Are you implying that Jesus and all of the Apostles spoke exclusively Hebrew?
Paul, for example, was a free-born Roman citizen of Tarsus, the capital of the province of Cilicia in Asia Minor, and as Paul himself says, no small city. We know for a fact that he spoke Greek (Acts 21:37) and Aramaic (v. 40) in addition to Hebrew.
how is it that you and others here believe that suddenly their accounts appeared on paper in the Greek language with no possible intermediary in written Hebrew
Unless you assume that Jesus and all the apostles were unilingual and writing to an exclusively Hebrew-speaking audience, then there is no mystery about the appearance of a Greek NT. Since at least two of the NT authors were educated men (Luke, a physician, and Paul, a rabbi) and it is not beyond the pale that the remainder were also bilingual or even trilingual, I reject your assumption.
Also, who said anything about "suddenly"?
What you are claiming defies all logic
Only if you assume (I don't) that your assumption is the only logical option, which clearly it isn't.
(I)t needs to be said there is a mountain of scholarship showing Matthean authorship of the Greek manuscript we call the book of Matthew. Indeed, the Grecian book of Matthew shows unmistakable internal evidence of its authenticity by the disciple of Jesus.
In an attempt to make the scholarly data more accessible, we note the fact there are numerous statements within the Greek text itself where the narrative tells us the meaning of a Hebrew term. If the writing originated in Hebrew, an ongoing occasional translation would not be necessary. In other words, if Matthew (or the larger body of the New Testament) originated in Aramaic or Hebrew, it would be unnecessary to tell the reader what a particular Hebrew word or phrase means.
It is only because the writing did originate in Greek that an occasional explanation is needed, and such interpretive statements are provided in the Scripture itself. Thus, we see several examples of these ongoing translation notes. For instance, in Matthew's first chapter, the disciple cites the prophecy from Isaiah concerning how a virgin will conceive, and a male child will come forth who is to be called Immanuel. Isaiah wrote:
When Matthew quotes this prophecy, he writes:
In the Shem Tov version of Matthew, which was supposedly composed in Hebrew, the verse also tells us the name Immanuel, means God with us in Hebrew. Once again, if the book was actually written in Hebrew, there would be no reason to tell the reader the meaning of the name, for the name Immanuel is Hebrew.
It should also be noted that this type of internal evidence also discredits the supposed Aramaic version of the entire New Testament called the Peshitta, as well as other pseudo-Matthews forged by Antichrist Jews in the middle ages. Thus, it's significant that Shem Tov's supposed Hebrew Matthew follows the Aramaic Peshitta, in its ongoing interpretation of certain Hebrew words.
In short, these writings were drawn from the Greek originals, and it never occurred to the forgers who claimed their abomination as the originals, to edit out the ongoing translation notes. This is the wooden stake in the heart of these wicked counterfeits. Indeed, we see the same interpretive notes occur in the writings of all four Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and even John. For instance, in the book of John we see the following:
In the supposedly "original" Aramaic New Testament known as the Peshitta, we see the text follows a similar phrasing:
This ongoing translation is also found in the Greek manuscripts of Luke's work, The Acts Of The Apostles, and once again, the counterfeit Aramaic "original" is exposed as a fraud. Luke writes:
Since the supposed Semitic original also translates the name within the text itself, it's clear the Aramaic is actually a corrupted translation of the Greek original:
This means that, regarding the Shem Tov abomination, the claim that Matthew's Gospel would not conform to the Greek linguistic culture of his time, and would, therefore, be written in Hebrew, is fallacious.
Literally hundreds of experts have written commentaries on the book of Matthew, and there is no doubt whatsoever that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek. Indeed, some scholars have deciphered errors in the Eusebian notation of the "tradition" that Matthew ever "published" a version of his Gospel in Hebrew.
But no evidence of him writing in it. And in regard to the remainder of your post, there is no evidence that any of the other apostles could even speak Greek. Sure, anything is possible I suppose but common sense tells us they would have first written down their accounts in their native tongue; one they were intimately familiar with. More so since these accounts happened in a land were Hebrew was the primary language.
In any regard, they certainly did not think in Greek, therefore everything they saw and heard had to be translated by someone(s) fluent enough in the Greek language that they were able to "coin" words and phrases to match Hebrew words and phrases as closely as possible. And even then, the Pagan characteristics of the Greek language limits the ability to completely convey the message from Hebrew as we've seen.
Having been raised in a one language country, most Americans don't really have a clue about how multi-lingual the rest of the world is.
Almost everyone I know who is an immigrant or has been overseas, reports that it is not uncommon at all to know a minimum of two languages fluently, sometimes three. Or two fluently and three or more at a conversational level.
Now, of course, I have no doubt that Jesus could have fluently spoken any language He chose. But I would not be surprised at all to know that even the Jews in Israel in His day knew more than Hebrew and Aramaic.
I just had one of those Aha moments. I've read numerous papers that the Hebrews despised the Greek language, and I realized at least some proof of that may be in Acts:
21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Acts 22 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Maybe some of you know of other instances, but certainly this shows the authors of those papers are accurate.
Here is a little of what I'm talking about:
Jesus would have spoken Hebrew because the Rabbis and Pharisees could hardly be expected to understand the parables if Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek, because the parables were all based on Hebrew analogies.
The Jews considered Hebrew to be a Holy Language and every other language to be pagan. As such, the Jewish writers of the New Testament would never have allowed their sacred writings to be in a pagan language. This is important to note, because many of the teachings of Jesus are based on Old Testament scriptures which were wholly written in Hebrew and sometimes Jesus quoted in the Hebrew language itself. If Jesus had ever tried to convince Israel He was the Jewish Messiah while preaching and quoting from the Tanakh in a pagan language, He would have lost all credibility immediately. Jesus was called Rabbi many times. If Jesus had preached in Greek or Aramaic instead of Hebrew, it would have completely undermined His credibility as a Jewish Rabbi, because Rabbis spoke Hebrew as they still do today. No Jew would have accepted Him. It is inconceivable to think that the high priests and the dedicated Jews spoke any other language than Hebrew in the synagogues. When Jesus preached in the synagogue, He would have spoken in Hebrew or He would have been thrown out for speaking in a pagan language.