Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

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

[ArrogantBustard]

What's really funny, in the ironic sense, is that in this 21^st Century, we have Protestants and Notaprotestants (primarily of the "evangelical" variety) at once promoting the literal, scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins (among other things) and berating the Catholic Church for 'persecuting' Galileo.

[dsc]

You're right, that is ironic.

[dsc]

16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't get the Greek characters to display, but I find that both petra and petros are used in the Bible. I also find Petros cited as a "Proper Name Masculine."

Frankly, I can't discern exactly what point you're trying to make, given that petros is both a proper name and a word for rock.

[Havoc]

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.

The manuscript we have is in Greek. This is the only factual thing that exists in the argument. As you said earlier, it could be (solution x) but you can't say that to the exclusion of the possibility of error. The next issue is the verbiage used in any proposed original. That is the heart of this claim to begin with. Whether you establish that it is probable that it was written in Aramaic prior, that does not resolve the issue of the language used. Only an original manuscript can resolve that. Absent that, the Greek language must stand. Again, forest vs. tree.

I have no aversion to examining possibility. That is one thing. The aversion I have is to making statements of fact where no facts are establishable. The specific here is the notion that there may have been a prior Aramaic text. This is not proven; but, a possibility -unlikely however it may be. The question then begged is the big picture - the language of the prior text. This is not a given. Nor can it be handled as such. And absent the original text, the Greek must stand on it's own. That is the sticking point on the other side. This whole notion comes up as a matter of wishful and hopeful thinking that they can justify saying whatever they will about the prior text without it being present.

As a matter of Principle this is the stand that must be made. And this is the danger that arises when people start toying around with assuming facts instead of discovering them.

[Havoc]

Yes, I've read the catholic version before.

[Havoc]

In order to display the symbols, you must use the "symbol" font face, thus: abc petros petra

The words are both used which I've said before. Rock in greek has multiple words to represent differing kinds just as in Chaldee and Aramaic. Chaldee has more than aramaic; but, then Chaldee is the root from whence comes Aramaic. Lithos is pebble sized, petros is larger still loose rock, And Petra is the general term for masses of rock - large masses of rock, thus it's primary definition as cliff, mountain, bedrock, etc. These are states of being just as expressed in the language. One word for loving the pet, one word for loving the wife. One word for little rocks, (lithos), One for bigger rocks and boulders, petros, and one for Massive rocks like cliffs, sepelchres, mountains and bedrock. States of being small, medium, large. This is the way they were defined and this is the way they were used by the Apostles. I'll have to wait till I get back home to post the textbook definitions.

I might also note, that petros is a specific term denoting size of rock. Rock is an english generic that can be used to describe any type of stone from bedrock to tiny gravel. It lacks specificity where the greek words do not. This is why Greek is such a good language to work with. One can't hide as easily behind generalities in hopes of obscurity. One is forced to alter the language or lie about it to gain any pretense. Here we find others trying to obfuscate using the generality and vagueness of another language because the Greek won't allow it.

[Claud]

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.

Well, those historians are plain silly. People who write romantic fictive histories tend not to rely on long passages wholesale than can easily (or could have easily in the 4th century) been checked. Call Eusebius hearsay and untestable and you're dooming most of history--try working in my field: Native American history. You might as well say St. Luke's Gospel was hearsay.

Regardless, as the article showed there were plenty of other ancient authors saying the same thing about a "Hebrew" original. Unless anyone gives me a compelling reason NOT to believe it, I would prefer the word of someone much closer in time to the original source than some Johnny-come-lately skeptic today.

[Destro]

But the writing style is of the Greek gospel genre. So what do you plan to prove by this language game?

[Destro]

This is why Greek is such a good language to work with.

Which is why scientists/medicos etc still use it.

[Claud]

Actually, the existence of a Hebrew/Aramaic original for Matthew does not affect the main argument about Petros being a Greek translation of an Aramaic name. We have the infallible word of Scripture testifying specifically that Peter's name was given in Aramaic, whence it was translated into Greek. To wit:

John 1:42: "And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."

That Greek word "interpreted" = "ermeneuetai" and it just as easily could be rendered "to translate." Petros is a translation of the name that Christ gave to Peter: "Kephas".

[Havoc]

You're right. And I don't see anyone contesting that, so I'm not sure of the point you think you're making. petros and petra are two states of being that are inequalities. Cephas or Kephas does directly translate to petros - not to Petra. Thus the difference in the words. Thus the difference in the sentence structure which you'll note properly modifies the greek gender of the two words, etc.

[onedoug]

"Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to Me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me. In pouring this ointment on My body she has done it to prepare Me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her." (Matthew 26:10-13 RSV)

Might Mark have been a woman?

[dsc]

"That Greek word "interpreted" = "ermeneuetai" and it just as easily could be rendered "to translate." Petros is a translation of the name that Christ gave to Peter: "Kephas".

Thank you. I saw that in the Douay a couple of days ago, but it didn't register properly.

So, what is the proper English rendering of Kephas?

[Claud]

Cephas or Kephas does directly translate to petros - not to Petra.

I'm curious as to what's your evidence for saying that? I'm not a Semiticist, but from what I've heard the semantic range of Aramaic Kephas would include any and all of those putative variations.

My point is as follows. To say that Christ was making some kind of theological point between petros "pebble of Peter"/petra "rock of faith" loses all of its force when Christ actually named him "Kephas". Far more consonant with John 1:42 is that the gender of petra was simply revised to reflect the gender of Peter when his name was translated to Greek. And really the whole rest of the passage describes a grant of authority to a single person being addressed: "soi".

[Claud]

So, what is the proper English rendering of Kephas?

You mean the translation? I'm not sure--I don't know Aramaic :). But from what little I've heard from other exegetes, "Kephas" is the equivalent of our rather generic "rock".

[dsc]

“The manuscript we have is in Greek. This is the only factual thing that exists in the argument.”

No, it isn’t. I have asserted that an expert judgment on indications that a text is a translation from a known second language rise to the level of fact, and that this can be demonstrated. Your continued insistence to the contrary, absent any evidence to support your contention, is hardly scientific.

“As you said earlier, it could be (solution x) but you can't say that to the exclusion of the possibility of error.”

The scientific method does not call on us to absolutely reject everything that cannot be demonstrated “to the exclusion of the possibility of error.” Science often adopts hypotheses when scientists only feel 90% or 70% sure of them. Based on the article Daijal posted, I’d rank the chances that at least parts of the Gospels are translations from a Hebrew original somewhere in that range.

“Whether you establish that it is probable that it was written in Aramaic prior, that does not resolve the issue of the language used. Only an original manuscript can resolve that.”

Actually, references to originals in other languages would also be accepted, just as it is accepted that other ancient authors produced works of which no copy survives. Further, it would be foolish to disregard a 90% certainty and insist on an alternative hypothesis on the grounds that 90% is not 100%.

“Absent that, the Greek language must stand.”

There is nothing implicit in the survival of Greek MSs that necessarily shows the surviving texts to be the originals. There are other ancient texts of which only later translations survive, while we know that there were earlier versions that did not. It is therefore illogical and unscientific to say, “Because these MSs survived, they must be the originals,” or to reject evidence for alternative hypotheses on the grounds that the only surviving MSs are Greek.

“Again, forest vs. tree.”

Ease up on the self-congratulation, okay? From my standpoint, it appears that you are taking a narrow viewpoint and excluding evidence from consideration on specious grounds.

“The aversion I have is to making statements of fact where no facts are establishable.”

You are excluding from consideration facts that I know can be established.

“The specific here is the notion that there may have been a prior Aramaic text.”

Or Hebrew. As previously noted, Hebrew was the language of religion even among Aramaic-speaking Jews. It seems entirely plausible that the Apostles, who were Jews convinced that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, would write in their sacred language.

“And absent the original text, the Greek must stand on its own.”

As I discussed above, that assertion cannot be supported either logically or through evidence. The fact that only Greek MSs survived hardly proves that no other texts existed. Further, the survival of a prior version of an ancient text is not the only evidence accepted to show that a prior version once existed. And finally, you are rejecting an entire category of evidence on what appear to me invalid grounds.

You may very well be right. I don’t consider the proposition that the Gospels were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew to be proven. However, you have failed to make your case that they were not.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html

[missyme]

Why did you say that?

[dsc]

I seem to have rambled on at some length. To which of my remarks do you refer?

[Claud]

Thanks for the great Tim Staples link--very informative stuff. In my Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon it does indeed say "petros, a stone, distinguished from petra [a rock]". But I notice that the two quoted passages are Homer, which is very early Greek, and Euripides which is what...classic Attic? It seems likely to this armchair amateur that in the koine Greek of the NT such distinction could well have been obliterated--and apparently these two actual scholars are saying that flat out.

[dsc]

"It seems likely to this armchair amateur that in the koine Greek of the NT such distinction could well have been obliterated--and apparently these two actual scholars are saying that flat out."

Yes, and there is also the question of the puns: the one Jesus made in Aramaic, which the writer of the Greek tried to preserve in that language.