From: Rod Decker (rdecker@inf.net)
Date: Thu Jan 04 1996 - 07:34:05 EST
>Actually, the question in my mind that prompted the post on hAMARTIA was
>this: Greek civilization did not have a strong sense of sin, and the word
>for it merely means a "missing of the mark." Given that, is Greek the
>wrong language for transmission of Jesus's revision of Judaic tradition?
>Is there not some basic incompatibility? Jesus spoke Aramaic and read
>Hebrew. Doesn't the Greek text already put us at a remove from what he
>actually said, even before the NT is translated into English or any other
>language?
> In many ways Islam is right to say, "If it is not in Arabic it is
>not the Koran."
I would suggest that this reflects an inaccurate view of language in
general. There is no concept that cannot be expresed in any other language.
Some may do a particular job more concisely, etc., and technical terms may
need to be created to deal with some things, but if it can be expressed in
words, any language can do the job. (The Islamic claim is linguistic
nonsense.)
And as for the stmt. that:
> Jesus spoke Aramaic and read
> Hebrew. Doesn't the Greek text already put us at a remove from what he
> actually said...
This ignores the very high probability that Jesus was also fluent in Greek
and could also probably handle Latin (though that is a bit speculative) in
the tri-lingual context of first century Palestine. Having said that, it is
likely that Aramaic was his normal language for conversation and teaching,
and yes, much of the Gospel account is translation. But then see paragraph
1. Translation is both possible and can be done with considerable accuracy,
particularly when the translator is fluent in both languages and is part of
the same cultural milieu. (Remember that the Gospels were not "made in
China" with English instructions from the same source!) Though there are
certainly differences in the linguistic capabilities of, e.g., Mark and
Luke, it is quite interesting that (so far as I know) this difference never
produces a different meaning when addressing the same saying/event. (Luke
may choose to use a saying differently, granted, but the linguistic
difference has not hindered the translation.)
Carl's comments are right on target:
> And I'm not so sure that ideas can't be
> carried across from one linguistic milieu to another.
> this is an IMMENSE subject. It's one I find fascinating, but one
> that I fear is all too open to facile overgeneralizations.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:35 EDT