**I had promised not to get into this subject of Jewish persecutions. But just to remind you, we are not talking about simple people like you and me. That’s a Pope for heaven’s sake! Innocence III should have known much better than to get involved with Crusades, even to organize one as he did, considering the belicose nature of Crusades, especially against Jews, whom they considered as responsible for the death of Jesus. **
According to your last post of mine regarding what is written over tradition, St. Jerome writes that he had an Aramaic translation of Matthew, which is what he used in his translation for the Latin Vulgate.
I find it interesting that you only use what it written in the Catholic New Testament that supports your arguments and casually discard that which doesn’t, and then claim that this trumps tradition.
I’m back temporarily.
Ah, the NAB. If you’ve checked around the forums you would notice that this version has a rather infamous reputation in certain Catholic circles, mainly because of the prefaces and footnotes thereon.
Not quite. While St. Jerome does testify that there was a “Hebrew” Gospel of Matthew and that, taking an interest in it, he made translations of it into Greek and Latin, both translations are now lost. The translation of Matthew in the Vulgate is made from the Greek.
Well my friend, I gave you a Catholic source for the date of Matthew. If you do not agree, your fight is no longer with me but with the Church.
Quite simply. I think I have said here before that I believe only 20 percent of the NT as legal and tender. The rest is made up of interpolations. I mean, anything not Jewish of and about Jesus is not true but interpolation. Why should I take this approach? Because Jesus was a religious Jewish man. Christians cannot use a Jewish man to insert Christian or Hellenistic innovations into Judaism.I find it interesting that you only use what it written in the Catholic New Testament that supports your arguments and casually discard that which doesn’t, and then claim that this trumps tradition.
Please keep those goalposts still, Ben!
Sorry, but your explanation complicates the contradiction even further. Matthew says the slaughter of the children was done in Bethlehem and not in Nazareth, where the infant of Luke was at the time. And bear in mind that when Luke wrote to Theophilus, he said that he had written everything that Jesus said or did from his birth till his death. (Acts 1:1) However, he ignores the Magi and the slaughter of the children. How could he have left such a thing out if it really happen? Someone is lying here between Matthew and Luke.I’m back temporarily.
For one thing, Matthew does not give any indication that Jesus was still an infant at the time of Herod’s killing spree. While it is common in many depictions of the birth of Jesus to conflate things - we see the Magi visiting the newborn Jesus while still in the manger, this may not be the case in reality. At most, some length of time may have passed between Jesus’ birth, circumcision, and the Magi’s visit and the murder of young infants - some prefer to think Jesus as being two years of age based on Herod’s age limit, while others think that it is less than that (one gives three months old at most).
**Do you think the Pope would put down his signature in such a Bible? Well, he did. **Ah, the NAB. If you’ve checked around the forums you would notice that this version has a rather infamous reputation in certain Catholic circles, mainly because of the prefaces and footnotes thereon.
Just because a Catholic version of the Bible sponsored by an episcopal Committee states this-or-that does not make it de fide belief for Catholics. The NAB chooses to follow certain hypotheses popular in a number of present-day academic and scholarly circles on its prefaces and footnotes (almost to the point that you would think there is no other scholarly alternatives, when in fact there are).
I think that is one main fault of the present edition of the NAB - it follows, say, the Two-Source Hypothesis, the Markan Priority, and the late dating of the Gospels so much that it does not spend time reporting other scholarly opinions out there (say, the Griesbach, Augustinian, or the Farrer Hypotheses, all of which does not require the elusive Q Document); the selected opinions are just force-fed down your throat as if they were gospel - pun intended - truth!
Luke may have had his own political or personal motives for not including the two main incidents that Matthew relates:
All that Luke says is that the family went back to Nazareth “when they had completed everything according to the Law of the LORD”. He does not say they left immediately - only being content by saying that they went back sometime after they had done the requirements. Since he does not say anything about magis or Herod or infants it would make no sense if he inserted “Egypt” somewhere in the sentence - it would be bad storytelling and a minus for Luke’s agenda.
I’m very sorry; can you elaborate a bit?
I’m just trying to point out the inconsistency of your arguments. I’m sure you are aware that there has been numerous debates about the dating of the bibles, and the argument that you choose to prove your point is certainly in the vast minority. It just happens to most support what you are trying to say.
And with this, you are proving my point. You’ve put the cart (your beliefs) before the horse (how you choose to interpret Sacred Scriptures). You follow the same path as those at the so-called Council of Jamnia.
Acts 18The text is in Acts 18:24-28
The Sect of the Nazarenes was blooming in Alexandria. Apollos, a Nazarene Jew from Alexandria decided to go on a trip North to Ephesus. Being well known as a charismatic and eloquent Teacher in the Scriptures, he was invited to deliver the Sabbath sermon in the local Nazarene Synagogue. The text says that he would speak about Jesus with accuracy. (Acts 18:25)
It happens that on that same day, a couple of Jews called Aquila and Priscilla were attending services at the same Synagogue. The couple had recently arrived from Italy because of a decree signed by Claudius, the Roman Emperor, that would expell
all Jews from Rome. (Acts 18:2) Their trade was Tentmaking. Since Paul was also a Tentmaker, they somehow met, got together, and Paul succeeded to convert them. (Acts 18:1-3)
So, back at the Nazarene Synagogue of Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla realized that there was something wrong with Apollos’ sermon. He would not mention even once that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. After the services, they invited Apollos to their home, converted him to the Pauline way they believed about Jesus, and the Apollos who returned was no longer the same who had left. He would now preach that Jesus was the Messiah. (Acts 18:28) He was still charismatic and eloquent, but the previous accuracy about Jesus was no longer the same. He had experienced complete metamorphose.
The point for discussion is: If Apolos was an expert in the Scriptures and a member of the Sect of the Nazarenes, how come he had to know from Christians all those things about Jesus? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing had been fabricated by Paul about 30 years after Jesus’ death.
Now, please, kindly share with me your comments. Thanks
Ben:
That’s not what Luke wrote.