by
Damien
F. Mackey
“On another
matter, why does St. Mark tell us that Jesus, during the storm he is
about to
calm, was inside the stern,
sleeping on the cushion" and not "at the stern"
(where he
would have interfered with the maneuvering of the boat)?”
The Association Jean Carmignac
Four quite modern endeavours in the study
of Jesus Christ and the Gospels (I can think of), which - whilst generally
going against the academic grain - remind us that Jesus was a Jew, that he spoke
Hebrew, and that he was influenced by Hebrew tradition and wisdom rather than
by pagan Greek thinking.
Regarding the fact that Jesus would have
spoken Hebrew, I am indebted to Rev Brenton Minge who personally sent me a copy
of his brilliant book, Jesus Spoke
Hebrew: Busting the ‘Aramaic’ Myth.
This book I have (poorly) summarised in my
series:
beginning with:
That the Philosophy of Jesus Christ was a Hebrew
one, I am indebted to professor Peter Kreeft, who has made a good start on this
much-neglected subject in his book, The
Philosophy of Jesus, of which I have written in e.g.:
There is still much more work to be done,
though, on this highly important aspect of philosophical studies.
Then there are the exciting researches
regarding the language of the Gospels as undertaken by Fr. Jean Carmignac and
Claude Tresmontant.
On the former, see e.g. my article:
This man (d. 1986), an expert linguist,
really knew what he was writing about.
Not so well known to me is Claude
Tresmontant.
Consequently I was happy to come across
this wonderful summary at:
of both:
JEAN CARMIGNAC & CLAUDE TRESMONTANT
Chapter 14 of our booklet provides an outline of the findings of two
French researchers. The Association Jean Carmignac promotes
their work more fully and details of it are available at the end of this
article.
Here, Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier, administrator of the
Association, examines several reliable dating methodologies which have been
used to date the Gospels. She contrasts these with the unreliable literary
analysis (form criticism) which is preferred by many modern exegetes.
-----0-----
Let's be straightforward: I believe the Gospels to be direct testimonies
that tell real and non-mythic or symbolic facts. I do not believe it by fideism
— not because of my faith — but because I have rational, scientific, carefully
researched reasons to do so. Indeed, we who affirm the absolute historicity of
the Gospels are now only a small minority. Although this truth of the faith was
strongly asserted by the Second Vatican Council and has been believed by
millions of Catholics throughout the centuries of Christianity, we nowadays
seem to be considered as outsiders. Let's examine here the different aspects of
this situation.
Should the Supernatural in the Gospels be Simply Denied?
The resolution of differences regarding the dating, the origins, the
authors, the nature of the Gospels lies in this interrogation: Should they be analyzed
in the view of all hypotheses applied to them but one? Should they be treated
like any ordinary text for which the authenticity of the facts it contains is
usually admitted? Or should they, by exception, be systematically denied what
is in them: the supernatural (even when all other explanations have failed)?
Three Reliable Ways to Establish the Authenticity of a Document
Usually, scientists studying a written document they want to date have a
choice of three courses of action at their disposal.
They first (A) can look for the period of time to which the paper, the
parchment, the ink, the shape of the writing belong, all of which underpin the
text and can be analyzed through chemistry, paleography, papyrology, etc. . . .
They also can turn their inquiry towards (B) the language, the dialect, the
style, the expression, i.e., philology, linguistics; and thirdly (C) they can
rely on clues helping to locate the period of time when the work was written.
For example, any reference to steam engines, to the way of harnessing a horse,
to a well-known historic event. All these help the search. Obviously none of
the three methods excludes the others.
Using these three methods, scholars followed the footprints of the
Gospels and collected a rich harvest of facts that confirmed their historicity.
A Fourth Way; But is it Reliable?
But most of the exegetes preferred a fourth way, in which a work is
dated through its literary content, i.e., in more simple terms according to the
subject of the story. Let's not forget this has nothing to do with the style,
the vocabulary or the expression, but states that the larger the quantity of
supernatural the text contains the older it is; the more philosophical and
intellectual it proves to be the recent it is; and the shorter and thinner it
is the more archaic it is, the accumulation of time having perhaps piled up new
layers to enrich the story.
The Gospels and Extra-Biblical History
It is time here to give a few important details. The oldest Gospels that
reached us are written in Greek, the international language during Christ's
time. In the Holy Land the commonly spoken language was Aramaic and the sacred
language was Hebrew — some specialists are convinced Hebrew was also spoken,
while others think it was only written, but this does not matter. In any case,
these languages are very similar. In A.D. 70 an event occurred that, in both
human and religious terms, has been considered most loathsome by Jews ever
since that time: the fall and destruction of the Temple and the City of
Jerusalem by the Romans. Most of its inhabitants were killed; the rest were
deported or scattered. Had the Gospels been written in Greek, it could have
been at any time. If, on the other hand, their first redaction (before being
translated to Greek) had been written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic)
it should date — and this is very important — from before 70, as after this
date using these languages would have been useless or dangerous.
If even one of the Gospels had been written before 70, the
witnesses of Christ's life, miracles, death and Resurrection being still alive
would guarantee the authenticity of the account. They indeed would not have let
the deception go on if the facts supposed to have happened among them (Luke
1:1) had not taken place. On the other hand, if those four Gospels originated
after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, all possible oversights, mistakes,
forgeries (even well intended), intended additions or omissions may be
considered.
That is why the exegetes' discussion on both the date and the original
language of the Gospels prove so contentious. On these issues depend,
indirectly but certainly, the degree of trust the Gospels can be granted.
Evidence Based on Archaeology and Papyrology
Let's go back to the results of the archaeological or philological
"excavations" and the hunt for clues that have proved so fruitful to
the supporters of historicity and early dating (before or well before 70).
Let's first consider (A). Which documents did survive? Some 25 years
ago, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan, S.J. identified a papyrus written in Greek which was
found in the cave Number 7 in Qumran, the "7Q5," as being a fragment
of St. Mark's Gospel (6:52-53) and another papyrus from the same cave as being
a fragment of 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1b). Nobody supporting the late dating has
ever credibly questioned the fact that these caves were closed in 68 A.D.,
dating therefore their content from earlier than this date. Beside these
manuscripts lay their container: a broken jar bearing the letters RWM which,
according to the well-known Hebraist J.A. Fitzmyer, represent the City of Rome
and were clumsily written by a Jew at the time.
It has been observed in the other Qumran caves that a name written on a
jar meant its provenance and/or to whom it belonged. St. Irenaeus, disciple of
St. Polycarp who was himself a disciple of Christ's Apostles, stated in his Against
Heresies (III,1,1) that St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Therefore the
Dead Sea Manuscripts support tradition and early dating.
The first reaction of theologians was to hide this discovery and not
tell anything about it, but when, twenty years later, the German Protestant
papyrologist Carsten P. Thiede brought the manuscript out and declared it to be
authentic in The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, (Paternoster Press, 1992),
the outcry against its authenticity was enormous.
Meanwhile a scientific symposium on 7Q5 took place in Eichstatt in
Bavaria in 1991 and confirmed the coincidence of its text with Mark 6:52-53. Several
eminent papyrologists like H. Hunger, S. Darius and Orsolina Montevecchi
(Honorary President of the International Association of Papyrologists) agreed
to date this papyrus in 50; twenty years, at most, after the Resurrection.
However a great majority of the exegetes still disagree.
Let's add that Carsten P. Thiede — an internationally known papyrologist
— in Jesus according to Matthew, has since studied three small fragments
coming from one codex. The fragments had been donated to Oxford's Magdalen College
and display various phrases from St. Matthew's Gospel. Having analyzed them he
his convinced that this papyrus did not appear after 70 but probably around 50.
Philologists Affirm Early Dates of Origin of the Gospels
Concerning the philological research (B), two specialists thoroughly
analyzed the language of the Gospels:
Fr. Jean Carmignac, one of the greatest experts in biblical studies in
the world, and recognized as foremost in the knowledge of the Qumran Hebrew (of
Jesus' times), and Claude Tresmontant lecturer for the Institut de France who
taught for a long time in the Sorbonne University. Tresmontant is the author of
an Old Testament Hebrew-to-Greek (Septuagint) dictionary. (The Septuagint was
translated in the third — second century B.C.) They both demonstrated that the
Greek language used in the Gospels (all four of them for Tresmontant, the three
Synoptic ones for Carmignac who did not consider St. John's) was translated
from Hebrew or Aramaic. They both consider the whole of the Gospels (excluding
the Preface to St. Luke's) and not just fragments introduced into a Greek text.
They both provide tens (may be hundreds) of proofs. Fr. Carmignac, in La
Naissance des Evangiles Synoptiques, points out Semitisms of thought, vocabulary,
syntax, style, composition, transmission, translation and even multiple
Semitisms. For each case, he supplies many examples. As for Tresmontant's
demonstration, let's just give a few samples of it: In Luke 9:51, the Greek
text reads: "He fixed his face to go to Jerusalem," which makes no
sense in Greek or in English but proves to be a Hebrew expression frequently
used in the Old Testament meaning "He firmly decided." Tresmontant
gives many such examples and idiomatic expressions.
He also points out the following passage in St. John (5:2) — St. John's
text being regarded as the latest, most scholars dating it from the very end of
the 1st century — "There is in Jerusalem, next to the Ewes Gate a
pool called Bezatha". Why would the present tense be used if the city had
not existed for a long time? And what about Matt. 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke
19:41-44, etc., in which Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem? (Many
"late-date" exegetes doubt that Jesus made this prediction.) How is
it that the Evangelists — or at least one of the Evangelists — have not
specified, if the city was already destroyed, that this so-called prophecy was
in fact achieved? "A discreet and shy forger" as Tresmontant
ironically puts it. Let's by the way observe J.A.T. Robinson, an Anglican
exegete, who was perfectly convinced of the non-historicity of the Gospels,
until he noted this complete absence of reference to the end of Jerusalem as an
already accomplished historical fact. He declared therefore the impossibility
of dating the Gospels later than 70.
Carmignac also explains a few "nonsenses" found in the
Gospels: in Mark 5:13 the reference to a herd of about two thousand pigs has
been generally regarded as a mythical construction (gathering two thousand pigs
being virtually impossible). But Fr. Carmignac explains that in Hebrew only
consonants are written and the same word differently pronounced acquires a
different meaning.
The written Hebrew word for "about two thousand," if read with
other vowels, means "by packs." So "The herd jumped from the
cliff into the sea by packs."
The Hebrew underpinning the text makes it clear and probable while
proving its own presence. Fr. Carmignac gives many more such examples and even
explains some of the apparent discrepancies in some Gospels compared to others.
As he translated the Synoptic Gospels from Greek to Qumran Hebrew, he
stated quite firmly that they had first been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then
in Greek, so easily had he accomplished this translation. Many other philologists
also uncovered the way the Semitic language underpins the Greek language used
in the Gospels. Fr. Carmignac noted many of them in the past. Since I published
my book, several people wrote to me indicating contemporary philologists who
had made similar discoveries. However, I have been unable to find their
writings. They have not been published in books or journals. It has been said
that publishers do not even reply to these authors. They are not mentioned on
television or radio programs or in the print media. It seems that few
philologists have heard of them and that those who have remain silent about
them.
Other Indications of Sound, Early-Date Biblical Historicity
Let's come to (C). Nearly every day new clues are found indicating that
the Gospels were originally written close to the time of Jesus. As noted above,
based largely on speculation, many exegetes continue to assert that the Gospels
were written after A.D. 70 by authors who never knew Jesus, any of the Apostles
or any other eyewitnesses to Jesus. However, it seems impossible that any such
late-date author could write without making mistakes on the location, the
animals, the plants, the sharing of powers, the various sects and other minute
details by which archaeological excavation confirm that the Evangelists were
stating the truth. The absence of such errors strongly indicates that the
Gospels were written close to the time of Jesus.
Vittorio Messori, in his books Hypotheses sur Jesus and Il a
souffert sous Ponce Pilate, gives many examples confirming this matter.
Here are just a few: (a) In 1968, archaeologists commissioned by the Israeli
Government excavated in Giv'at ha Mitvar, north of Jerusalem, the remains of a
young man, five and one-half feet tall, dating from the 1st century, who had
been crucified and whose tibiae had been broken. (b ) A stone found a few years
ago, notifying non-Jews that they were not allowed inside the temple reserved
to the Jews, is written in the same three languages as the placard hung to the
cross: Hebrew, Latin and Greek. And (c) A family grave dating back to Jesus'
time was uncovered in a graveyard where leading citizens were buried. It
contained the remains of a certain Simon of Cyrene's parents. Could this be
mere coincidence?
Madame Genot-Bismuth, a non-Christian Professor of Ancient and Medieval
Judaism in the Sorbonne-Nouvelle University (Paris), is positive that the
person who wrote St. John's Gospel was a direct witness of his account as the
details he gives fit so exactly with the results of her own archaeological
excavations in Jerusalem.
There are also all sorts of comforting hints. Fr. Pierre Courouble
revealed that Pilate speaks Greek in St. John's Gospel (18:29 and 19:22) as a
foreigner, making mistakes and Latinisms, whereas the remainder of the Gospel
is grammatically perfect.
Who would have remembered this long after the facts? (It is equally
possible that Pilate's original sentences in bad Greek appeared as such in an
original Semitic text.)
On another matter, why does St. Mark tell us that Jesus, during the
storm he is about to calm, was inside the stern, sleeping on the
cushion" and not "at the stern" (where he would have interfered
with the maneuvering of the boat)? The answer was found when the wreck of a
boat of Jesus' time was discovered in the Genesareth Lake in 1986 showing on
its rear deck a covered shelter in which a man could lie (Bonnet-Eymard).
Gino Zaninotto, a teacher and specialist of ancient languages, provided
a list of codices indicating that St. Matthew's Gospel was written eight years
after the Ascension of the Lord; St. Mark's, eleven years; St. Luke's, fifteen
years; and St. John's, thirty-two years after the same event. The oldest of
these codices dates from the 9th century and, according to Michel van Esbroeck
from Munich University, the source of this information might be still older.
From where do these precious dates come? Why were they disclosed in 836 during
the Synod of Jerusalem attended by the three Melchite Patriarchs from Antioch,
Alexandria and Jerusalem? Why has this research field been so far ignored?
Here we reach the biggest mystery of today's Christian exegesis — with
the exception of Orthodox exegesis: All these discoveries testify that our
faith is not in vain, that it rests upon real historic facts and should be
welcomed with a relevant enthusiasm; instead, they are met with silence or
worse. Giulio Firpo, professor at Chieti University (Italy), undertook an
exceptional investigation of the Gospels of Christ's childhood. He studied
hundreds of documents such as writings from Antiquity and from modern times,
inscriptions, coins and various papyruses. Based on Firpo's findings, we can be
quite confident that the Gospel accounts of Christ's childhood are authentic.
For instance, who knows nowadays that there were numerous censuses at the end
of the 1st century B.C.? But who has heard of this extraordinary scholar's book
Il problema cronologico della nascita di Gesu. [The chronological
problem of Jesus' birth]? Why has it not been published in English and other
languages?
A Catholic University Denies Scholars Access to Early-Date Evidence
Fr. Carmignac left all his writings to the Institut Catholique de
Paris by will, comprising sixteen boxes full of manuscripts and documents
together with their inventory and classification. After his death they were
brought to this university by his secretary, Mlle. Demanche. Nobody asking for
it has been allowed to consult these archives and Fr. Carmignac's publisher, M.
de Guibert, has not been allowed to publish his posthumous works.
The successful Italian weekly magazine Il Sabato made this story
public with Thiede's discoveries and the ensuing polemics. Strangely enough, it
closed down a little later. The direction and philosophical orientation of the international
monthly magazine Thirty Days, that was publishing the same articles,
changed at the same time.
The exhibition "Dalla Terra alle Genti" ("From earth to
People") very successfully opened in Rimini in 1996 and displayed to a
large public some of the objects described in these pages. However, its
presentation in France met very strong opposition even under the form of
commentated photographs. As an exhibit of commentated photographs it is
currently having a successful world tour.
Speculation as a Substitute for Evidence?
Let's now raise the issue of the methods and convictions of this
majority of exegetes and theologians who unfortunately do not accept the
evidence that the Jesus of our faith is the Jesus of history. For them, history
cannot include the supernatural. And so they speculate in various ways to
explain its presence in the holy books and consider certain that the
Evangelists did not have first-hand historical information. The source
"Q," of which no trace has ever been found, should have
existed. The Gospels must have been written and "lovingly
embellished" by some communities (inventive and somewhat uplifted) near
the end of the first century. The "stories" of Jesus' actions must
have been taken from the Old Testament to make them seem prophetic. The
"communities" must have been inspired by certain rabbinical
writings — however, these have been proven by analysis to have been written
centuries after the Gospels — or even by pagan narratives, which has been
proven false by authoritative specialists such as Festugiere. In the same way,
the empty tomb of the Resurrection should be separated from the later
apparition "stories." Indeed the former without the latter makes no
sense. Another way to deny the historical truth about Jesus is to claim that
the word "historic" has several meanings and the Gospels can be
perfectly "historic" but not relate to historic facts; or to
declare that the passages in question were added later.
As for the "Formgeschichte" (the "history of forms")
and the "literary styles" which should clarify everything, the texts
that attempt to explain this fail to do so. In my book, Les Evangiles sont
des reportages, n'en deplaise a certains (The Gospels are true reports; too bad
if that offends some people), I analyze in depth and demonstrate all these
and other points which I can only outline here. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment