This may seem at first a reasonable stance for a non-Xian / non-Jew, but it’s quite contrary to the intent for people to whom religion is not a myth. The New Testament, for example, quoting Jesus’ words, is not attempting to emulate a literary style, but to report what Jesus said. Those portions (at least) are intended to be literal history.
While there are various questionable aspects to treating the Bible as a “myth” or “fable” among the least acceptable is saying that it’s okay to change the intent of the original Greek, Latin and other texts if the sole purpose is to make it sound more poetic. Serious Bible students, in fact, often go the opposite direction, trying to read the original text, literally, word-by-word, in spite of the very difficult and unpoetic sentences that are created.
What about the original Greek? Does Chick think that this is "inspired?, or is it only the KJV translation? Upon what is Chick’s assertion based. I took some classical Greek in college and eventually moved on to Koine Greek (the dialect of the NT). I was surprised at how casual the NT sounds in its original language. It does not have any of the sonority or formality of the KJV. If the KJV is “divinely inspired” then why isn’t it more accurate? Was the original Greek just “wrong?”
I’ve got a small nitpick for Partly-Warmer: The NT does not record the original ARAMAIC words spoken by Jesus, so even going back to the Greek OT will not tell you precisely what Jesus said. Not to mention the gospels were written variously from 70-150 CE (40-120 years after the crucifixion) so none of them are actual eyewitness accounts, they are dependent on oral transmissions of Xian teachings. Of course, if you believe in Divine Inspiration, that doesn’t matter because you can just say that God told the Gospel writers exactly what JC said. (If this is the case, however, then why didn’t God give them JC’s words in Aramaic?)
Most scholars on the subject believe that the textual correspondences between the Synoptic Gospels are too close to be coincidental, and thus they widely believe that they were not based entirely on oral sources. Rather, they all drew heavily from a hypothetical “Q Document,” which unfortunately, we do not have.
There are competing two-document and four-document theories if you wish to investigate these issues further.
First, in many manuscripts a little Aramaic is recorded. See Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.
Second, think a little. If you are going to create a document in order to convert people, would you write it in a language that few understand? I am surprised you do not already understand this, since you say you are familiar with classical Greek and the koine.
While the KJV may sound sonorous and formal to us now, is there much reason to believe that sounded anything other than vaguely literary at the time of its creation? Furthermore, it is easy to make a negative comparison between classical and koine Greek. That problem goes all the way back to Jerome. Remember his letter to Eustachium?
But within the context of the koine itself, the gospels, and especially the epistles, are relatively formal. No scientific way to support that claim, unfortunately. Just my .02.
But that is exactly why ‘Divine Inspiration’ was invented!
To do away with that nasty discovery that the NT wasn’t written by the apostles, as many peole believed. Indeed not even the author of Mark, the oldest gospel, was an eye witness.
This was quite a shock for many believers, so they made something up to make it go away.
Even the best proof against the bible will not convince believers.
They will just fabricate a new theory that negates the evidence.
Just look at creationism “science” for crying out loud.
Not to get caught defending a point I don’t hold, as a historian whose degrees emphasized historiography, we know many of Jesus’s words with a great degree of probability, but not what specific language they were spoken in. The opinion has been expressed elsewhere that it’s likely that Jesus spoke at least two languages. Since it also is likely that he repeated himself dozens, if not hundreds of times, there’s every chance he said words quoted in the Bible in more than one language.
When I said that the words of Jesus were intended to be a literal quotation, I was responding to the notion kniz expressed that the Bible was a myth, an epic that could be gerrymandered to good effect by making it sound poetic. That Jesus’ words (and other parts of the Bible) were occasionally translated before being recorded seems unavoidable.
Not speaking directly to you, now, Diogenes, while realizing there are Xians who hold the Bible is literal, absolute truth, the devine inspiration of the Bible is more available to those who have a good translation, those who read commentaries, those who pray and meditate. Spiritual messages are still available when those conditions don’t apply. I.e., it’s still possible to be inspired by Jesus without knowing precisely which words he spoke.
Equally, reading an excellent translation, hanging out with Xian social groups, and attending church every Sunday doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible is understood. It’s still up to the individual to read it and come to a personal determination what truth there is (that is, what truth there is in their own understanding).
This also explains the question asked in another recent thread about whether islanders who’ve never seen a Bible can be saved. The answer is obviously yes. Someone in New York or Bora Bora isn’t barred from spiritual inspiration simply because they can’t read, have a weak translation, were taught by someone who was ignorant.
Christians (Jews / Muslims?) why don’t we create a site which discusses common religious issues (such as the islander question), so they don’t have to be restated every 2 months?
I am well aware of “Q” as well as the 2 and 4 document theories. (I was a religion major with a minor in classical languages) I didn’t mention them because I was trying to avoid a meandering debate about NT textual analysis. (Many fundies I encounter flatly refuse to accept “Q” or “Thomas” or any other “sayings” gospels as having had any influence on the canonicals) Furthermore, about 1/3 of “Luke” is independent of “Q” or the other two synoptics, and virtually all of “John” is derived completely independently of all the synoptics (probably in late 1st century Syria) so the gospels ARE largely dependent on oral traditions.
The “Aramaic” fragment you refer to (Eli, Eli, lema sabbachthani?") is actually a HEBREW quotation from Psalms (although Mark does change the Hebrew “Eli” to the Aramaic “Eloi”)
As to the Greek vs KJV “formality” issue, of course it’s a matter of personal taste but IMHO the Greek has a breezy, almost anecdotal style, as compared to the dry solemnity of King James. The KJV also changes a lot of the grammar and phrasing of the Greek. Don’t get me wrong, though, I LIKE the KJV. It has a timeless archaic beauty to it, and I’m not in favor of changing it.
Of course it makes sense to communicate to people in a language which they understand, but some significant ideas can be garbled or misunderstood, even in a very literal translation. For instance, the phrase “Son of Man” (“Ben Adam”: literally, “Son of Adam”) in ARAMAIC is a generic reference denoting all of mankind. In the Greek, this was misunderstood to be a specific titular reference to Jesus. A truly “divinely inspired” translation would not trip itself up on linguistic idioms and idiosynchrosies.
You’re right. The “bilingual” theory about Jesus is quite in vogue recently, and it certainly sounds plausible to me. There is even some textual evidence for this in that some of the aphorisms attributed to Jesus are structured in such a way that they seem to have been composed in Greek. I have no problem with the idea that some of the Greek quotations may represent Jesus’s actual words. The language he employed may well have depended on where he was or who he was talking to
This does not follow. If the most basic textual analysis reveals that more than 50% of the gospels are dependent on Q, how can you say that they are “largely” not? Furthermore, just because it cannot be proven that they depend on Q does not mean that they are derived from an unreliable oral tradition. It is possible, it is likely, but it should hardly be stated as fact.
This is subject to some dispute.
It is not necessarily a quote from Psalms, and the phrase is, in fact, in Aramaic. It’s simply not a Hebrew phrase. And if were even translating the Psalm in question into Aramaic, he would have likely used the word nashatani, which actually means “forsaken.” As it stands, the phrase means, “Oh Lord, oh lord, for this I was kept.”
Even if you don’t believe that, the fact remains that only some manuscripts contain Eli. The rest are, in fact, Eloi. Just look at the footnote in your NIV.
There’s more Aramaic in the gospels, too.
Mark 5:41.
Mark 7:32
Mark 10:51
Furthermore, according to Papias, the first Gospel account of the actual words of Jesus were written in Aramaic. Even Eusebius agrees, Historia, 3.39.16. Add Origen and Irenaeus to the list of ancients who could confirm the existence of an original Aramaic text. This document is typically known as S.
Ok, I’ll agree with this with some qualifications. Spend a few hours reading Plato, shift to the NT, and yeah, it’s pretty breezy. But it is hard to tell just how solemn it is when the language itself is so out of context and unliterary. And I am really fond of the KJV, too, no argument from me.
I also agree. But I can also see how someone who starts from the proposition that the translation is divinely inspired can weasel out of any kind of inconsistency by attempting to rationalize the differences, by arguing that in fact they are the same thing, or even arguing that both different versions are true.
Until some divinity inspires one of my translations, let’s just say I’m not a big believer in the phenomenon.
Maeglin: My Oxford Annotated bible seemed to identify the “Eli…” phrase as Hebrew. If that’s incorrect, then that’s my mistake. And of course you’re right about the other fragments (“talith,” etc.) I simply forgot about them.
The textual chronology is something I was hoping to avoid, but I hope you will agree that at least SOME elements of the gospels existed in oral tradition. In fact a “sayings” gospel like Q, is precisely the kind of text that WOULD arise from oral traditions
I hope you’re not citing Eusibius as a credible historian. His writings on the early church, in particular, are filled with historically dubious claims, hyperbolic stories, and spurious anecdotes about Jesus and the apostles. The existence of an Aramaic gospel are extremely hypothetical at best.
Interesting. It seems to bear further looking into, then.
Yeah, that I agree with. There is going to be some oral transmission. I would just be inclined to argue that the oral tradition was written down earlier than the gospels as we have them were written. So they weren’t just pulled from thin air one hundred years later, as I thought you had implied.
No, I don’t think Eusebius is credible. But he copies some people who actually are credible, hence he can be fairly useful. Hypothetical? Definitely. I’m not up enough on the scholarship to make a serious judgment, but I think it’s pretty convincing.
BTW this might be slightly off-topic but I’m curious what people think. Apprantly Mel Gibson is currently directing a move (called “passion”) about the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life. Gibson is filming the movie entirely in Aramaic and Latin with, get this, NO SUBTITLES. Personally, I think this is a great idea, but Gibson’s studio seems to think that he’s committing commercial suicide. What dou you guys think? (I guess I should probably start a different thread for this, let me know if you think it warrants one.)
Is Mel Gibson playing Jesus? Is his last word on the cross going to be “Free-ee-eedo-o-o-o-om!!!”? Will we be able to look up his kilt while he’s on the cross?
Gibson’s not playing Jesus. He’s only directing. Jesus is being played by an actor named Jim Caviezel. I’m not familiar with him but I guess he was in “The Count of Monte Christo.” Actually it might have been fun to see “Jesus” doing a Three Stooges routine on screen.
Actually, I think the great majority of Christian viewers (and many non-Christian viewers) are familiar enough with the Gospel stories that they will already know what is happening in every scene, and can concentrate instead on the emotions and expressions of the players. Very interesting idea.
I can think of only two other examples of deliberately filming in a language most viewers would not understand: Incubus (1965), which was made in Esperanto, and Sebastiane (1976), filmed in Latin.