Thank you for your comments about Pilate. I'll look in to that, not thought about that before.
OK, so you don't actually mean that the text was rewritten, but you're referring to the formalisation of the canon at the Council of Rome in 382? Of course with some exceptions this was mostly a formalisation of the existing recognition of which books were considered to be special (in the sense that they were written at the time, by eyewitnesses / apostles, etc).
With respect to the dates the texts were written, is your issue that they were written later than you'd expect a modern historical account to be written (although of course we often do write historical accounts that sort of period after today, but not always)? Given that they had an aural tradition, some of the texts are based on earlier writings (that have not survived), they were written by eyewitnesses, and are excellent in terms of date of writing and copies available relative to other historical works of the period I take the mainstream scholarly opinion of considering them to be largely reliable documents.
On bible translation - I guess it doesn't matter very much (for most of the western world!) how the KJV was translated, as the majority of bibles used are more modern translations. The issue of how to translate (dynamic equivalent or formal equivalent) is an issue for all translation. I've written about it in some depth over here looking at the translation of hilasterion.
It seems to be extremely likely that Jesus spoke Greek, but it's also very likely that he primarily spoke in Aramaic. So if one wanted to get as close as possible to the exact words Jesus said you'd be right I think in thinking that some of the nuance might have been lost in the translation to Greek, but it'd be very foolish to overplay this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
OK, so you don't actually mean that the text was rewritten, but you're referring to the formalisation of the canon at the Council of Rome in 382? Of course with some exceptions this was mostly a formalisation of the existing recognition of which books were considered to be special (in the sense that they were written at the time, by eyewitnesses / apostles, etc).
With respect to the dates the texts were written, is your issue that they were written later than you'd expect a modern historical account to be written (although of course we often do write historical accounts that sort of period after today, but not always)? Given that they had an aural tradition, some of the texts are based on earlier writings (that have not survived), they were written by eyewitnesses, and are excellent in terms of date of writing and copies available relative to other historical works of the period I take the mainstream scholarly opinion of considering them to be largely reliable documents.
On bible translation - I guess it doesn't matter very much (for most of the western world!) how the KJV was translated, as the majority of bibles used are more modern translations. The issue of how to translate (dynamic equivalent or formal equivalent) is an issue for all translation. I've written about it in some depth over here looking at the translation of hilasterion.
It seems to be extremely likely that Jesus spoke Greek, but it's also very likely that he primarily spoke in Aramaic. So if one wanted to get as close as possible to the exact words Jesus said you'd be right I think in thinking that some of the nuance might have been lost in the translation to Greek, but it'd be very foolish to overplay this.