Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[Bill the Cat]

You are not the arbiter of who's credible as a Catholic and who isn't.

You're going to tell me that Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, Raymond Brown, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, Brent Pitre, Luke Johnson, Marie-Emile Boismard, and almost every other Catholic teaching New Testament in the Western world today is not a credible Catholic? You're seriously insane if you believe that.

He follows some loon in Kansas who thinks he is the pope because his mom and dad voted for him.

[hansgeorg]

Matthew does not show signs of being an Aramaic translation into Greek. Even the most conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars do not hold to an Aramaic original for Matthew.

Was Pope St Pius X a Catholic or not?

If the translation was good, Matthews' Greek would not show signs of being a translation.

If Matthew made the translation himself, he can have picked LXX readings as the ones available in Greek, rather than making a translation himself of whatever he had used in Aramaic. Since the OT was mostly not Aramaic but Hebrew, he was free to use either an extant Aramaic text or an own translation of either the common Hebrew text of the LXX.

And I think that disposes of the main argument of ...

... Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, Raymond Brown, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, Brent Pitre, Luke Johnson, Marie-Emile Boismard, and almost every other Catholic teaching New Testament in the Western world today ...

If they don't believe St Matthew wrote the Gospel of St Matthew, they don't qualify as Catholics.

All Church Fathers who gave the question a clear mention give St Matthew.

Not believing consensus of Church Fathers = not being Catholic.

[psstein]

Was Pope St Pius X a Catholic or not?

If the translation was good, Matthews' Greek would not show signs of being a translation.

If Matthew made the translation himself, he can have picked LXX readings as the ones available in Greek, rather than making a translation himself of whatever he had used in Aramaic. Since the OT was mostly not Aramaic but Hebrew, he was free to use either an extant Aramaic text or an own translation of either the common Hebrew text of the LXX.

And I think that disposes of the main argument of ...

First, no, it doesn't. A good translation will still show hallmarks of being a translation. Greek is particularly distinctive in this respect. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, we know only in its Coptic edition. However, it shows clear signs of being originally written in Greek, not in Coptic.

Second, Pius X's edict was from the time of the modernist controversies. Pius XII stated that there was nothing wrong with the findings of modern Biblical criticism in the 1940s. The edict was called Divino Afflante Spiritu. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi...e-spiritu.html

If you want to deny Pius XII's encyclical, then that's up to you. However, you're setting up a double standard.

If they don't believe St Matthew wrote the Gospel of St Matthew, they don't qualify as Catholics.

All Church Fathers who gave the question a clear mention give St Matthew.

Not believing consensus of Church Fathers = not being Catholic.

Where does it say that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The traditional authorship is not a matter of dogma.

[hansgeorg]

First, no, it doesn't. A good translation will still show hallmarks of being a translation. Greek is particularly distinctive in this respect. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, we know only in its Coptic edition. However, it shows clear signs of being originally written in Greek, not in Coptic.

A translation which shows clear signs of having first been written in another language, that is a translation which is rather slavish about even idiomatic turns of phrase.

This is easily avoided if original author is fluent in both languages, knew exactly what he was saying in one and therefore being able to express it idiomatically in the other, and he translates himself.

Slavish translations - mine from Latin are very clear calques of the Latin construction - either come by fear of not being exact (no risk for that if you are translating your own text) or by fear other's won't believe you translated correctly, unless you allow them to check word for word, or by being done in too great a haste to look for the good idiomatic phrasing.

If all you have in experience of translations is expertise in how another text of that time is translated, I am sorry, as CSL said, you are blinded by exclusively Biblical studies instead of having a sufficient experience of letters in general.

Try Chapman's translation of the Homeric epics, and see if it shows traces of having been originally composed in Greek.

Second, Pius X's edict was from the time of the modernist controversies. Pius XII stated that there was nothing wrong with the findings of modern Biblical criticism in the 1940s. The edict was called Divino Afflante Spiritu. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi...e-spiritu.html

If you want to deny Pius XII's encyclical, then that's up to you. However, you're setting up a double standard.

1) I am queezy about Divino Afflante and in general about Pius XII/Pacelli. I have not finally rejected the claims of Michel Colin of having been Pope by divine election from 1950 to his death in 1974 (not sure he pushed the claim in any way after forced deposition in favour of Tremblay).

2) While being queezy about Divino Afflante, I also read it, and it does not say one can rely on conclusions such as denying Matthean authorship and that in two stages.

It says one may use the methods, not that one may use any and all conclusions purporting to have been reached by it.

Where does it say that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The traditional authorship is not a matter of dogma.

It says sth about that in the Council of Trent. I reject "KKK" as one could call it in Nordic languages.

My observations on Trent, with quote:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2014/0...de-canone.html