Problem is, Robert, you don't seem to be interested in Church history or biblical history, as such... you approach them both with a hermeneutic of suspicion.
So, you are not really interested in Church history, but in poking holes in Church history. Anything that tends to support the Christian view of history you reject as somehow tainted or spurious.
In the words of Dana Carvey's Church Lady, "How conve-e-e-enient...".

One more thing about Papias. Nothing of his works have survived except through Eusebius and much of Eusebius' own works cannot be trusted ...see where his chapter says deceiving is ok if it furthers the religion.

"Papias, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, about the year 130 AD wrote: "Matthew, indeed, composed the sayings in the Hebrew language.""
If Jesus was crucified in 33AD and John the Apostle was his contemporary, just how old is was the apostle when he died that he could have had a disciple living a full one hundred years later?
There are many more scholars who believe that the Gospels were written no earlier than 70AD and Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark.
There will be lots of hearsay from the ancients in history but that does not necessarily mean we can take them at their word.
"Yeah, I can see how it would have been logical for the Romans to hire a tax-collector with whom they couldn't communicate."
Would they not have to speak Latin? Anyhow, as long as the Romans could collect money I doubt that language would have been a problem.
I just want to comment that everytime I debate this issue with a Christian apologist, they almost always refer me to read a book like they could not be bothered to counter the arguments themselves. However, I will check and see if I can get a hold of this book.
Thanks
Robert

Catholic Answers magazine, "This Rock", has an article by Karl Keating in the March 1994 issue about the dating of the Gospels. There are scholars who conclude that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were all originally written in either Hebrew of Aramaic, and that all four of the Gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. (www.catholic.com)

St. Jerome, in the 5th Century, wrote that he possessed a copy of Matthew Aramaic.

"It is also pure speculation that Matthew knew Greek."
Yeah, I can see how it would have been logical for the Romans to hire a tax-collector with whom they couldn't communicate.

Papias, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, about the year 130 AD wrote: "Matthew, indeed, composed the sayings in the Hebrew language."
"And the Presbyter (John) said this also: 'When Mark became the interpreter of Peter, he wrote down accurately whatever he rembered, though not in order, of the words and deed of the Lord'."
Quoted by Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I".

Robert, I recommend to you Dr. Warren Carroll's book, "The History of Christendom, Part I: The Founding of Christendom", published by Christendom Press. Dr. Carroll is the head of the History Department at Christendom College. He is an excellent historian. His books are copiously footnoted. He is an excellent writer. His books are the kind you can't put down.

Which Christian writers of the second century wrote that Matthew wrote in Aramaic? The Gospels are first mentioned in the forms we now have them (ie Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) only in 180AD. If Matthew was writing in 42AD, why do the early Church fathers not quote from him? Clement refers to nothing of who Matthew was or what he wrote. Neither does Justin Martyr? Justin was living in the middle of the second century so by your dating of Matthew, he should have known who Matthew was and directly referenced him but he does not.
It is also pure speculation that Matthew knew Greek and had written in Aramaic since none of his works have ever been found had they existed. Many scholars now agree that both Matthew and Luke copied large parts of Mark and embellished their own versions. It is also suspicious that Matthew refers to himself in the third person as though he is not personally involved in the story.
Greek may have been the common language however Aramaic was the language of the area for Jesus and his followers. Curious that there is no known Aramaic scriptures.
Actually Paul refers to other people in his area preaching another "Christ" and cautions his followers not to stray down their path. This is bizarre given that Jesus had just recently died and resurrected. Simply mentioning Christ should have put everyone on the same page at that time.
Another problem with Nazareth not being mentioned at all in the Old Testament:
"Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though they wrote most of the epistles before the gospels. "
Food for thought!!!

Ah, here's another person who's read the same thing--the first combox'er on this page:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives...
quote:
I had read a newspaper (it was realy printed on paper - I held it in my hands!) account of this row and the reporter made the observation that the plaintiff was using this as an entree to appeal, which he hoped woudl eventually come before an E.U. Court in hopes that said court would take a step toward criminalizing belief in Christ - that is, if the belief is held as anything more than mere superstition!

I read a report elsewhere when this first broke out, saying that Cascioli was counting on his case to get thrown out, so that he could take his cause one step higher. I don't remember the details. But having the case thrown out will enable him to do what he's planned to do all along and file some other kind of complaint that'll have more impact than this court case would have had. It might have been the Curt Jester who linked to the story I read; not sure. We may not have heard the last of this. :-/

"People are now looking at the real proof in the historical context of a real Jesus and most have found it wanting."
Most people who find the evidence wanting are the ones who ignore the Church and biblical history in their search.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

I don't know what you mean by a wide divergence of Christianity by St. Paul's time. The only "divergence" that I am aware of is that some Jewish Christians were telling Gentile Christians that they had to observe the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. About the year 49, the Church met at the Council of Jerusalem, and reiterated St. Peter's ruling of about 10 years earlier that Gentile Christians did not have to obey Mosaic Law. That seems to have settled the matter.
The Council of Nicaea met in the year 325, over 3 centuries later.

Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire. Most of the New Testament letters were addressed to Gentile Christians. Christian writers of the early second century wrote that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, probably about the year 42. It was later translated into Greek, likely by St. Matthew himself, who, in view of his prior occupation (tax collector), was almost certainly fully bi-lingual.
St. Mark's Gospel may have originally been written in Hebrew. His Greek grammar and word order are poor. Several scripture scholars, working independently of one another, translated St. Mark's gospel word-for-word from Greek to Hebrew and found that his Hebrew grammar and word order are just fine. They concluded that St. Mark translated his Gospel from a Hebrew original, possibly written by St. Peter, as early second century writers state that the Roman Christians asked St. Mark to set down for them the teachings of St. Peter.

This may be a sensational story but it typifies what is now going on in the Christian world. People are now looking at the real proof in the historical context of a real Jesus and most have found it wanting.
Apologetics are finding it hard to provide real thorough answers to many questions such as why if Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, is there only the oldest scriptures in Greek? If Christianity was founded by one God-man, why in Paul's time (within twenty years of the resurrection) is there so wide a divergence of Christianity - so wide in fact by the Council of Nicea, there had to be a narrowing and uniform thought of what Christianity was all about. A religion spreading from one founder would indicate a narrow beginning that could only widen and not a wide beginning that would have to be narrowed. That is one area I would like to see addressed rationally and cohesively by any available apologist.
Peace
Robert