|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 14, 2021 16:09:55 GMT
Why was the New Testament [the Gospels etc.] written in Greek? {This issue has been raised in connection with all sects of Christianity, and I could have presented in my Logology thread,in Linguistics, or, more specifically, Glottology.} Here is an excellent study; however, I'll point to a defect after some of you shall have read it. I'll be back. www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm please follow response-instruction [or search: new testament written in greek] -- if you have nothing better to do. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP 
Elder
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Oct 15, 2021 4:52:14 GMT
Because Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire in which Palestine/Israel was located? That's the reason if I recall. Like asking why everyone posts in English on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 17, 2021 21:38:49 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic,
then translated into Greek,
from there Latin,
then English.
The Good News Bible, translates directly
from the Aramaic,
but some parts are still mis-translated.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 18, 2021 17:20:32 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, from there Latin, then English. The Good News Bible, translates directly from the Aramaic, but some parts are still mis-translated. According to the cited article, there is no evidence that it was translated from any language into Greek [as it exists in this form]. I tend to agree;however, the article has an important defect/deficiency: it fails to refute or even to face the hypothesis advanced by the 19th century German Bible scholars: the three synoptic gospels are nearly identical in their presentations of the episodes and teachings of Jesus, sometimes word for word, wherefore they believed that there was a Proto- or Ur- Gospel, in Greek, which was copied by the three synoptic evangelists. Some years ago, I myself compared the English translations of those gospels, found their "parallelism", and noticed that a paragraph in one of them was incomplete but could be completed by the sentences in another synoptic gospel! So, I still favor a proto "euaggelion tou I. Khristou", a massive compilation of oral anecdotes which most likely an Alexandrian Judean wrote down and was used by the canonical evangelists and possibly by the apogryphal evangelists. Anyway, the verbatim parallelism must be accounted for. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 18, 2021 20:55:15 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, from there Latin, then English. The Good News Bible, translates directly from the Aramaic, but some parts are still mis-translated. According to the cited article, there is no evidence that it was translated from any language into Greek [as it exists in this form]. I tend to agree;however, the article has an important defect/deficiency: it fails to refute or even to face the hypothesis advanced by the 19th century German Bible scholars: the three synoptic gospels are nearly identical in their presentations of the episodes and teachings of Jesus, sometimes word for word, wherefore they believed that there was a Proto- or Ur- Gospel, in Greek, which was copied by the three synoptic evangelists. Some years ago, I myself compared the English translations of those gospels, found their "parallelism", and noticed that a paragraph in one of them was incomplete but could be completed by the sentences in another synoptic gospel! So, I still favor a proto "euaggelion tou I. Khristou", a massive compilation of oral anecdotes which most likely an Alexandrian Judean wrote down and was used by the canonical evangelists and possibly by the apogryphal evangelists. Anyway, the verbatim parallelism must be accounted for. The evidence backing the claims of Aramaic are fairly good. For starters, that was the language Jesus and his family spoke, and most of those early Christians were of or near his family. A popular misconstruct is that Jesus could not write, but when he defends the 'prostitute' in the incident "who is without sin should cast the first stone", he clearly writes in the dirt something - which it seems she understands, and the rest of them do not, which is why he sides with her.
Moreover the Good News bible reads very fluidly, unlike other versions like King James which apparently was authored by Shakespeare, which stutters along typical of going through various translations.
But everybody still gets wrong the notion of the "sun standing still for 3 hours" - mistaking it for a miracle, when it is an adjustment to the solar calendar. On the equinox, 3 hours are adjusted back at dawn - exactly 1/8th of a day. Which makes up 24 hours every four years - an equivalent adjustment to a leap year.
So Jesus was crucified on the equinox. Only on the equinox is it precisely 1/8th of a day as 3 hours. They typically timed important events with this adjustment so that the news of the adjustment would travel widely. Its a vital aspect of farming, to get the calendar correct, and something performed by the religious sect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 25, 2021 16:46:12 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, from there Latin, then English. The Good News Bible, translates directly from the Aramaic, but some parts are still mis-translated. I think you're right, but not completely. It was not written, but was used and uttered in Aramaic. I mean Christ Himself used Aramaic to speak. But because Aramaic wasn't overused, and was only partially extended, then, I guess it wasn't non-clever decision to make it in Greek. Also, do agree, there might be some gaps. But Christians believe that not in gaps are problems, but rather in our relationships. I mean Christs repeated it often that Pharisees and the scientists (at those times - I mean that those the book-scholars) did not know God, while plain fishermen, squanderers, carpenters, and shepherds knew God better. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 25, 2021 16:54:00 GMT
joustosThis is a long read. Must say I'll give up reading it all. I remember there were times I was studying exactly to be a priest, but now I don't remember almost a little about it. Can say that the matter is interesting, while to study all this isn't easy. All I can say is that there must be some evidence we may start to speak something. I know that there were many many others scriptures. And I think that the central question is not in which language it was written. Honestly, I'd say this doesn't really matter. Because Christianity was about to share their religion not among Jews only, but to bring it to the other folks. Plus to it, the main tradiction of which text to use was started only in the 2nd century, and it was continued to III sometimes V, and then sometimes to VIII centuries. Then there were some attempts to change and bring this question back during the history. I think the endless quarrells between Christians results in nothing. In nothing good. Instead, I guess we should act, should do something Christiany to approve we're decent to be called Christians. Because I can't say I'm a person who's deserved to be called a Christian. I can't say my personal life shows that all what I do is decent. That's why till I'm not a good in living my life, I cannot insist someone should follow me. I guess that perhaps Ludwig Wittgenstein was right saying that some of truth could not be uttered, it must be demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Nov 9, 2021 13:28:12 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, from there Latin, then English. The Good News Bible, translates directly from the Aramaic, but some parts are still mis-translated. I think you're right, but not completely. It was not written, but was used and uttered in Aramaic. I mean Christ Himself used Aramaic to speak. But because Aramaic wasn't overused, and was only partially extended, then, I guess it wasn't non-clever decision to make it in Greek. Also, do agree, there might be some gaps. But Christians believe that not in gaps are problems, but rather in our relationships. I mean Christs repeated it often that Pharisees and the scientists (at those times - I mean that those the book-scholars) did not know God, while plain fishermen, squanderers, carpenters, and shepherds knew God better. I went and reread the preface to the Good New Bible, and they certainly refer to "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts". Though not all that specific as to which book was what.
Interestingly if you just look at the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, they are certainly linked in some way. Most of the letters are parallel even with the English alphabet.
We tend to think that languages form separate neat groups like they mostly do today, but in the era of hand-written texts, there was little conformity; even as recently as 1800.
So it would be anthropomorphic to suggest that in those times there was a nice clear distinction between the languages like there is today. More likely the originals were a mix-up of all those languages to lesser or greater degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 9, 2021 16:55:27 GMT
joustos This is a long read. Must say I'll give up reading it all. I remember there were times I was studying exactly to be a priest, but now I don't remember almost a little about it. Can say that the matter is interesting, while to study all this isn't easy. All I can say is that there must be some evidence we may start to speak something. I know that there were many many others scriptures. And I think that the central question is not in which language it was written. Honestly, I'd say this doesn't really matter. Because Christianity was about to share their religion not among Jews only, but to bring it to the other folks. Plus to it, the main tradiction of which text to use was started only in the 2nd century, and it was continued to III sometimes V, and then sometimes to VIII centuries. Then there were some attempts to change and bring this question back during the history. I think the endless quarrells between Christians results in nothing. In nothing good. Instead, I guess we should act, should do something Christiany to approve we're decent to be called Christians. Because I can't say I'm a person who's deserved to be called a Christian. I can't say my personal life shows that all what I do is decent. That's why till I'm not a good in living my life, I cannot insist someone should follow me. I guess that perhaps Ludwig Wittgenstein was right saying that some of truth could not be uttered, it must be demonstrated. Jonbain, I meant to quote your post... My response: My original question as to why the New Testament [though, more specifically, the Gospels ] was written in Greek -- or mostly in Greek --was tacitly motivated by a deeper concern, namely the fact that a language does not merely state facts [or alleged facts], for the words have their own thought-contents which may or do influence whatever is stated in the used language. . But now I see that you brought up an issue about the physical writing of diverse languages, such as the relationship of Hebrew and Greek graphology. You rightly point to a similarity in their alphabets and, we may add, in their names of the letters of their alphabets, e.g., Gr. Alpha/ Hebr. Alef; Gr. Beta / Hebr. Beth. As I have investigated this subject, I'll make a few remarks (for the puzzled readers): Some Jewish scholars have claimed that ancient Hebrew writers adopted the alphabet from the Phoenicians, who are still considered to be the inventors of the alphabet. (As a consequence, they claim, too, that the Greeks adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians, good old Semites... who never produced any significant literature!) The reverse is the case. The Hebr. alphabet has the letter "F" (called Digamma in Greek) which became obsolete in the Gr. Classical alphabet. The Greeks used the sequence of their letters as numerals [our 1, 2, 3, 4, etc,],and so did the Hebrews. [F = our 6.] Anyway, by saying that the Gospels were originally written in Greek, we do not stress the fact that they were written in the Greek (Classical) alphabet. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Nov 9, 2021 20:36:20 GMT
It was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, from there Latin, then English. The Good News Bible, translates directly from the Aramaic, but some parts are still mis-translated. According to the cited article, there is no evidence that it was translated from any language into Greek [as it exists in this form]. I tend to agree;however, the article has an important defect/deficiency: it fails to refute or even to face the hypothesis advanced by the 19th century German Bible scholars: the three synoptic gospels are nearly identical in their presentations of the episodes and teachings of Jesus, sometimes word for word, wherefore they believed that there was a Proto- or Ur- Gospel, in Greek, which was copied by the three synoptic evangelists. Some years ago, I myself compared the English translations of those gospels, found their "parallelism", and noticed that a paragraph in one of them was incomplete but could be completed by the sentences in another synoptic gospel! So, I still favor a proto "euaggelion tou I. Khristou", a massive compilation of oral anecdotes which most likely an Alexandrian Judean wrote down and was used by the canonical evangelists and possibly by the apogryphal evangelists. Anyway, the verbatim parallelism must be accounted for. Around 400 AD, St. Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from Hebrew into Latin. All previous translations had been from the Greek version, the Septuagint, which was compiled in Alexandria, Egypt in 260 BC. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 10, 2021 6:29:23 GMT
Aramaic? Did Paul know this language? He was Roman and...something else...forgot.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Nov 10, 2021 18:31:58 GMT
Aramaic? Did Paul know this language? He was Roman and...something else...forgot. The Apostle Paul was ethnically a Jew but a Roman citizen. Anyone who was a part of the Roman Empire could theoretically be a Roman Citizen regardless of their ethnicity. The Apostle Paul certainly knew Aramaic as it was the first language of Jews in those days. Paul spoke Aramaic as I speak English. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 10, 2021 19:47:28 GMT
Aramaic? Did Paul know this language? He was Roman and...something else...forgot. The Apostle Paul was ethnically a Jew but a Roman citizen. Anyone who was a part of the Roman Empire could theoretically be a Roman Citizen regardless of their ethnicity. The Apostle Paul certainly knew Aramaic as it was the first language of Jews in those days. Paul spoke Aramaic as I speak English. Addition: Paul called himself "Jew of Jews" thereby stressing the fact that he was a follower of the Jewish religion. Of course he embraced Christianity--which meant that he wanted to bring pagans to the bosom of Abraham through Christ. Yet he spoke Greek [to the Athenians] and wrote his letters in Greek. This was natural, since Greek was the language of his native city, Tarsus [in Anatolia]. Saul of Tarsus became Paul [Paulus in Latin], the apostle to Greek-speaking populations. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Nov 10, 2021 20:31:27 GMT
The Apostle Paul was ethnically a Jew but a Roman citizen. Anyone who was a part of the Roman Empire could theoretically be a Roman Citizen regardless of their ethnicity. The Apostle Paul certainly knew Aramaic as it was the first language of Jews in those days. Paul spoke Aramaic as I speak English. Addition: Paul called himself "Jew of Jews" thereby stressing the fact that he was a follower of the Jewish religion. Of course he embraced Christianity--which meant that he wanted to bring pagans to the bosom of Abraham through Christ. Yet he spoke Greek [to the Athenians] and wrote his letters in Greek. This was natural, since Greek was the language of his native city, Tarsus [in Anatolia]. Saul of Tarsus became Paul [Paulus in Latin], the apostle to Greek-speaking populations. Ah yes, forgot he wasn't actually from Palestine. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 11, 2021 7:01:23 GMT
I think you're right, but not completely. It was not written, but was used and uttered in Aramaic. I mean Christ Himself used Aramaic to speak. But because Aramaic wasn't overused, and was only partially extended, then, I guess it wasn't non-clever decision to make it in Greek. Also, do agree, there might be some gaps. But Christians believe that not in gaps are problems, but rather in our relationships. I mean Christs repeated it often that Pharisees and the scientists (at those times - I mean that those the book-scholars) did not know God, while plain fishermen, squanderers, carpenters, and shepherds knew God better. I went and reread the preface to the Good New Bible, and they certainly refer to "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts". Though not all that specific as to which book was what.
Interestingly if you just look at the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, they are certainly linked in some way. Most of the letters are parallel even with the English alphabet.
We tend to think that languages form separate neat groups like they mostly do today, but in the era of hand-written texts, there was little conformity; even as recently as 1800.
So it would be anthropomorphic to suggest that in those times there was a nice clear distinction between the languages like there is today. More likely the originals were a mix-up of all those languages to lesser or greater degrees.
I wanted to say that there was another precedent in history. Slavs doesn't have one and uniformed alphabet, and so on, but as soon as Bible reading becomes important for them instead of doing some research they invented new one alphabet (interesting to notr, this new one was also workable to use), and started to have both: the new one for Bible reading, and another for daily discussions. Your notification is really helpful not only in a point you've introduced, but also in a culture way: any pre- the linguistic turn events have never explained by language. And as you sharply noticed – the difference began much later. This is a really powerful and workable argument of yours. |
|
