(November 19, 2011 at 9:00 am)fr0d0 Wrote: To understand the aincient Hebrew texts we need to take into account the parrallel traditions for a correct perspective.I quite agree on that!
I’ve read translations of the cuneiform texts and I’ve studied hieroglyphic texts because I’ve taught myself to translate the hieroglyphic script. I can assure you therefore that I understand the Old Testament and that I do respect it deeply.
The case of the New Testament is, however, quite different: The texts were written originally in Greek and there are no Hebrew or Aramaic texts from which… some authors included translations, as per passage you quoted.
By writing the gospels directly in Greek, the authors (if we assume they knew Jesus, or that they at least knew someone who had seen and heard Jesus) did translate the words of Jesus into a language he was not speaking. In this way they saved no original words of Jesus other that the four words already mentioned.
Isn’t it a huge blunder?
During that time the Greek language was used by the scholars, the aristocracy and the upper classes in general. Jesus was not preaching to them and the gospels are supposed to have been written for the common people to know the words of Jesus, but the layman did not speak Greek. Not everybody was speaking Greek then as not everybody is speaking English today. These countries are not Greek-speaking countries today.
So why write the gospels in Greek?
The only sensible answer is that the authors of the gospels did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic. The gospels, as well as the story of Jesus was made up, most probably based on a model case or based on the life of Julius Ceasar, as per the relevant theory.
