Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Catholic Education Resource Center ^ | 2003 | Fr. William Saunders

[Salvation]

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?    FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

---

I recently attended a religious education workshop, and the teacher said that the Gospels were written by the early Church community probably between the years 200 and 300, not by St. Mark, etc. I find this strange. If this is true, then the Gospels really don't tell us much about Jesus but seem more "made up" by later believers.

---

 
The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is "strange" indeed. However, we must be aware that a lot of "strange" things have emerged in some circles of modern Scripture scholarship, where scholars have isolated the texts of Sacred Scripture and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or the living Tradition of the Church. Sad to say, some Scripture scholars would have us believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that Jesus existed. Even the pagan Roman historians could tell us that. Such a bent in Scripture is misguided.

Therefore, to answer this question we must be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Catechism has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels.

The foundational premise is that "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up."

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." Therefore to suggest that the third century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the 12 Apostles. We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his though and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80. St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

Whether the actual saint wrote word-for-word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the Sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry.

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identify of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired, and as truly the Word of God.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Saunders, Rev. William. "Who Really Wrote the Gospels?" Arlington Catholic Herald.

This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR

Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.

[Havoc]

A person in my business can tell where a person who hasn’t had the experience could not.

Oh, no, I understand that there is a level of intuitiveness that goes with expertise of translating. I have a friend that graduated from IU Bloomington as a Japanese language major and now lives in Japan as a translator. I'm not unacquainted with the idea. What I'm saying is that by looking at a translated text, suspicion and fact are two different things. One person's suspicion can be another's tinfoil hat theory. When the difference cannot be determined between the two is when I cry foul. And given that if you were handed a document translated from one language to another 3 times, you couldn't discern without knowing what the prior two languages were. Not by looking at the translation. There are things that may appear to point in a given direction; but, in the end, all we would have is your opinion. In that instance, yours would be an educated guess as opposed to an uneducated guess. Which difference is useless in and of itself I'm sorry to say. That isn't to take anything away from your expertise; but, I won't grant that your expertise gives you license to make guesses into facts either. That is my stand and my point.

The argument being made is a good deal more substantial than “easy to translate.”

From your standpoint, maybe. From the standpoint of an outsider looking at the larger picture, it isn't any more substantial than that. Again. If I were to produce a third generation copy of something originally written in French that was later translated to Slavic, then to Chinese, I would place a large sum on the notion that you couldn't give the originating language without knowing in advance it was French. I know some German, some Russian, Greek.. So in studying language, though I'm not a translator, I do understand some of the points you're making about specific phraseology. I also know that doesn't sell on language over any other given the number of langauges and dialects that exist and have existed.

I think the best way to look at this is from a standpoint of science and method. Is there use for circumstantial evidence? Yes. To lead in a direction in search of facts. But not to substitute as facts.

I sat last night and watched a History Channel special on the book of Revelation that was about as big a farce as I think I've ever seen. The entire show was nothing but bad speculation; poor study over selective points, theorizing and treatment of theory as fact. Conclusions were drawn from other bad conclusions until in the end, a book of prophecy was demoted to nothing more than the whims and warnings of an old man from his own viewpoint. This is the folly of following one's nose and one's whims. If we're going to end up with a result that looks nothing like The beginning point with narry a fact to prop any of it up; one might as well just call it fiction. That is the same thing here. Guessing your favorite scenario is not science.

If an entire document looks like that, and it is attributed to a Japanese person, you don’t have to be Fellini to figure out what happened.

Ah, but then you have other factors to consider. A scribe who sat down and wrote in Greek but used Hebrew structure would produce the same result which you beg in your prior example. I'm seeing the forest while you look at a tree. All I'm trying to do is get you to step back and see the forest. Then put this whole contentious issue into perspective by noting that a certain sect has been guilty of both pushing fraud knowingly and of being duped unwittingly by it. I've noted this many times in such conversations and it is usually reliable in creating a stir among the guilty sect. It remains a fact that cannot be ignored. So when you inject fanciful guesses about something which you cannot prove, it just stirs the cauldron of contention. In absence of hard facts, guessing will not do.

True, but not to the point. Hackneyed as it is, we understand what is meant by the phrase

There are cultural things that do not translate. That's a first week foreign language 101 gimme. That isn't the case with entire languages.

Science and the scientific method are not the only ways of discovering or knowing things.

Possibly not; but, we're talking about establishing facts in the midst of an ongoing general debate in which fraud has been invoked prior. Guessing and trying to explain it away as proper methodology when the guess happens to be your favorite theory is not proper science nor is it foundational. It is at best, noting what your favorite fantasy is.

If we’re being honest, let’s note that these arguments are advanced in rebuttal of an argument that asserts the use of a particular *Greek* word for "rock" or "stone" renders one certain meaning impossible. The argument to which you refer holds not that there is only one word for rock in Aramaic, but that because Jesus was speaking in Aramaic the Greek is not definitive.

If we're being honest, this is not the way it is argued either in theory or in practice. The way that it is argued is that one lays forth the contention that Christ is noted as having spoken in Aramaic, therefore the entire passage being referenced must have been spoken in Aramaic. The course of the argument then takes the direction that in aramaic there is no distintion between Rock and stone and that, therefore, the difference so painstakingly preserved in the Greek doesn't exist. This is the way it has been argued countless times both in live debate and in published discourse. I am all too aware of it because I've shot it down countless times with the facts and always to a house that screatches in agony that such cannot be so "sola scriptura" etc.. I've had at least three occasions here at FR wherein the contention was made that the entire book was stated matter of factly as having been written in Aramaic and when they were called on the mat for it, threw a fit as though they'd been injured. The argument is purposedly misleading and mistates the facts on the ground in either case in order to prop up something that cannot be defended. Greek is a very picky and precise language And the structure of the particular phrase is gender modified to support the difference intoned in the words used. Throwing that on top of the actual facts re Aramaic pretty well settles that argument.

How about if you took a group of 100 Americans.. would that be scientific?

That's a poll, not a search to establish a fact. If you want to establish an opinion, it's great. It doesn't establish a fact. And the aim of Science is factual certainty. Therefore in a realm where one posits a notion that cannot be tested, the onus lies upon the one

And I have increasingly less patience with people who insist that the scientific method is the sole key to knowledge.

I didn't say sole key. I said it's the rule in science for establishing fact. If it can't be tested and proven true it isn't a fact. And facts are the things on which we decide issues that are otherwise unresolveable - not popular guesses.

Among the things that science has not yet come to understand very well are the human mind and the workings of consciousness.

The human mind has failed to grasp that facts are facts. Theories are theories. And guesses are guesses. The three are cleanly and clearly discernable from one another. And this clarity is what gives us a method of differentiating between Doctors with cures and hucksters with dilute whiskey curealls which cure nothing. In fantasy we can call our opinions or wishes a fact. In the real world, only real facts will do. This is the way things work.

[Havoc]

Oh, yes, I'm well aware of the heresay that is oft injected into these arguments. I'm also aware of both the source and said source's history of manufacturing heresay to bolster it's claims when nothing else did. The litany is long and distinguished - or perhaps I should say infamous.
This is what makes such debates so contentious in the first place. This is to say nothing of Eusebius' reputation. This is why I largely ignore heresay evidence unless it can be backed up in a testable fashion. When Eusebius is put under the microscope, among others, the stories tend not to hold up. But then historians tend to view his works as romantic fictions.

[dsc]

“And given that if you were handed a document translated from one language to another 3 times”

You are complicating the model beyond my assertions, and beyond the assertions of the author of Daijal’s article.

We are dealing not with three translations, but with a single translation, and that when both possible languages are known. I used Japanese and English in my arguments, and in the other case the two languages are Hebrew and Greek.

I quite agree that three translations could completely obscure clues to the original language, but that’s not relevant to this situation.

“but, in the end, all we would have is your opinion. In that instance, yours would be an educated guess as opposed to an uneducated guess.”

What I tried but apparently failed to convey in my last note is that when a person makes judgments that are consistently correct, that is not guessing—even if we don’t understand how he’s doing it and couldn’t do it ourselves. The *fact* of the accuracy of his judgments *proves* that there is more than random chance involved, and the higher his accuracy rate the more compelling that proof.

“I won't grant that your expertise gives you license to make guesses into facts either.”

When I see that a text is a translation from a Japanese manuscript, I’m not guessing, I am using knowledge and judgment to discern a fact. None of my co-workers would find it odd that I can do this, any more than I think it odd that they can.

“From the standpoint of an outsider looking at the larger picture”

I dispute that you are looking at the larger picture. From my standpoint, you are denying an empirically demonstrated reality: under the circumstances I have described, an expert *can* tell if a text is a translation from a known second language.

“a third generation copy”

No fair altering the conditions of the experiment in mid-course. We’re talking about second-generation copies, where both languages are known.

“I think the best way to look at this is from a standpoint of science and method.”

I, on the other hand, accept the empirically demonstrated reality that, under the circumstances I have described, an expert *can* tell if a text is a translation from a known second language, and therefore find the claims made for a Hebrew original to be credible and convincing. (Just for the sake of clarity, let me say that I don’t think this evidence settles the matter beyond any possibility of error.)

“But not to substitute as facts.”

Once again, it is a fact that an expert *can* tell if a text is a translation from a known second language.

“The entire show was nothing but bad speculation”

Well, I speculate that they started with their conclusion and worked back from there, so I’m not surprised.

“Guessing your favorite scenario is not science.”

Although I’m not a scientist, it is an interest. As far as I know, I’m the only person ever to take bone-crusher organic chemistry as an elective, for recreation, at CU Boulder. I have a copy of “The Molecular Biology of the Cell” on my shelves, and occasionally take it down for a bit of enjoyment.

However, the scientific method simply cannot be used either to prove or disprove mystical experiences. Nonetheless, if a person has a mystical experience, he is justified in regarding the existence of such phenomena as an empirically demonstrated fact. Many who have not had such an experience deny that it is empirically demonstrated, because it has not been empirically demonstrated *to them*. Nonetheless, the ultimate reality in this case is that it *is* empirically demonstrated and the denier is merely ignorant of that *fact*.

I know that, when I am able to discern that a text is a translation, I’m not guessing. From my standpoint, the disagreement arises because you deny that this is possible.

“A scribe who sat down and wrote in Greek but used Hebrew structure would produce the same result which you beg in your prior example.”

Occam’s razor must be applied here.

Is there any reason to posit, or even suspect, that a human being would do such a thing? Is there any reason to suspect that a human being would do any of the things that might provide alternative explanations? The simplest hypothesis that doesn’t require us to make anything up is that when a text has all the earmarks of a translation from a known second language, it is just that.

“a certain sect has been guilty of both pushing fraud knowingly”

Which sect would that be?

“So when you inject fanciful guesses”

Let’s get scientific here, for just a second.

I say an expert can. You say an expert can’t. I am an expert, who might be suspected of having specific knowledge. What are your scientific grounds for asserting, without having experimentally tested the validity of my assertion, that it isn’t true?

You’re accusing me of “fanciful guesses,” but as my assertion is based on years of empirical observation and yours on…sorry, but from here it looks like it’s not based on very much at all…I’m actually being more “scientific” than you are here.

“about something which you cannot prove”

I am confident that I *can* prove that an expert can tell if a text is a translation from a known second language. I see it all the time.

“In absence of hard facts”

It’s said that “it ain’t bragging if you can do it.” Similarly, if you can do it, that is a hard fact.

“that, therefore, the difference so painstakingly preserved in the Greek doesn't exist.”

When Saint Jerome did his translation, he had available to him many resources lost to us, including large pools of people for whom Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek were first languages. He went to great pains to consult with them, including Talmudic scholars and others with specialized knowledge. He got it right.

“in order to prop up something that cannot be defended.”

I just did. Saint Jerome had available to him resources long since lost. Where our opinions differ from his, we are wrong and not he.

Can you cite a source for the number of words in Aramaic meaning “rock” and “stone,” please? (Unrelenting search for the truth and all that, what?)

“The argument is purposedly misleading”

Even if you are correct on that point, I don’t think you have grounds for thinking that the people on the other side of the argument are intentionally lying.

“That's a poll, not a search to establish a fact.”

You must have misunderstood. What I described was a scientific experiment. What would be determined is whether an expert can distinguish a translated text from an original-language text, and whether he can do that with greater consistency than non-experts. Depending on the level of difficulty involved, one might also find that experts can do this with great consistency, while non-experts can’t do it at all.

“And the aim of Science is factual certainty.”

Interesting. My aim is to find as much truth and discard as much error as I possibly can, using all the tools at my disposal.

“If it can't be tested and proven true it isn't a fact.”

Well, you see, therein lies the problem. It isn’t a fact for science, but harking back to my remarks on mystical experiences above, we see that there can be entire classes of phenomena that can never be “facts” for science but which are, nonetheless, facts.

“In the real world, only real facts will do.”

Oh, quite. And here is the forest that *you* are failing to see for the trees: the scientific method is inadequate to deal with all the categories of “real fact” that there are.

[dsc]

"But then historians tend to view his works as romantic fictions."

Western Civilization's university history departments have for decades been enclaves of hard-core liberal, revisionist, deconstructionist malice and bigotry.

I consider a reputation such as you say Eusebius enjoys to be a recommendation, not an indictment.

[Havoc]

No fair altering the conditions of the experiment in mid-course. We’re talking about second-generation copies, where both languages are known.

Actually, that is the situation being claimed. I am merely throwing in the obvious in attempt to keep it honest - forest vs. tree.

Is there any reason to posit, or even suspect, that a human being would do such a thing?

Is there any reason to posit that a man would rob a store and then look right into the camera knowing he will be identified and caught? Yet it happens. Occam's razor is a lazy scientist's excuse not to think through a problem and take the easy way out of it by Assuming the result instead of discovering it. It is the seeking for a believeable answer rather than the factual one.

The simplest hypothesis that doesn’t require us to make anything up is that when a text has all the earmarks of a translation from a known second language, it is just that.

Ah, but by discounting the posibility, you are making up the notion that it isn't possible when it stands readily as a viable possibility. Again, it ceases to be a search for truth and becomes a pursuit of convenience. Human beings do not behave for convenience. Fact is, if humans fit occams razor in their behavior, we probably wouldn't need science to begin with. Nor would we need books to explain women to men and men to women.

(Just for the sake of clarity, let me say that I don’t think this evidence settles the matter beyond any possibility of error.)

And that is the entire point of the exchange! Given the possibility of error, one cannot stand by and guess and pretend it makes no difference. From that standpoint, the argument is over.

Look, bottom line is that the truth is the end being sought. And when the truth lies shrouded in myth, it is not proper to step forward and claim speculation as truth knowing that it could ultimately be a lie. Why? Because it goes to credibility and it further runs the risk of giving people bad information. We spend our entire lives acting on information. If what we are acting on is bad information then we waste our time. In physical life that isn't such a bad thing though it is still waste and folly. When it comes to spiritual matters where one's eternal soul could be put on the line, then it is manifestly wrong to play such games. The Roman church is still taking it on the chin for Gallileo - and rightly so. One would think a lesson might have been learned. But arguments such as this one prove that none has been.

When Saint Jerome did his translation, he had available to him many resources lost to us, including large pools of people for whom Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek were first languages. He went to great pains to consult with them, including Talmudic scholars and others with specialized knowledge. He got it right.

I believe Jerome also states that Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years.. Something that most seem to want to run away from like the plague at this point as there is no 25 year period in his life when he could have done it and fit the history written in scripture blamelessly. It's a big topic; but, if Jerome can get one thing wrong... This is the problem with quoting these guys endlessly and trying to rely on them. Eusebius is guilty of defrauding us on any number of occasions and this has been proven. This is why I have no problem knocking down Eusebius. When you pick a few apples off a tree and they all happen to be poison, you start asking if good fruit comes from a poisoned tree. Scripture says no. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. IE, once credibility is compromised, the source isn't trustworthy unless what he says can be vetted. Given that Eusebius chronicles things reported nowhere else and that cannot in anyway be confirmed, his lying tongue forgoes the possibility of taking anything he says at face value. And this is why he is regarded as a romantic fiction writer - not because he is religious; but, because he lied and defrauded himself in his own works while presuming to write a Christian history.

Anyway, I'm late getting to bed, will consider continuing this later; but, not sure there is a point left.

[dsc]

"The Roman church is still taking it on the chin for Gallileo - and rightly so."

No, the Roman Church is taking it on the chin for a distorted version of the Gallileo incident. Even where there may be blame to be laid, that is tantamount to blaming you personally for all Negro slavery in North and South America. Hardly rightful.

[dsc]

"Actually, that is the situation being claimed. I am merely throwing in the obvious in attempt to keep it honest - forest vs. tree."

No, you are changing the conditions entirely, from one translation where both languages are known, to two translations where only the last of three languages is known.

Sorry, but I fail to discern the honesty in that.

[Destro]

Bump to you and right on.

Greek was the lingua Franca of the day.

Modern example? Just like non English speaking pop groups who sing in English.

[Destro]

Any such "cute" translations that you think originated in Aramaic before written in Greek could have been the author's attempt to translate a word in his head from his native Aramaic language to the only language he would have considered writting the Gospel in - Greek.

Why write in a language (Aramaic) no one read in?

[Destro]

A scribe who sat down and wrote in Greek but used Hebrew structure would produce the same result which you beg in your prior example.

You said it better than I did above.

[dsc]

"Why write in a language (Aramaic) no one read in?"

Somebody must have, or it wouldn't have a written form. Further, if you're taking notes and preparing a manuscript, it's quite natural to do it in your own native language.

If I were writing something for a Japanese audience, I'd prepare it in English first.

Actually, though, since the Apostles were all Jews, I find the argument for Hebrew originals to be more compelling.

[dsc]

"A scribe who sat down and wrote in Greek but used Hebrew structure would produce the same result which you beg in your prior example."
"You said it better than I did above."

Speaking from experience again, a native speaker of of Hebrew who wrote in Greek would commit infelicities of the same type made by a native speaker of Hebrew translating a Hebrew manuscript into Greek.

However, a native speaker of Greek translating a Hebrew manuscript into Greek would not. His translation would sound odd exactly to the degree to which he sacrificed natural-sounding Greek for the sake of remaining faithful to the manuscript.

Further, it would sound odd in *different ways* than the writing of the native speaker of Hebrew. There are mistakes and infelicities in English that are made often but only by Japanese writing in or translating into English, and never by native speakers.

I have asserted that I can tell whether an English text is a translation from a Japanese original or not (except under limited circumstances described in a previous note), and that I can tell whether the translator was a native speaker of English or Japanese.

If you find that incredible, and frankly I think that unreasonable, then there's nothing more to say.

[Destro]

Aramaic was not a literary language. It was used for book keeping and the like as far as I recall. Hebrew was also not used widely by the population beyond religion.

The Gospels were designed for wide spread distribution and would have been written in Greek for the purpose. Even if Hebrew/Aramaic was used as the language of the "rough draft first copies" - the intent was to translate it into Greek regardless. I am willing to accept that the "authors" may have "bullet pointed" in Hebrew/Aramaic but only to help in the writting/translating the Gospels in Greek.

Having the Gospels in Greek does not mean they were not intended for a Jewish audience. In fact having the Gospels in Greek would have allowed a greater diffusion of the Gospels among Jews, the only language most Jews could read-even if they spoke Hebrew/Aramiac. Yes it possible to read only in a language other than your own while you can only speak your native tongue and not be able to read in it. Modern India is such an example.

[Destro]

Like I said I am willing to accept that the "authors" may have "bullet pointed" in Hebrew/Aramaic but only to help in the writting/translating the Gospels in Greek.

The gospel was a genre of Greek literature of that time. For the authors of the four books of the New Testament to use such a Greek langauge genre proves this for me.

I think that is were our argument lies. To me it does not matter how much of this language or that language went into the writting of the Gospels. It is the mind set behind the writting. The mindest is to write about the life of Jesus in the genre of a gospel (evangelion in Greek) which was a literary genre borrowed from Hellenistic civilization. We are also part of this Hellenistic civilization even though we speak no Greek - we live in the style and think in the manner of the Greeks.

[Havoc]

No, the Roman Church is taking it on the chin for a distorted version of the Gallileo incident.

Gallileo was persecuted by Rome for his theories. His theories turned out to be right and Rome has been telling it's handwringing tale every since trying to recover from the mud on it's face. Just as Rome was responsible for the deaths in the inquisition but engages in handwringing in attempt to place the blame on "civil" authorities for the deaths. The one thing anyone can be sure of is that if Rome is made to look bad by their actions, there is someone they can find to blame it on other than themselves. The Gallileo incident is what gets anyone associating themselves with christianity labled a "flat earther". One need only look to Rome's example elsewhere to judge who's history of the matter is more accurate. The only thing I can find that kept Valla from going before the inquisition was too much light on the subject, else Valla would have followed in Gallileo's footsteps or worst. I have yet to hear anyone handwring over Valla; but, the handwringing over what he exposed... incredible.

[Havoc]

No, you are changing the conditions entirely

Changing the conditions would assume that you know what the conditions actually are to the exclusion of all others. This again is the point being made - that you don't know what the actual conditions are. You're stating your premise as support for itself, that is logically in error.

[Havoc]

The whole thing cropped up over trying to defeat the differences expressed in the Greek in two words "Petra" which means literally Mountain, Bedrock (.. massive immoveable and grounded rock.) And the word Petros which is the term used when referencing small ungrounded rock - boulders, loose stones, carving stones. The argument they intend to make is that there is no difference in the words but there is - furthermore that difference is preserved in the scriptures by the apostles. Petra is used in just the way I've described in every instance it is mentioned and is only used to otherwise reference Christ. I have done this word study before and it is easily duplicateable using a concordance.

Greek is a state of being language. The states of being are important in and of themselves because of what they convey. This is why there are so many versions of the idea of Love expressed in Greek. Each form has a specific meaning distinguishable from the others just as each form of the state of being relating to rock types has a specific distinguishable meaning. It's a specific language and hailed for being so specific. The language was designed to be knitpicky and it stands as a stumbling stone to those who would attempt to distort meaning. I am not sorry LOL.

[dsc]

"You're stating your premise as support for itself"

No such thing.

The manuscripts we have are in Greek. That identifies one language. There are two possibilities for another: Aramaic and Hebrew.

An expert can examine the Greek for indications that it is a translation from either language.

Your apparent aversion even to examining that possibility is hardly scientific.

[dsc]

Here's a much more accurate version.

...Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:


"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as "a noble and generous reception". The pope now reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo's disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisition.

After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

Finally, the famous "E pur si muove", supposed to have been uttered by Galileo, as he rose from his knees after renouncing the motion of the earth, is an acknowledged fiction, of which no mention can be found till more than a century after his death, which took place 8 January 1642, the year in which Newton was born.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm