Interpretation of Texts (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 19, 2010, 03:59 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Aramaic primacy maintains that the native language of the apostles, Jesus, and others was aramaic, and that the translation from Aramaic texts to Greek texts can account for discrepancies such as this. This one just happens to be the most earth-shattering mistranslations in the history of religious texts. 
> > 
> > I own a formal analysis provided to me by one of the scholars purporting aramaic primacy.
> 
> My impression from reading primarily Jewish scholars is that it is widely accepted that Aramaic was the curent language at the time of Jesus, and that the Hebrew Pentatuch texts were translated into Aramiac and then into Greek. Why the fuss?-The fuss exists because from a very early time the leadership of early Christianity ended up falling to mostly educated Greek-speaking population. Couple that with Emperor Constantine and the very neophyte Catholic church--compounded by Greek assertion of cultural primacy--you get a very staunch and dogmatic fight. After awhile, it was simply Greek and that was it, because there's no way a non-Greek or Roman language would be considered civilized for your upper-crust Roman citizens. -All Christian Bibles therefore currently are based on Greek manuscripts, with the only exception being Syriac bibles. Coptic Christians have a bible that is based on a special dialect of Greek. -I've always thought this fight was a dumb one; Jesus spoke Aramaic. So did his early disciples; therefore it makes the most sense that the earliest scriptures were written in Aramaic, and translated to Greek later.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"