Even further explaining myself here is aggravating. So truly, I am done. I will comment one last time to a couple of you, but I am not out to "WIN" any arguments/points. I said what I said and granted that I made a mistake or two, but now have to address what is really opinions of "my scholars versus your scholars." ABSOLUTELY THE LAST THINGS I WILL SAY ON THIS THREAD:
PSac, here we go down that road of debating WHEN EXACTLY the things were written. That is important and hugely debated/contested. So I won't profess to be an expert or that the experts I read were better than the experts you read. I conceded a point, even if I don't believe it is settled. The books were still written after the alledged life of the person in question. If we get it down to shortly after 70 AD, that's shy of 40 years after Jesus life. I already caved in that far, so we have no debate.
So that is important to the matter, but WE won't settle it here.
AGuest, I have to say about the copy: "apples and oranges." I was mentioning a copy presenting the exact same style as that thing it copied from in order to date the copy and set a time limit for the original. I was granting that the fragment, debateably, might move up the writing of the original. In that instance, I wasn't trying to insinuate (or mention at all) that the copy might have strayed from the original.
The idea of Greek originals written about people who were speaking Aramaic is a different matter. That's where the idea of straying comes in. I am not "assuming that people whose first language was Aramaic would write, originally, in GREEK." I am going along with the vast vast majority of people who looked into this by saying that those who wrote the Greek texts were writing about OTHER people who were speaking Aramaic. They had to be relying on Holy Spirit or stories to do that. If I wrote about something AGuest said, and I wrote in Chinese, I would have to do so by translating what you said in English.
If people want to say that Holy Spirit provided the translation, then there are issues of how the various texts don't agree on details.
If people want to say that the writers didn't make up the conversations, but translated from eye-witness written accounts in Aramaic, well.... that adds another layer of originals that we cannot find today. If people want to say anything about the original documents, how can we debate over things that we have never seen? Since I am not debating, I did not read all your links. Its apples and oranges again. I was referring to the Greek copies available later to "US" of events that occurred with Aramaic-speaking people. There may well have been additional layers in-between, but it may just be that Paul wrote in Greek, so people adding to his writings wrote in Greek when they made these things up. It may also be that "selling" one's writings necessitated writing in Greek. There may be an answer to that, but I won't be pursueing it.
If something else I said is debated, and you feel you won because of my silence, congratulations.