[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry for my confusing expressions. And an accurate translation just may be impossible, I don't know.

Why would it be impossible?

But that's not my point. We're reading Greek. Whether or not it's accurate it has to be a translation of the events and sayings that took place ... not to mention the problem of being written decades later.

Right. But, so what? That's a more or less comprehensible language problem about which more is being understood through scholarly work including the now accessible Dead Sea scrolls which are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Thanks for pointing it out. We shouldn't ignore that possibility. But are you thinking that Jesus just picked up the Greek, or that he went to school to learn it? If he went to school then he would definitely be Hellenized. In fact, if he just picked up the Greek then, that would mean that he was picking up Hellenic influences. We may not have any actual evidence, but given how widespread and long standing Hellenism was, it's likely that Jesus was Hellenized to some extent. What we've got of it, in Greek, was certainly Hellenized.

About Jesus specifically we have the Aramaic sayings but no factual statement in the NT as to what language(s) he spoke. But, about first century Galilee there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that Hellenistic culture and the Greek language were part of his everyday social environment.

"Three hundred years of hellenistic influence just before the time of Jesus is an especially important factor. Hellenistic influence has been downplayed by scholars in the interest of buttressing the picture of Jesus appearing in the midst of a thoroughly Jewish culture. Unfortunately for this view, archeological evidence of hellenization in Galilee continues to increase.

Since language is such a basic index of cultural influence, it is significant that southern Galilee was largely Greek-speaking in the first century, though of course bilingual.

Although the Ptolemies and Seleucids had not colonized Galilee by founding a new city in the middle of the region, Galilee was literally surrounded by cities on the hellenistic model. The towns of the Decapolis were newly founded hellenistic cities. One of them, Scythopolis, was on the southern border of Galilee and another, Gadara, was just across the Jordan, a day’s walk from Nazareth or Sepphoris.

All of these cities were proud of their hellenistic institutions, including theaters, sporting arenas (gymnasia), and schools. Gadara produced famous philosophers and poets of the Cynic school, including Meleager (100 B.C.E.), Philodemus (110–40 B.C.E.), and Oenomaus (120 C.E.).

Tiberias, built by Herod Antipas on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in 19 C.E., was founded on the hellenistic model. And Sepphoris, an hour’s walk from Nazareth, was a thoroughly hellenized city."

Mack, Burton L.. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (pp. 57-58). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

That's a lot to call into question. The JS leave us with even less than the little that we've got already. I don't know if they're helping. And if Jesus didn't speak Greek, then they are wrong.

I appreciate that that's how it seems to you. Your skepticism seems to cut both ways. But, again you haven't supported your conclusion. Above you stated accurate translation may be impossible; now you assert impossibility is an established fact. Was that a leap of doubt?

Accurate work got done through translation in the Roman Empire everyday. Otherwise how would the empire function effectively? I'm not denying the significance of translation on language or meaning. But, to conclude that if translation took place accurate meaning was not conveyed is too much unless you can show positively how and why.

I suppose you're talking about Mar_1:15 : And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. But as I understand it there is a debate among scholars of what "at hand" means. Does it mean, 'the kingdom is standing in front of you?' Or does it mean that the kingdom is near as in coming soon?

That's a big question upon which the OP question the meaning of what Christianity is depends. And it's tied to Jesus' self-understanding which is a difficult question in itself. Out of the ambiguity of these issues in the texts has arisen all of the sects and denominations and now the different scholarly schools of thought. That's why people turn to divinely inspired authorities of God like the Pope, Joseph Smith, Nee and Lee who claim to have answers that mere mortals don't possess.

Isn't it thought that Peter dictated it to Mark, who wrote it down in Greek? But we don't know the author of the gospel of Mark, or any of the others, for that matter. We're flying blind here.

It's surprising that Peter didn't mention to Mark that Jesus had said "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church", when he dictated the gospel to him. You would think it would be a difficult detail for him to forget what with the pun on his own name as a mnemonic device. He doesn't mention it in his Epistles either. Nor does Paul mention that Peter relayed the story to him in any of his letters.