I have a question pertaining specifically to the language in which the bible was written.
From what I understand, the original NT was written in Greek, right? But Jesus spoke Aramaic?
I can imagine this would pose many challenges for Christians as so far as interpreting the Bible goes- because you can't be sure of what Jesus actually said.
Not having the Quran and hadith in Arabic would be a nightmare for the Muslims.
Jesus probably spoke Greek as well, although he would have taught in Aramaic. Many of those listening would have known both, as would those who wrote the teachings down. This has been covered at some depth in an earlier thread, but basically Jesus taught in parables rather than by precise, detailed instruction. It's a little like Aesop's fables, if you like.. nobody queries 'interpretation' or translation there as the point of each story is quite clear. Ditto the parables.
Jesus probably spoke Greek as well, although he would have taught in Aramaic. Many of those listening would have known both, as would those who wrote the teachings down. This has been covered at some depth in an earlier thread, but basically Jesus taught in parables rather than by precise, detailed instruction. It's a little like Aesop's fables, if you like.. nobody queries 'interpretation' or translation there as the point of each story is quite clear. Ditto the parables.
Perhaps, but it becomes very important as far as concepts such as 'the son of God' are concerned, or 'the only begotten son'...
I have seen people trying to explain their meaning by looking back to the Greek, but that is pretty useless if Jesus didn't even say it in Greek, isn't it?
Jesus did probably speak Aramaic, and may have spoken Greek (artisan family). It is an issue in three or four places, though I don't know what they are right off. For Christians, this is not a big issue, since the inspiration of the HOly SPirit in Scripture carries through from the first voice of Jesus to the editing of the community.
For scholars, though, it gives us things to do as we cash our paycheques. Well, most of us don't have very big paycheques, but if someone answers this question well they might!
I don't understand this concept either. People keep saying that Jesus 'probably' spoke greek aswell, but how can we confirm that? And if Jesus came as an aramaic, then God chose that language for a reason - so why translate it? Yeah the commoners spoke greek, but as we know - translations aren't always accurate.
That's why the companions of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would teach the commoners arabic - so they could understand the scripture. Not the other way around.
If it's something as divine as God's message, then we need to have it according to how it originally was. To save it from any distortion etc.
Isn't the reassurance of the 'Holy Spirit' dependant on the authority of the scriptures in the first place? Isn't that like going in a circle?
I would say it is the other way around; the scriptures are dependant on the Holy Spirit. Language is a human problem; if God wanted a message to inspire people throughout history then language would not be a barrier to God. When the disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost they went out in the streets and people of all nations understood what they said.
Acts 2
The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost
1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean
Jesus spoke in Aramaic?.... but in Passion of Christ movie, he was talking in hebrew right?:rolleyes:
Wrong. The language used in the movie was Aramaic, not Hebrew.
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
I don't understand this concept either. People keep saying that Jesus 'probably' spoke greek aswell, but how can we confirm that? And if Jesus came as an aramaic, then God chose that language for a reason - so why translate it? Yeah the commoners spoke greek, but as we know - translations aren't always accurate.
We can't confirm it, hence the "probably". It is likely that he did both from archeological/historical evidence (general, rather than related to Jesus specifically, obviously) and Biblical evidence. In the case of the latter Jesus wouldn't have known Latin and it's unlikely Pilate was fluent in Aramaic. The most likely language used would have been Greek which Pilate certainly would have known, and Jesus 'probably' would have.
As to translations, no they aren't always accurate. But when an individual is fully fluent in the two languages, effectively being able to think in both, as is the likely case here, errors are extremely rare. We aren't talking English translations of Chinese TV owners' manuals here.
It was first recorded (as opposed to translated) in Greek because large numbers of people across the Western civilized world at the time (including all educated citizens of the dominant power - Rome) spoke Greek and a great many could read it, to the extent even Aramaic speakers were more likely to be literate in Greek than in their own spoken language. With that in mind, perhaps a minimal risk of dodgy translation was one God was willing to take (a translation he could always have inspired Himself, if necessary)? The only logical alternative would have been to transplant Jesus' origins to Greece or Rome, which seems a tad excessive!
Jesus probably spoke Greek as well, although he would have taught in Aramaic. Many of those listening would have known both, as would those who wrote the teachings down. This has been covered at some depth in an earlier thread, but basically Jesus taught in parables rather than by precise, detailed instruction. It's a little like Aesop's fables, if you like.. nobody queries 'interpretation' or translation there as the point of each story is quite clear. Ditto the parables.
I never like to debate about these issues, but it is an interesting point you brought up.
As a self proclaimed student I find your statement quiet amazing, in the sense that you said the fact that Jesus taught in parables rather than detailed instructions. But at the same time this would still pose problems, there might be words understood in one language that produce a key meaning to the parable, or a certain language stance that would inflict a different understing to the parable, add onto that the fact that people would interpret the parable differently and in alot of times subcontiously according to their own understanding or presumptions.
If Jesus did teach in parables that could be more descrutive than if he taught in detail, for the detail would most likely be straight forward clear cut, which would allow much ease in trying work our way back to the original text, whilst parables were more suseptible to personal interpretation which would be more discrutive than personal interpretation in a clear cut detailed manual.
I think.
Regards Eesa.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
As a self proclaimed student I find your statement quiet amazing, in the sense that you said the fact that Jesus taught in parables rather than detailed instructions. But at the same time this would still pose problems, there might be words understood in one language that produce a key meaning to the parable, or a certain language stance that would inflict a different understanding to the parable, add onto that the fact that people would interpret the parable differently and in alot of times subcontiously according to their own understanding or presumptions.
Surely if there was any serious risk of "different understandings" of the parables they would have emerged by now? As far as I'm aware, while a little thought is often required in seeing the point of some, there has been no serious disagreement... I would venture rather less than different interpretations of some Qur'anic passages. The Bible has been translated into many languages, and it seems absurd that an Aramaic to Greek 'translation' by people perfectly competent to do so should result in significantly different meanings while Greek to everything from Latin to Chinese never has.
You also haven't addressed my other point. Surely if God is as you believe Him to be then 'inspiring' the odd translator to get it right when necessary is hardly a problem?
Surely if there was any serious risk of "different understandings" of the parables they would have emerged by now? As far as I'm aware, while a little thought is often required in seeing the point of some, there has been no serious disagreement... I would venture rather less than different interpretations of some Qur'anic passages. The Bible has been translated into many languages, and it seems absurd that an Aramaic to Greek 'translation' by people perfectly competent to do so should result in significantly different meanings while Greek to everything from Latin to Chinese never has.
Well whilst I do agree that the translation now doesnt posses much contreversy in that since from my current knowledge, the translation that takes place now is hardly under the same circumstaces of the translation at the time of Jesus.
Also even in these times there are groups with serious differences like Jws who have their own translations, I have never feasted my eyes on it as a book but thats be interesting to look into.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
You also haven't addressed my other point. Surely if God is as you believe Him to be then 'inspiring' the odd translator to get it right when necessary is hardly a problem?
I dont understand the above, if you will please rephrase it so I ensure I understand it properly.
But just to comment, 'to get it right when neccesary', it'd depend on the what we feel is the intent of God as to logically percieve what he would deem neccesary.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
the translation that takes place now is hardly under the same circumstaces of the translation at the time of Jesus.
In what way is it different? In what way would the first translation from greek to Latin (which was far closer to Jesus' time to our own) be different? In all cases what is most important is total familiarity with both languages concerned.
I dont understand the above, if you will please rephrase it so I ensure I understand it properly.
Sorry. I'm simply saying that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and can, to all intents and purposes, do anything then it is not unreasonable to assume He could nudge a translator or two in the right direction if they were in danger of getting it wrong.
It is important to note that unlike the Quran the Bible is not one cohesive book written or deligated by one person. There were hundreds of "holy christian books" before some high priests got together and put some in the bible and tossed others aside.
These were likely in many different languages, so asking what language the bible was originally in may not be an answerable question.
That's why the companions of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would teach the commoners arabic - so they could understand the scripture. Not the other way around.
If I wanted to communicate to thousands of people that didn’t speak English, I would demand that they all learn English?
Maybe if what I wanted to tell them was important, I would learn there language instead.
But then I don’t claim that English is the most beautiful and perfect langrage in the world and in fact is god’s language.
I can imagine this would pose many challenges for Christians as so far as interpreting the Bible goes- because you can't be sure of what Jesus actually said.
You omit one thing which is faith. Christians believe the Greek text of the NT contains the totality of the message delivered by Jesus (hence the name Eu-aggelion), even if Jesus actually spoke only Aramaic and could read Hebrew. They believe God is all-powerful and protects his revelation even through a translation from Aramaic to Greek.
And we know that translations can transmit a message with exactness, otherwise no Muslim would ever use one.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Isn't that like going in a circle?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks