The Jesus Secret
Posted by Kushana Torumekia at 5/27/2010 8:00 PM 
Categories: Greek, Bible, Classical Greek, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Jesus Secret, New Testament, Unhidden Bible
Tags: Bible New Testament Koine Greek Classical Greek Greek Aramaic
Categories: Greek, Bible, Classical Greek, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Jesus Secret, New Testament, Unhidden Bible
Tags: Bible New Testament Koine Greek Classical Greek Greek Aramaic
I recently saw an ad for The Jesus Secret. It took me to a website called The Unhidden Bible.
This is a clever variation on the old false claim that the 'proper' translation of Aramaic reveals whatever the author wants to push about the Bible. This time the false claim is that the original translators of the English Bible (I am waiting for the website to name names, this is a more complex subject that it first sounds) did not know Koine (the popular Greek of the New Testament, the Greek spoken by most of the Roman Empire.)
It is true that until the great troves of everyday letters, contracts, and receipts were unearthed from the sands of Egypt at the turn of the last century that scholars knew less about Koine Greek. However, earlier translators did know Classical Greek and if you know Classical Greek you can certainly read Koine Greek.
Koine Greek is simpler than Classical Greek, it has fewer verb tenses, less complex grammar, a smaller vocabulary ... a Classical Greek grammar and dictionary are quite helpful for reading the more complex passages in the New Testament and do very well for students of New Testament Greek who cannot put their hands on a Koine grammar or dictionary. Saying that people who knew Classical Greek could not read Koine is like saying someone who can read Faulkner can't follow US Magazine.
Besides, the Bible has been translated many times since its first translation into English. We now have many fine translations that benefit from the wealth of Koine texts discovered at the beginning of the 20th century. If the earliest Bibles in English had mistranslations then we have had ample time to correct them: nearly any responsible and scholarly translation of the Bible made within the last 70 years will provide a fair translation of the Sacred Writ. (And you can compare your translation against another one, or several other ones, if you so desire.)
For those who may think I am an evil defender of the status quo: one of my favorite things is the study of the scriptures of now-dead religions. I love accurately translating and understanding the arguments and theologies of religions which have no living adherents and I and other scholars get very bent out of shape when we think one of our colleagues has distorted or misunderstood one the details of these extinct faiths — simply because we love accuracy. We bring the same fierce love of accuracy (in more minutae than you can even picture)* to the translation of the Bible, we often belong to Biblical faiths, wish very deeply to transmit the text accurately, and when asked to choose between Greek (or Hebrew) grammar and piety, we will often choose the grammar. (We are, after all, scholars. If Paul says something unbelievably crude in Galatians, we will translate it just as he said it.)
* Scholars worry over which ancient hand-written manuscripts to use as sources, they seek out the best photographs of these manuscripts (or examine them in person), they worry over the handwriting and the thinking of the scribes of these manuscripts, they argue over every slip of the pen (which may or may not represent what a Biblical author originally wrote), they consult other ancient texts to be certain their understanding of Greek matches ancients' understanding of Greek, they consult several dictionaries if a word is in doubt, and they debate how Greek used subordinate clauses in order to be certain they have chosen the right one for their translation. (Greek grammar, even simple Greek grammar, is like looking at the insides of a watch.) We do this because it is what goes in to making an accurate translation: there is no one ancient manuscript of the Bible (and every manuscript we have was written by hand — often several hands.)
I see the website also mentions Aramaic: the Aramaic New Testament we currently have is a careful translation from the Greek. With few exceptions, it will only tell you how Aramaic-speaking Christians of a well-established, five century old religion read the Greek Bible. (A very interesting topic, but not the very words of Jesus.) Aramaic Christianity went through a careful process of textual and doctrinal standardization (as did all the early branches of Christianity). It is not the easy treasure trove of first-generation Christianity that many book and website peddlers propose. (Anyone who tells you Aramaic is the key to Jesus and the Apostles is either frightfully ignorant of Church history (and the history of the Near East) or they are deliberately lying in order to sell you something. Times are tight: hold on to your money.)
Jesus spoke Koine Greek: he had to or his followers, the crowds, Roman officials, and Pilate would not have understood him. To read a good slice of the difficulties in knowing when and how early Christians used Aramaic, read Joseph Fitzmyer's Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (ISBN 978-0802848451)
I see the website also mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were written before the lifetime of Jesus and are Jewish texts, not Christian ones. They do not document anything about Jesus or his followers: they cannot (unless one brings a time machine into the matter. Perhaps someday one of these bad Bible scholarship books or websites will.)
Rule of Thumb: advances in genuine scholarship tend to be small. No one thing, no one discovery or insight, will change everything about what the Bible is or what it means. Anyone who tells your their discovery or insight will change how you read the whole Bible (by skipping letters, making silly claims about ancient languages, or some other novelty I cannot yet picture) is trying to sell books.
Save your money: I'll answer your questions for free.
-Kushana
Comments