Can a scholar help me with something?

Matthew 15:10-11
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I'm curious about how accurate the teachings found in the gospel are in respect to how they are written.
I'm no student of literature, linguistics nor scripture formation - so i'm hoping someone with the relevant background can help me understand something.

The way i see it the teachings of Jesus, like the example above, were recorded by word of mouth for about 30 years before they were written down, possibly by aged apostles or by their own disciples.

So, firstly, what are the chances that the actual apostles of Jesus were literate, considering their backgrounds?
In your personal opinions, how likely is it that the teaching given by Jesus would be word for word identical as the one found in the original scripture, if it had been recorded by word of mouth for a number of years? Would the authors of the gospels have put their own spin on the wording?

Considering that Jesus and presumably his apostles spoke in Aramaic, how accurate is a translation from Aramaic into Greek? Is some of the original meaning often lost? Did the writers need to adapt the wording of passages in order for them to make sense in Greek?

When translating from the Greek into English is there again any loss of meaning due to words of poor translative quality? Is a translation from Coptic better or worse in regards to accuracy than one from Greek?

The King James Version is written in old style formal english, would this have had an affect upon the ability of the translators to translate the text retaining its original meaning, and thus altered its meaning for subsequent rewrites?

In summary, how similar do you think the quote above is to that which Jesus spoke himself?
If the quote was rewritten in an original form but retained the same meaning for the student, would it be any less scripturally valid than the english quote above - or would both be equally incorrect as far as wording is concerned?

Halcyon said:

The way i see it the teachings of Jesus, like the example above, were recorded by word of mouth for about 30 years before they were written down, possibly by aged apostles or by their own disciples.

So, firstly, what are the chances that the actual apostles of Jesus were literate, considering their backgrounds?
In your personal opinions, how likely is it that the teaching given by Jesus would be word for word identical as the one found in the original scripture, if it had been recorded by word of mouth for a number of years? Would the authors of the gospels have put their own spin on the wording?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate the power of oral cultures to preserve information.

fwiw, the Tenach was transmitted this way, as well as the Qu'ran.

In the case of the Qu'ran, after Muhammad's death the nascent Muslim community realized they needed to write things down, so people committed what they had memorized to paper, and then got together and compared notes. In most cases, peoples' memories were quite good, and there was a remarkable lack of controvery.

While there is no proof that this was the case with the Gospels, it does not seem an unreasonable thing to assume the quote is accurate.

Would the gospel authors have put their own spin on wording? Inadvertantly, maybe. By design? No, I don't think so. The reason: the Gospel authors truly loved Jesus and the message he gave them. Someone does not destroy the very thing they love the most. Not by conscious design, anyway.

Why this particular verse? Do you suspect there might be some reason for a Gospel writer to have spun this verse in any particular direction?

Booko said:

Why this particular verse? Do you suspect there might be some reason for a Gospel writer to have spun this verse in any particular direction?

Click to expand...

No, that was just an example.

Actually, the tradition is much older and more reliable than it might seem on the surface. For example, Q must have been written prior to Matthew and Luke, and certainly earlier than John. We know that the Q community and the Thomas community separated before the year 40 c.e., so any multiple attestation to a "Jesus quotation" found both in Q and in Thomas was likely propagated prior to 40 c.e., only about 7 years following the crucifixion, and therefore, stands a fair chance of being authentic. While the writing may not be that old, the oral tradition from which the writing is derived is certainly developed and reliable, more so than in our culture.

Some quotations are likely authentic, some are not. Really, attempting to separate authentic quotations and teaching from the later editing and teaching of the Church is a tricky business, although it can be accomplished with some degree of accuracy and reliability, depending upon one's level of scholastic research.

Halcyon said:

Matthew 15:10-11
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I'm curious about how accurate the teachings found in the gospel are in respect to how they are written.
...
In summary, how similar do you think the quote above is to that which Jesus spoke himself?
If the quote was rewritten in an original form but retained the same meaning for the student, would it be any less scripturally valid than the english quote above - or would both be equally incorrect as far as wording is concerned?

Click to expand...

I think the idea is the same.
The Bible is inspired by God. The Bible is God's word, and be sure that He still keeps us informed on what is His will.
And the most good news is that you can be sure that He's been preserving all that necessary for our salvation.
Issues exist, but none of them are inexplicable.

Only on the issue of translation, there is always a loss or change of meaning when translating from one language to another. This is certainly true from Greek to English. Two examples spring to mind. One is 'until'. The Greek equivalent does not imply that when something lasts until some time it does not do so afterwards. Thisis most definitely the implication in English. Another is 'taken' (as in one is taken, one is left to paraphrase a verse beloved of Rapture believers). The word translated here does not have any connotation of physical movement but would be better translated as chosen. Both of these problems in translation lead certain English speaking Protestants to come to unwarranted conclusions and unsustainable dogma.

A translation from Coptic into English would suffer even more as firstly, it's not even an Indo-European language and hence is further removed from English than Greek is and, secondly, because the Coptic scriptures are themselves translations from Greek.

I would suggest that whilst there will have been the inevitable changes in meaning from Aramaic to Greek, it is wrong to refer to this as translation. The only Aramaic New Testament scriptures we have are actually translations from Greek. The NT was originally written in Greek not translated into it. Greek was actually the lingua france of the eastern mediterranean at the time (and had been pretty much since the conquests of Alexander) and was certainly the language used by the majority of diaspora Jews. Many people (and certainly St. Paul) then would have been perfectly familiar with it, even if they could not speak it like a native. I find it perfectly plausible that some, at least, of the Apostles would have been pretty well versed in the language, just as many Europeans, even those who aren't particularly highly educated, have an impressive grasp of English (and quite a number of these with no formal education in the language).

James

sojourner said:

We know that the Q community and the Thomas community separated before the year 40 c.e., so any multiple attestation to a "Jesus quotation" found both in Q and in Thomas was likely propagated prior to 40 c.e., only about 7 years following the crucifixion, and therefore, stands a fair chance of being authentic.

Click to expand...

That is impressive knowledge to be sure! Would you please cite evidence of this "Q community"? While you're at it, please cite evidence of a pre-40 CE separation and subsequent isolation.

JamesThePersian said:

I find it perfectly plausible that some, at least, of the Apostles would have been pretty well versed in the language, just as many Europeans, even those who aren't particularly highly educated, have an impressive grasp of English (and quite a number of these with no formal education in the language).

James

Click to expand...

Nice. That is a very simple and altogther excellent analogy.

Jayhawker Soule said:

That is impressive knowledge to be sure! Would you please cite evidence of this "Q community"? While you're at it, please cite evidence of a pre-40 CE separation and subsequent isolation.

Click to expand...

According to Robert Miller and other historical scholars in their work, "The complete Gospels" (pgs. 250, 251), the unusual linking together of the traditions of wisdom and prophecy found in Q lead us to believe that the Q community was distinct from other groups who may have been writing at the time. some other evidence of distinctiveness come in the form of the recurring themes of rejection and exlusion we find in Q. There appears to be some traumatic experience which divided families and caused division and separation from the "established" community.

Due to the lack of elements in Q dealing with, for example, the resurrection, the title "anointed," named disciples, birth narratives, etc., that we find in the other gospels, Q seems theologically underdeveloped. It also seems quite provincial. it mentions only a few place-names, mostly on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee. The theologically underdeveloped state of Q, its provincial character, and its use by matthew and Luke (as well as its non-use by Mark) are among the indications that Q must have been a very early document. Since it lacks elements found in clearly Christian documents, we might even call it a "pre-Christian" gospel. These scholars think of Q as a kind of "missing link" between the Jewish world of Jesus and the early Christian church.

Thomas (according to Miller) was written in a genre not in use by the latter part of the first century. Thomas derives its material not from the canonical gospels, but from the same oral traditions on which the canonicals relied. So, we conclude that Thomas was assembled before the others had attained the status of "canon" scripture. This places the extant Thomas at about the same time as Mark -- about 70 c.e.

The Thomas community was likely from eastern Syria, where Didymus Judas Thomas seems to have been a popular legendary figure from apostolic times. The extant copy of Thomas is thought to have originated in Syria. However, an earlier version might have originated in Palestine.

In any case, the person or persons responsible for starting the Thomas community would have left Palestine very early, in order to reach eastern Syria, evangelize the area, establish a religious community there, and begin the processes of writing and establishing other traditions. We have no canonized content from that community, so there was obviously some kind of significant separation between the Thomas community and the communities to the west. Brandon Scott, eminent biblical scholar, places the date of separation at prior to 40 c.e.

Q and Thomas do share some content. therefore, any shared content would have had to have been extant prior to the separation (prior to 40 c.e.). Any statement that can be traced to pre-40 stands a good chance (but not 100%) of being authentic.

sojourner said:

Due to the lack of elements in Q dealing with, for example, the resurrection, the title "anointed," named disciples, birth narratives, etc., that we find in the other gospels, Q seems theologically underdeveloped. It also seems quite provincial. it mentions only a few place-names, mostly on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee. The theologically underdeveloped state of Q, its provincial character, and its use by matthew and Luke (as well as its non-use by Mark) are among the indications that Q must have been a very early document. Since it lacks elements found in clearly Christian documents, we might even call it a "pre-Christian" gospel. These scholars think of Q as a kind of "missing link" between the Jewish world of Jesus and the early Christian church.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Q was an entirely theoretical sayings gospel? Are you saying that it has been found?

JamesThePersian said:

I would suggest that whilst there will have been the inevitable changes in meaning from Aramaic to Greek, it is wrong to refer to this as translation. The only Aramaic New Testament scriptures we have are actually translations from Greek. The NT was originally written in Greek not translated into it.

Click to expand...

Indeed, i knew that, i guess i just didn't explain what i meant clearly. Do you know any Aramaic, or have any idea of a loss of meaning that may of occured between the words uttered by Jesus and those written down in Greek?

Mykola said:

I think the idea is the same.
The Bible is inspired by God. The Bible is God's word, and be sure that He still keeps us informed on what is His will.
And the most good news is that you can be sure that He's been preserving all that necessary for our salvation.
Issues exist, but none of them are inexplicable.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your input. But, from now on i'd prefer it if we could discuss this entirely from a scholarly viewpoint and not bring faith into it.

sojourner said:

While the writing may not be that old, the oral tradition from which the writing is derived is certainly developed and reliable, more so than in our culture.

Click to expand...

How do you know this?

I appreciate everyones responses so far, but please feel free to go into further depth if you would like to.
Also, jay, i'm uncertain of your knowledge of the NT, but i would greatly appreciate any input you may have. I know you are educated in Hebrew and can discuss the problems when it is translated into English, do you have any knowledge of the reliability of Greek or other ancient language translations?

I was under the impression that Q was an entirely theoretical sayings gospel? Are you saying that it has been found?

Click to expand...

Well, not entirely theoretical. While the Q text must be extrapolated from the other extant texts, its existence is not merely theoretical. The extrapolation contains scholarly merit, and the extrapolated text can "stand alone," because its existence makes sense, in light of what we know about the other texts and about the culture that produced them.

How do you know this?

Click to expand...

This question in response to my quote:

While the writing may not be that old, the oral tradition from which the writing is derived is certainly developed and reliable, more so than in our culture.

Click to expand...

In our print-culture, we tend to take the information presented in a largely oral culture and twist it. Let me explain: The information we tend to pass along is highly factual, highly detailed, and presented in order to appeal to the head. Oral information, propagated by a largely oral society, is highly metaphorical, highly oriented to the story and not necesarily the facts contained in the story, and presented in order to appeal to the gut.

We tend to take this oral information and make that "square peg" fit into the "round hole" of print information.

But, make no mistake! The oral culture is highly developed in the way it transmits its information, even though the information is meant to be processed differently, and influences and is influenced differently by the culture. These cultures have learned to transmit and process oral information with a lot of finesse. The information, not depending highly upon detail, is remarkably reliable in transmitting what it was designed to transmit.

This information was not largely meant to be taken either literalistically, nor precisely. It's just not that kind of information, even though we'd like for it to be!

sojourner said:

In our print-culture, we tend to take the information presented in a largely oral culture and twist it. Let me explain: The information we tend to pass along is highly factual, highly detailed, and presented in order to appeal to the head. Oral information, propagated by a largely oral society, is highly metaphorical, highly oriented to the story and not necesarily the facts contained in the story, and presented in order to appeal to the gut.

We tend to take this oral information and make that "square peg" fit into the "round hole" of print information.

But, make no mistake! The oral culture is highly developed in the way it transmits its information, even though the information is meant to be processed differently, and influences and is influenced differently by the culture. These cultures have learned to transmit and process oral information with a lot of finesse. The information, not depending highly upon detail, is remarkably reliable in transmitting what it was designed to transmit.

This information was not largely meant to be taken either literalistically, nor precisely. It's just not that kind of information, even though we'd like for it to be!

Click to expand...

Very interesting, thank you.

So, in your opinion. If in the oral tradition it wasn't the exact words themselves that were important, is it possible that when the teachings were written down in Greek, the author could simply have put the teaching into a new phrase that implied the same meaning but made better sense in Greek?

Halcyon said:

Very interesting, thank you.

So, in your opinion. If in the oral tradition it wasn't the exact words themselves that were important, is it possible that when the teachings were written down in Greek, the author could simply have put the teaching into a new phrase that implied the same meaning but made better sense in Greek?

Click to expand...

First, it's amazing at how detailed and authentic some of the oral transmission could be. Second, it may be that the writers were not part of the same oral culture that originated the stories. If not, they may have "automatically" "made over" at least some of what they translated, having a different end in mind than the original speakers. Third, while translators try to be true to the original, some things (not only words, but ideas, cultural references and meanings) just don't translate.

I'm not sure about how much is "lost" in translation from Aramaic to Greek, but that might explain some Hebraisms in the NT. When we start to wonder about things that we don't have evidence for, we start in speculation and end with a fairy tale. The best scholarly answer is "we don't know."

Here's why:

1) The NT that we have today is a collection of texts and fragments, dating from the second century to the Middle Ages and in Greek and Latin. This means that even finding the earliest text and the most reliable MSS is difficult. In short, we don't even know what exactly was said...

2) Perhaps someone can find that there are some Aramaic idioms that can't translate into Greek, but each individual ancient translator/copyist has a different understanding of the language.

Perhaps there are scholars around with enough gumption to review all of that. Usually a commentary will identify problems, if she knows of any, in the text that may arise from langauge issues.

Halcyon said:

If in the oral tradition it wasn't the exact words themselves that were important, is it possible that when the teachings were written down in Greek, the author could simply have put the teaching into a new phrase that implied the same meaning but made better sense in Greek?

Click to expand...

It's perfectly plausible. Heck, scribes and copyists added stuff all the time. Hundreds of MSS have evidence of a copyist scratching out a word and inserting others for correct grammer and, in rare cases, theology.

Thank you AE, very useful information.

Halcyon said:

Thank you AE, very useful information.

Click to expand...

Just do'in my job

sojourner said:

Well, not entirely theoretical. While the Q text must be extrapolated from the other extant texts, its existence is not merely theoretical. The extrapolation contains scholarly merit, and the extrapolated text can "stand alone," because its existence makes sense, in light of what we know about the other texts and about the culture that produced them.

Click to expand...

It's "not entirely theoretical" because it contains "scholarly merit"? That is utter nonsense. Of course it's entirely theoretical. Have you read any of the contra-Q material?

Jayhawker Soule said:

It's "not entirely theoretical" because it contains "scholarly merit"? That is utter nonsense. Of course it's entirely theoretical. Have you read any of the contra-Q material?

Click to expand...

I agree. I was going to call him on this, but I edited it out of my post.

There is a Critical Edition of Q out now, and it's pretty cool. The holes in the theory, however, are quite obvious when we read the document as it's largely thought to exist. It's in Greek and English.

Robinson, James McConkey, 1924-The critical edition of Q : synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas / edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg ; managing editor, Milton C. Moreland. Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press ; Leuven : Peeters Publishers, c2000.

I have read the anti-Q material. But...I happen to be a proponent of the Q theory. yes. It is theoretical, but I believe the supporting evidence points heavily to its existence. In this case, I was responding to the word "theoretical" being used to dismiss the veracity of Q.