Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
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?
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?