manuscripts which date from the 1st century BC or AD, such as a scroll of the Minor Prophets from a site called Nahal Hever in the Judaean Desert. But the thing is, if you actually compare both, even an untrained layman could see that … well, that is not the case.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Papyrus 64

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Nahal Hever Scroll

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The counter-argument against Thiede’s argument really boils down to: Papyrus 64-67’s handwriting is more consistent with that you see in 2nd-3rd century manuscripts than it is with 1st century ones. Therefore, the conventional date assigned to the fragments (late 2nd-3rd century) is correct and Thiede is wrong.

(The flaw in Thiede’s reasoning is basically that he claims to see similarities between individual letters instead of the handwriting style as a whole, choosing to focus only on a few select letters while ignoring the other letters, not to mention he focused too much on similarities between letters (or what he thinks are similarities - which are usually too specific to even count) and ignored their differences.)

 

[patrick457]

The Peshitta, the bible used by Syriac churches, is believed to have been translated into Aramaic in the 2nd or 3rd century, so it is certainly possible.

The Peshitta Old Testament is indeed a translation from around the 2nd-3rd century. Some even apparently think that it was originally a Jewish translation that was adopted by Syriac-speaking Christians.

As for the Syriac New Testament, however, it’s actually later than that. (There are actually other earlier Syriac versions of the NT apart from the Peshitta’s.)

I see. That’s interesting. So one possibility (among others, of course) is that the book Jerome saw in Caesarea was a translation (or adaptation/abridgment) of the Greek Matthew into Aramaic or Hebrew?

Yes.

The thing is, a number of Church Fathers quote from a gospel (or gospels) used by certain Jewish Christian groups. While they assumed there was only one Jewish Christian gospel existing in various versions, modern scholars instead think that it’s likely that they quoted from two or three different texts. One of these texts (surviving mostly in quotes from Origen and Jerome) is apparently a derivative expanded version of canonical Matthew in Aramaic - which is probably why Jerome identified it with Matthew’s ‘Hebrew’ Logia referred to in Papias.

 

[BartholomewB]

One of these texts (surviving mostly in quotes from Origen and Jerome) is apparently a derivative expanded version of canonical Matthew in Aramaic - which is probably why Jerome identified it with Matthew’s ‘Hebrew’ Logia referred to in Papias.

Is this the book that M. R. James calls The Gospel According to the Hebrews ?

 

[NotThatHarvey]

Remember that the Second Temple was a huge tourist attraction and not just for Jews. Anyone could enter the outer courtyard and walk around. And there were vendors there as well. Jesus preached on Solomon’s Portico across from the east entrance to the Inner Temple.
All to say that coinage from all over the known world probably wound in Jerusalem because of the tourists.

 

[NotThatHarvey]

Yes, late daters are all doubters, in one form or another. One argument they make is that Luke lifted the story of Jesus teaching in the Temple as a boy from Josephus’ Antiquities, which was published around AD 100.

I would agree with this partially. Luke confused Jesus with Josephus, but Josephus was in Rome in AD 63 or thereabouts. As all of Luke’s information was second-hand, he could have confused a story about Josephus (who was a famous man on a diplomatic to Rome, and a self-promoter) with a story about Jesus.

I like Hagan’s work on the subject.

 

[patrick457]

Is this the book that M. R. James calls The Gospel According to the Hebrews ?

M.R. James collects all the patristic quotes that claim to be citations from “the Hebrew gospel.” The modern consensus is to identify these as citing not one, but two or three different gospels.

The modern name for the Aramaic expanded version of Matthew Jerome quotes is Gospel of the Nazarenes.

“The mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, ‘John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.’ But he said to them, ‘In what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance.’” (Jerome, Against Pelagius III.2)

According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazaraeans read, “The whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him.” … Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: “When the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said to him, ‘My son, in all the prophets I was waiting for you, that you might come, and that I might rest in you. For you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son, who reigns forever.’” (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah)

The Gospel of the Hebrews is applied to another Jewish-Christian gospel which apparently isn’t dependent on Matthew. Unlike Nazarenes, which like canonical Matthew was probably written in Syria, Hebrews was written in Egypt and may show some gnostic influences.

“When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a)

And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews - here the Savior says: “Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.” (Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87 [on John 1:3])

The Gospel called according to the Hebrews which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior: “And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among those who sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: ‘Bring a table and bread!’” And immediately it added: “He took the bread, blessed it and broke it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: ‘My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among those who sleep.’” (Jerome, De viris illustribus 2)

A third gospel known only to Epiphanius of Salamis, which he attributed to the Jewish Christian group known as the Ebionites and mistakenly thought to be a version of Matthew, is dubbed Gospel of the Ebionites.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, Patrick. I will have to go through this slowly and carefully. The Gospel of the Ebionites is the second text in M. R. James’ compilation (pp. 8-10), immediately following the Gospel According to the Hebrews.