Pastoral Epistles

Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
Ok, I think I understand, thanks. Sounds like folks are agreeing here that the Church does not have an inspired Bible text. Interesting. I wonder how may Christians would agree with that.
Click to expand...
By “Christians,” you mean … ? (Catholics are Christians - the religion called “Christianity” subsists in the Catholic Church.)
 
Vince1022 said:
Fair enough.

Just curious, though, are you aware of the most famous mistake St. Jerome made in his translation? Has to do with Exodus, when Moses came down from the mountain. The Hebrew said is “face shone” but Jerome unfortunately translated it as his face “had horns.” That’s why so much artwork depicts Moses has having horns on his head.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. I’d heard something about that before.

But in regards to the “just curious… you are aware…”, I hope you don’t think this bit of trivia has anything to do with St. Jerome claiming he had a copy of the Hebrew (or was it Aramaic?) text of Matthew. Those two points are apples and oranges.
 
NotWorthy said:
That’s interesting. I’d heard something about that before.

But in regards to the “just curious… you are aware…”, I hope you don’t think this bit of trivia has anything to do with St. Jerome claiming he had a copy of the Hebrew (or was it Aramaic?) text of Matthew. Those two points are apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
I don’t think St. Jerome had any original text of Matthew. Do you? Any reference for it?
 
Vince1022 said:
I don’t think St. Jerome had any original text of Matthew. Do you? Any reference for it?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he claimed to have the original text, which is why I said “copy of the Hebrews (or was it Aramaic?) text”. I’ve seen numerous texts where St. Jerome claims to have the text in Aramaic or Hebrew. Another Father claimed to have a copy (Hippolytus or some other “H” Father - Higgolopalus? I have no clue) in the Hebrew or Aramaic.
 
May I add to the general confusion?

Neither Eusebius or Wikipedia are reliable.
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) wrote this:
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
Click to expand...
Citing this text, many argue that Papias claimed that Matthew was written in the Hebrew language, (as it is often translated in English). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
Click to expand...
 
NoelFitz said:
May I add to the general confusion?

Neither Eusebius or Wikipedia are reliable.
Click to expand...
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) wrote this:
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.
Click to expand...
Citing this text, many argue that Papias claimed that Matthew was written in the Hebrew language, (as it is often translated in English). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
Click to expand...
Uh… how else do you interpret that? Or am I wrong in assuming “oracles” as the Gospel?
 
diggerdomer said:
I mean “Christian.”
Click to expand...
Okay. Sometimes “Christian” is used to mean people who believe in Christ, but who aren’t members of the Church. Just thought I’d clear that up. 🙂

In that case, the answer to your question is, “All of them.” 😉
 
NoelFitz said:
NW

Uh, Uh,

Can one rely on Wikipedia and Eusebius?
Click to expand...
Am I wrong in thinking that Eusebius was one of the first Christian historians?

His opinions were off, I think he was under the impression that Constantine hung the moon, but his facts?
 
NotWorthy said:
I don’t think he claimed to have the original text, which is why I said “copy of the Hebrews (or was it Aramaic?) text”. I’ve seen numerous texts where St. Jerome claims to have the text in Aramaic or Hebrew. Another Father claimed to have a copy (Hippolytus or some other “H” Father - Higgolopalus? I have no clue) in the Hebrew or Aramaic.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate any reference you have to where St. Jerome claimed to have an Aramaic or Hebrew text of Matthew’s Gospel as I am ignorant of any such thing. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top