Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

From: J. David Anderson (jdavidanderson__at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 06:17:26 +1000

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ilFWc.250$HO4.4932@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
>
>>Prepare to be very surprised then.
>>
>>There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus,
>>James etc., spoke modern Greek, not ancient Greek. Ancient Greek is the
>>Greek language *prior* to the Roman empire.
>
>
> Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. There's
> not the slightest hint that he spoke Greek or Latin.

You are correct, not the slightest hint.

It goes far beyond a "slight hint". There is a huge amount of evidence
that he spoke a form of common Greek. Romans, since Alexander,
habitually spoke Greek and would be unlikely that they all learned
Aramaic simply in order to speak to a subjugated people. Unless Jesus
also spoke Greek, he could not communicate with them, let alone teach
them. James, Jesus' brother, wrote in Greek.

It would in fact be far more remarkable if he *didn't* speak Greek. He
grew to adulthood under Roman occupation, in an area where "koine",
common Greek was the lingua franca. Why would he be one of the few
people of the region not to be able to do so?

It has been long accepted among Biblical scholars that Jesus spoke
Greek, however, with regard to being germane to my post; it isn't. The
OP claimed a likelihood of wide ranging errors in translating from
Greek. My response was that would be unlikely.

If you wish to believe that Jesus spoke only Aramaic, then far be it
from me to disavow you. I have my opinion, you are quite welcome to yours.

  Greek is the language
> that materials written many, many years after his death were recorded in,
> but given the lack of verifiable documents that were not re-recorded and
> re-translated on for King James's scholars to work with, it's extremely
> unlikely that they had a single original document written by any of the
> literary apostles to work from.

You are aware of course, that the King James translation is far from the
only translation, and that in all translations, the difficulty was with
ancient Hebrew, not modern Greek?

> Take a look at the various Gnostic questions,

I asked many of them myself.

  the probable existence of the
> "Q" document from which several of the gospels drew common material, and the
> degree of direct overlap among the gospels of exact word and phrase, not
> simply similar stories. You've got evidence of clear literary mixing of
> distinct original materials.

I have no problem with this, I don't have any particular axe to grind
regarding the accuracy of the Bible, nor the likelihood that at the time
of writing, the Gospels had *morphed* as it were. They were a long time
coming, so to speak.

Look at the eighties computer analysis of writing style, ala
Shakespeare/Bacon. It is considered among many, that the authors of the
gospels have been incorrectly attributed. It makes little difference, it
is all of minor consequence.

The Bible itself makes little sense in a modern, educated, thinking
world. It is full of misdirection and inconsistency, not errors in
translation. It mentions dragons, witches and unicorns as though they
were a part of life. It also implies that there are other Gods, not just
the Christian one, why else exhort that people have no other Gods if
there *are* no other Gods? ;)

>>There are some problems with dead languages, i.e., ancient Hebrew, but
>>even then, any scholar capable of translating from that language would
>>be in pretty close agreement with any other scholar.
>>
>>It is a common misconception that there can be a wide range of
>>interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended
>>meaning of the translated text in modern terms, not in accuracy of
>>translation.
>>
>>There are inconsistencies in the Bible, but they are not related to
>>translation.
>
>
> BWA-HA-HA! OK, what about the Greek word for "Brother" being similar to the
> word for "cousin", and the possibility that the word got mis-translated and
> James was actually the brother of Jesus? It kind of throws the whole "Mary
> virgin unto birth" thing out the window.

This is not new, I have Biblical research material going back to the
turn of the last century accepting this as *gospel* <g> I believe, along
with many others, that James *was* the brother of Jesus. This is why I
mentioned him, the fact that he wrote in Greek was an indicator that
Jesus would also speak Greek.

>
>>Don't forget that the Bible, originally the Jewish Books of Law, wasn't
>>consecrated into scripture until the Church was well established, many
>>years after Christ's death. The Church at that time was riddled with
>>corruption and self serving men in high office. It hasn't changed much
>>since those days.
>
>
> Well, that's true, and it's also true that they had and have huge political
> arguments that get bound up in very slight phrasing differences or
> interpretation of the same documents. We have the same problems interpreting
> the Constitution.

That is what I said. The problem is not of translation, but of
discerning original meaning, the intent of the author.

As far as I am concerned, the Church was stillborn, it died at birth,
and the extent of the decay is becoming more apparent with every news
story regarding corruption, child abuse, and disregard of Christian
attitude. For centuries the corruption existed but the Church had the
power to protect itself from accusers. Nowadays when even Presidents
can't hide their misdoings from the public eye and retributory justice,
organisations as archaic and venal as the Church have become just as
vulnerable to exposure.

Jesus didn't leave a Church, that was man made, and being man made, was
flawed from the start. Whether you believe Jesus was the son of God or
not, he was a genuine historical figure who set examples worth
following. Leave the Church and the Bible out of it and you might have
something worthwhile.

Regards

David

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >> Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... >> not the slightest hint that he spoke Greek or Latin. ... > You are aware of course, that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >> Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... >> not the slightest hint that he spoke Greek or Latin. ... > You are aware of course, that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >>There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... > Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... > There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... > interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... > There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... > interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended ...
    (sci.med)
Loading