Since Jesus was an oriental gentleman ...

Hello all, I am still alive by the way …

Since Jesus was an oriental gentleman, what would that have as an effect on European and American Christians? The real problem with the word “Oriental” is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. Of the oriental languages, Jesus spoke a Semite language. Today, the most widely spoken Semitic language by far is Arabic, followed by Amharic, Hebrew, and Tigrinya. Jesus most probably spoke Aramaic, a forerunner of Arabic and related to Hebrew.

This brings to mind the discussion I heard when in Egypt, between an Egyptian and a Jew. The Jew said he was born in Hebron, to which the Egyptian said, “Oh, you’re an Arab then!” I think our Jewish friend didn’t appreciate the fact that this statement was meant as a friendly gesture. But there was a difference between the two men. One had enjoyed an education in Cairo, the other in Europe. It strikes me that this is where our differences lie.

The European and Arabian (or Oriental) mentality is different and it is notable in the language. I have a feeling that Jews have tried to loose their oriental identity and take on the European, Greek-influenced thought pattern, as did the Christians, and it is here that Moslem criticism of Jews and Christians finds its root. It is here that the power of the Aramaic language was surrendered for Greek. Luther is said to have once commented, “Hebrew is as deep as an ocean, Greek as deep as a river and Latin as deep as a puddle!”

Having read Neil Douglas-Klotz, I feel he has a valid point about the lacking in the translation of supposed statements of Jesus, had they been originally spoken in Aramaic. Jewish scholars have also commented that they discovered “Hebraisms” beneath Greek that didn’t sound right, because a translator had tried to faithfully render in Greek, what was so powerful in Aramaic. And we have to understand that Jesus was quite an event, probably because of his powerful teaching.

What comes into view through the attempt of Neil Douglas-Klotz’ translation is the fact that there is a lot more room for inspirational mystical fantasy and much less substance for pseudo-philosophical dogma. It could be the ground on which reconciliation could be built between Judaism, Christianity and Islam – but will we allow that to happen?

Shalom

good to hear you are well

this brings up an interesting idea…

Jesus spoke in aramaic…

in what langauge were the gospels originally written?

do copies of them (the original gospels) even exist?

and how do the translations of aramaic, into translations of greek, into translations of latin, into translations of german or english or french relate to each other?

how do you know which one is accurate? I don’t believe the gospels can be historical documentations on their face…

how do we know that the gospels are not perversions of something not even remotely related to current christianity?

of course, the jews will translate it favorably to the jews… the latins translated it favorably to the latins… the greeks for the greeks, the russians for the russians, ect…

I find it amazing that so much is based on nothing more than fallible human interpretations…

-Imp

Hi Imp,

The Gospels were written in Greek and there are fragmented copies all over the place - the best of which were found last. But of course we have no original manuscripts. At least they are younger than what we have from Plato or Socrates (we are actually dependent upon contemporary writers like Aristophanes and Xenophon for our information about the life and work of Socrates).

Philology has come a long way in 500 years but even Luther and Erasmus were able to read and write Greek, which is after all the basis of academic teaching in Europe. Translations into German or English or French are as reliable as translations are. Speaking both English and German fluently, I notice that translations lose nuances - although in comparison, German and English are as shallow as Latin.

It is difficult for us to understand the depth of ancient languages, since it has to do with the building of words and the fact that parts of words have meanings, are numbers etc. If you spend a couple of hours with a philologist its fascinating (well for me at least).

You are right of course, the Gospels are not historical in our modern sense of the word. They do not present a lineal and objective account of what happened, but rather an intricate and subjective interpretation of what happened. They are more like a novel than history. But since the teaching of Jesus is transported in these Gospels, not history, that is quite acceptable.

This is where it get interesting though, because you can’t just take a speech and translate it over and over again, you have to return to the original - especially if the original was a Semitic language and not Greek. Klotz does make the point however, that modern translations are not wrong, they are just a little diluted. He compares it to orange juice which has been diluted and refined over and over again. The Aramaic “orange juice” is freshly pressed with bits of orange in it, whilst the English “orange juice” is a weak reminder of what it should be.

I don’t think it is a question of translating ‘favourably’ but rather a problem translating the broadness of meaning without becoming three times as long. You can’t have the teaching of someone who spoke in Aramaic in short sharp statements without leaving something out.

For example, here’s an example of what Klotz does with the most famous prayer in Christianity, the Our Father; first the King James version, then several alternate translation using his technique:

“Our Father which art in heaven”

O Thou, the one from whom breath enters being in all radiant forms.

O Parent of the universe, from your deep interior comes the next wave of shining life.

O fruitful, nurturing Life-giver! Your sound rings everywhere throughout the cosmos.

This is all in that short “our Father which art in heaven” but not translatable in as few words.

Shalom

Bob,

I have to say that you say it well,

“a lot more room for inspirational mystical fantasy and much less substance for pseudo-philosophical dogma.”

What it seems is that what one is replacing historically determined philosophically influenced dogma with the mystic fantasies of one man, the translator, who is imagining an original text that simply does not exist. The danger of this of course is that the risk for personal projection is immense, turning lines into meanings that make one feel good -suits one’s spiritual disposition-, with an additional claim to original meaning which is simply invented. This strikes me as somewhat deceptive. In addition, one must be careful when beginning from premises that a language is inherently allegorical, or mystical or “deep” what not. Languages have capacity for kinds of expression, but what cannot be known is the degree to which these languages are being used in that way. In point of fact thousands of times a day Aramaic was being used to ask “where is the milk”, and not something along the lines of “where in the vastness is the source of all life”, so by being predispositioned to the very allegorical limits of a language, and in inventing the original text, it would seem that that is more than a bit of a speculation.

Dunamis

Hi Bob,

I do like the concept, because it is clear that the understanding of any culture or times simply can’t give way to a literal translation hundreds or thousands of years later. Language and cultural concepts are so tightly linked that any downstream translation is always skewed. Still, I share Dunamis’ concern that there is not just a bit of tinkering, but perhaps the possibility of outright tampering in such an endeaver to create an expanded ‘translation’.

Many attempts have been made in this area, and I seriously doubt if any translation would be widely accepted, even inside one religion let alone several. Look at all the KJV-only people out there.

An admirable concept, but the jealously guarded ‘holy words’ would seem to negate the effort.

What we really need is oral tradition, constantly evolving language and concepts that link the spiritual ideas to the direct experience of the listeners, but that too is subject to tampering…

JT

Hi Bob

I don’t see what good can come from fantasy and dogma. if you put 100 experts in Judiasm, Christendom, and Islam together in a room and let em have at it regarding fantasy and dogma, no matter how hard they shake hands, after a week and the effects of the good scotch have worn off, everything will be back to the usual bickering. What else can be expected from fantasy and blind dogma. As a result, only a relative few can objectively benefit as they could from the truths of a teaching initiating with a conscious source.

Dammit Imp! Why didn’t you make sure he was dead!! ;p

In this world, organized religion has fine-tuned the image of their deities so that no doubt is left unshredded. Which is why such a question which you have presented could never truly be answered.

In the birthing days of Christianity, it makes sense how Jews living within a Roman Empire could not help but be influenced by the world power of the day. Afterall, it is wise to adapt in a changing world.

Reconciliation between the three major Abrahamic religions is a doomed dream because all three are equally self-righteous of their own short-hand truths which overlook the underlying connection tying them all together.

Bob, I was just deciding this weekend whether to drop a course in (Modern) Hebrew at a local college. (Most colleges seem to have Hebrew pre-requisites before they offer a Biblical Hebrew course.)

Although the quote is from Luther, he has been reconciled with the (Catholic) Church. I should share this quote with my teacher if/when i tell her that I’ll stay in the class (despite low grades – i’m having the hardest time with learning vocabulary) and just study harder.

On the other hand, maybe not everyone can become a Hebrew scholar like you.

Shalom

my real name

Hi everyone,

That is what I originally thought but the Old Syriac Aramaic versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John exist at this time in two ancient manuscripts. They date to about the same time as our best Greek-language manuscripts of the gospels, on which most of the Bibles published today are based. They are:

1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century.

Codex Curetonianus was discovered first of all by Dr. William Cureton, who then transcribed and published it in 1858. In 1892 the Codex Sinaiticus was “discovered” in Egypt by two British scholars, Dr. Agnes Lewis, and her sister Margaret, who were then visiting St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai.

Of course, the danger is here that it may not be “pure” Aramaic, but may have been translated back from Greek. However, it is the fact that Scholars approach the Gospel texts from both sides, discovering on the one hand the “uncomfortable Greek” suggesting Hebraisms that translators tried to retain in Greek, and on the other side, an Aramaic translation that supports that claim.

The last edition of these gospels came out in 1910; however, Burkitt’s 1904 translation of the Aramaic Matthew shows that the aim of the translator at this time was not to discover the particulars of the Aramaic, but to show that the text represented a confirmation for the Greek.

I can follow you, but are we not clear on one account – that Religion isn’t about scientific facts, but about inspiration and intuitive insight? Religion shouldn’t make the claim of science or philosophy, but show itself to be inspirational in its own way. Besides, the word ‘invention’ makes a connotation to making up or fabricating. Klotz is trying to give us an idea of the different way that people who speak Semitic languages think and open up a discussion whether our diluted form of translation is where much of the original power of Jesus’ teaching has been lost (although even diluted it is pretty impressive).

Indeed, but the Gospels do not amount to the daily dairy entries of Jesus from Nazareth, recording his everyday dealing with the milkman, his neighbours or the weather. The Gospels supposedly record his teaching, which is already recognisable for Jewish scholars to be along the lines of rabbinical teaching of his day. What we are trying to understand, is what set him apart? Why did he have a large enough influence to make people follow him after death? The suggestion is, that this could be made apparent by discovering his words in the language he spoke them in.

Notice, Klotz doesn’t say everything is wrong. But he does suggest that we might have another source by which we can understand better those things that we stumble over. And it could relax the atmosphere between the book religions that all stem from Semitic (related) languages.

Shalom

Bob,

They date to about the same time as our best Greek-language manuscripts of the gospels, on which most of the Bibles published today are based. They are:

1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century.

Actually we have much earlier Greek texts, for instance Papyri Bodmer II (early 3rd cent), themselves filled with copiest errors.

but about inspiration and intuitive insight?

Not the inspiration and insight of one person presenting a supposedly holy text in an authoritative - presumed authentic - way.

but the Gospels do not amount to the daily dairy entries of Jesus from Nazareth, recording his everyday dealing with the milkman, his neighbours or the weather.

Not diary entries, but we have no idea at the level of literalism or idiomatic commonplaceness employed in his language, to assume the limit of allegory and “depth” strikes me as simply giving oneself room to invent – however inspired one may imagine one may be.

As to Aramaic translated back from the Greek and then into English, I recall the famous translation of the Coca Cola tagline “Coke adds Life” into Chinese and then back into English during the early campaign for China. “Coke adds Life” became “Coke brings the ancestors back from the dead”. It is exactly this kind of linguistic transformation I’m talking about. A common phrase that anyone would understand turned into metaphysical attestation of extraordinary claim.

Dunamis

Bob asks

It was his “being” that set him apart. Words don’t allow people to experience the truth of their being. It takes a man of being to do this. Words than can fill in the blanks and provide additional experience for those already having had experience.

Introducing the truth is the worst possible thing for those that live by appearance. Ironically, it is this contentment to live by appearance that created the imbalance requiring the Crucifixion and Resurrection to begin with. That is why the majority, living by appearance, were compelled to string him up. The effects of his “being” disturbed appearance.

Hi,

Yes, it contains in 146 leaves almost all of the Gospel According to John, including chapter 21. But my point in mentioning the Aramaic manuscripts was not to argue that point, but to show that it isn’t a case of a translation being made up by Klotz.

You are really arguing old hat here. You are missing my point altogether - but perhaps purposely, seeing as you can’t use anything I have written, but you want to be against it.

My point is that the mentality and understanding of so called “oriental” people differs from western mentality in a way that is apparent in the languages that were dominant. This has been completely avoided by conservative Christianity - even today. Whereas in Hebrew the midrash is accepted as a contemplative method of approaching Torah texts, the subject is avoided in NT-translations probably because of the implications to dogmatic teaching in later centuries that was built on the Greek translation.

We are not talking about a completely new translation, but the contemplative approach that is comparable to midrash.

Hi Nick, you lost me here. I was the impression that someone teaching in the way Jesus did involves personal commitment and the teachings themselves which necessarily have to be congruent.

Shalom

Bob,

My point is that the mentality and understanding of so called “oriental” people differs from western mentality in a way that is apparent in the languages that were dominant.

Are you saying that therefore the Christ message does not apply to those with a “Western” mentality? Is the Western mentality inherently “unspiritual” in your mind, something that has to be translated out of, into the “proper” mentality of the East? Or has the dogmatic metaphysics of the Greek properly translated the Christ message into the Western mentality, so as to be meaningful and transformative within that mentality, as is proper to the Christ in the West.

We are not talking about a completely new translation, but the contemplative approach that is comparable to midrash.

There is a great tradition of Biblical exegesis in Christianity, thousands of years of it in fact. The problem is that this is not presented – from your description of it – as a commentary, but as a translation. And as such, holding a claim to authenticity to origin, functioning not in the tradition of midrash, but rather of radical return to the “word” as it was uttered, a word here invented through as you say, “contemplation”. I am not against the project, only against its portrayal as a translation in the context of the uncovered “word”. The difference between saying “When Jesus said “x” as translated from the Greek he may have meant “y” because of the nature of Aramaic” and simply presenting “And Jesus turned to the multitude and said ‘Y’”, is subtle, but large. Or alternately, if the author had simply written an inspired poem based on these texts, perhaps how Klopstock had done in his beautiful “Messiah”, then the contemplation would be taken as such.

Dunamis

Hi Dunamis,

No, I am saying that the western mentality isn’t the only way to look at things - especially if Jesus was an “oriental” gentleman … The same applies if you look at the understanding of African or Chinese Christians (if they haven’t been completely “americanised”). In fact, the whole idea of unified thought with regard to Religion is something that sounds a lot like “Gleichschaltung” - and is suspect.

No, I am saying that it would be “unspiritual” to purposely ignore the other perspective. Just as the terminology “oriental” has been used derogatively, causing at least a slight prejudice towards those “otherly-wordly” folk, so it seems that the “jewishness” of Christ is suppressed. If you see what Islam has taken in about Jesus, you may see the reason for criticism.

I beg your pardon? Did you get a bit twisted here?

My point is that the mentality and understanding of so called “oriental” people differs from western mentality in a way that is apparent in the languages that were dominant. Why do you try to make something else out of what I have said?

Shalom

Bob,

No, I am saying that the western mentality isn’t the only way to look at things - especially if Jesus was an “oriental” gentleman …

This course should not preclude the Western “mentality” of Christ either. The question is dual. Was there a Hebraic Christ fundamentality only understandable to the Jew (or oriental), or is there a universalizing Christ effect (as taught by Paul, a Jew), which can be understood in any number of cultural “mentalities”. It was a question that divided the early Christian church, and perhaps only the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple decided it.

How do you reconcile these two statements:

In fact, the whole idea of unified thought with regard to Religion is something that sounds a lot like “Gleichschaltung” - and is suspect.

It could be the ground on which reconciliation could be built between Judaism, Christianity and Islam – but will we allow that to happen?

What kind of reconciliation do you imagine that does not include unified thinking?

I beg your pardon? Did you get a bit twisted here?

My point is that the mentality and understanding of so called “oriental” people differs from western mentality in a way that is apparent in the languages that were dominant. Why do you try to make something else out of what I have said?

I wonder where you get the idea that I attributed the thought you quoted to you? This is a prospective interpretation of the Western “mentality” Christ (offered by me), that is, the necessary transformation of a universalizing message from one culture to another, one language to another. Christianity did not spread East, it spread West. There may have been very good reasons for that.

“the mentality and understanding of so called “oriental” people differs from western mentality”

The question isn’t whether they differ, but whether that difference is fundamental to the understanding of the gospels. Are you saying that the message of Jesus can only be fundamentally understood within an Eastern mentality, and as such all Western understandings of it inherently flawed? If you are not saying this, then point is not germane as to the understanding of the gospels. If you are saying this then you are claiming that Western mentality is deficient to that message – an odd position considering that that message perhaps more than any other single message in history, however distorted, worked to shape the very mentality it is alien to.

Dunamis

Hi Bob

I think that our main difficulty is in how we value the teaching. I believe you see it as teaching ways people should react to one another and I see it as the transformation of human “being” itself.

What is the commitment? If the purpose of the teaching is to transform “being”, it can only come from one of higher being. “Being” of such a level radiates a balance and quality of energy that allows one sufficiently open and capable, the experience of a potential for himself. There is the temporary experience of awakening and of human life.

Do you think that the Apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus because of a speech? No, it was because his “presence” re-aligned their energies, inner vibrations, and allowed them to experience themselves. They found the direction of human evolution back to its source and experienced its value. They were lost and were now found.

Finding the direction is one thing but to be able to retain it in the face of inner and external resistance required the inner teaching which is not recorded and exists as an oral teaching.

The personal commitment to awakening when coupled with the teaching itself allowing one to be able, can result in a human being.

There is great power in the authentic Christian experience. It is because of this that its prostitution becomes so persuasive and widespread in so many forms of Christendom. If the teaching were not that profound, its prostitution could not be so successful.

Hi Dunamis,

I have a western mental attitude (mentality) as does Klotz, but it doesn’t mean we can’t include something that has been excluded from Christian thought. The duality is already personified in (at least) our persons. The point I am making is related to the habit of western Christians to adopt statements of the Bible for their own lives as though all has been said. There is often a disinterest in the original context. To say that words of the Bible (in a prophetic manner) fit the situation I am experiencing implicates more than the superficiality of the words, but rather an understanding of the context then in comparison with the situation now.

The universalising effect of Paul, brought up in Tarsus (Greco-Roman influence) and sent to Jerusalem (Hebrew influence) for formal teaching, is a fallacy. Later, when Jews were forced into the dispersal, many of them adapted to the western mental attitude and left the “oriental” influence behind them. At the time of Paul there was great consternation about the fact that Gojim were claiming to be followers of the God of the Jews by belief in the Christ, and this is reflected in the conflict Paul had with his Jewish brothers, including the Apostles at Jerusalem. The universalising effect came with the Greek influence in all societies, which was already considerable through the Roman Empire.

However, Paul’s aim was clearly to win as many “Gentiles” as possible. His “Church-Planting” was hardly concerned with quality, but rather with quantity. Perhaps he thought that God would look after the quality. He is effectively the beginning of the Christian Church, having made out of the Jewish Jesus the universal Christ. Just as he was educated in Tarsus and Jerusalem, the Hellenist influence dominated but was influenced by the Septuaginta – Hebrew was already waning, Aramaic of course too.

Reconciliation accepts the disparity between my neighbour and me. Singular thought doesn’t. Even in the Church you have disparity, even if it only be in wealth. Communism would call for equality, Christianity calls for charity, which is a clear difference. I have become suspicious of all attempts to unify thinking. Perhaps I am influenced by “A Brave New World” and “1984” which was standard literature when I was growing up. It is the right to dissent that shows the quality and strength of a society – and a church.

It is the variety of creation that is clearly “good” in the sight of God that has to be protected. Having a common idea of the mercy of God shouldn’t unify in a way that makes us singular, but give us a common goal that we can work for in our different ways. God is the “One”, he is the “Unity” – we are the diversity that finds in God our goal. That is something we could share with Jews and Moslems, if we could overcome our need to make everyone like we are. In fact, I believe that such attempts to unify grow out of insecurity, not faith.

I didn’t get the idea that you attributed the thought I quoted to me, but found what you wrote only makes sense so far: “Or has the dogmatic metaphysics of the Greek properly translated the Christ message into the Western mentality, so as to be meaningful and transformative within that mentality…”

I believe that of course a western mental attitude had to come to terms with the idea of Christ in its own way, but it is time to look at other attitudes. Especially in a world that threatens to burn up over differences of attitudes and insecurities we have to rediscover the similarities of the source of our ideologies, which in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the Old Testament or Torah. The prejudice that prevents that, however, sits in the Theology of the various religions, not in the Scripture.

Do you see your tendency to polarise the discussion? This is symptomatic of the insecurity that causes conflict and is something that causes me to ask whether the assumed “assuredness” of conservative Christianity is in fact a suppression of normal doubt. I believe that this stems from an oversubscription to an ideology that exceeds healthy faith.

Faith is more intuitive that dogmatic, and the apologetics over the centuries have caused western faith to build a Religion with feet that are “partly of iron and partly of clay,” which makes the Church partly strong and partly fragile (Daniel 2). The outreach of this Religion is trying to protect the feet, pretending to be strong whilst all along knowing that the weak spot is precisely what we are standing on. This could be the reason why many conservative Christians become very nervous when people like me mention alternative methods of approaching the source material of our faith.

Shalom

Bob,

The universalising effect of Paul, brought up in Tarsus (Greco-Roman influence) and sent to Jerusalem (Hebrew influence) for formal teaching, is a fallacy.

Perhaps you should look at Paul’s plethora of references against the Law. It is a cornerstone of his thinking that one can be saved without being a Jew, and hence that the ethno-centric nature of the Christ message was insufficient. This is theoretical universalization.

The universalising effect came with the Greek influence in all societies, which was already considerable through the Roman Empire.

And was built upon the Pauline doctrine of salvation apart from the Law, the abstraction of the Christ event.

His “Church-Planting” was hardly concerned with quality, but rather with quantity.

While you seem to sit with God’s understanding in mind, able to judge the quality of a conversion, perhaps reconsider and see that because Paul preached a universalizing Christ, apart from the Law, those conversions you consider of poor quality, were in fact qualified under the universalization Paul preached. You judge with spiritual understanding implied to be superior to Paul’s.

He is effectively the beginning of the Christian Church, having made out of the Jewish Jesus the universal Christ.

Now I am confused because you seem to outright contradict your earlier statement:

The universalising effect of Paul…is a fallacy.

Please sort that out for me so I know what position you hold.

Reconciliation accepts the disparity between my neighbour and me.

So you are arguing for a “love thy neighbor as thy self” reconciliation. I’m not so sure that a new translation is necessary. All the essentials are already there in whatever translation you pick up.

I didn’t get the idea that you attributed the thought I quoted to me, but found what you wrote only makes sense so far

Which isn’t actually what you said. What you said was:

Why do you try to make something else out of what I have said?

I believe that of course a western mental attitude had to come to terms with the idea of Christ in its own way, but it is time to look at other attitudes.

“Reconciliation accepts the disparity between myself and my neighbor” , but now you are suggesting something else, that it requires “look[ing] at other attitudes”.

we have to rediscover the similarities of the source of our ideologies, which in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the Old Testament or Torah

I sense a bit of “unified thought” creeping in here. Are the distinctions that are seen within each religion as exclusive truths to be somehow erased so that “reconciliation” can take place?

Do you see your tendency to polarise the discussion?

I do see your tendency to be unclear and me trying to understand you, what your intent and meaning are. Earlier - out of nowhere - you accused me of purposively not understanding you, instead of wondering to yourself whether you are doing an adequate job of being clear. If you mean by polarization making a point beyond whatever point you are making, this is a forum wherein people offer their perspectives. Do you post things just so that everyone will agree with what you have to say, or do you post things in a spirit of dialogue?

This is symptomatic of the insecurity that causes conflict and is something that causes me to ask whether the assumed “assuredness” of conservative Christianity is in fact a suppression of normal doubt.

You imagine that I am a Conservative Christian? How do you actually define “conservative”? Is it simply someone who has an opinion regarding Christianity different than your own?

“…is in fact a suppression of normal doubt”

In religious circles this is normally called “faith”.

Dunamis

On the wild assumption that going back to the original concept is acceptable…

It seems to me that any ‘single’ translation regardless how inclusive possible interpretations, still must be viewed from a perspective that is unique culturally -ie- any cultural grouping, eastern or western, will still be locked into ‘differences’ vis a vis their particular world view.

For any translation to be accepted, it would necessarily need the words and concepts familiar within each cultural group. This implies that Islamic scholars would have to both understand past and current Christianity from a ‘western’ perspective to properly present a biblical ‘translation’ that highlights those understandings that Islam and Christianity share in common. The same would be true of each religion attempting to explain to its’ own cultural group any other religion.

I agree that such an undertaking is sorely needed. I’m less sure that it would be so much as translation, but more as commentary. Commentary is less threatening than a ‘translation’ that might be construed as an attempt to subvert “the holy scripture”.

The difficulty is finding that group of scholars within each religious group willing to attempt to trace through ancient and modern languages that which serves to illuminate our commonality.

JT

Hi Bob

The universalizing effect of Paul was to allow those so open to experience their nothingness in the context of their potential. People are united in support of their common nothingness or inability to be other than the wretched man. This realistic beginning is its “quality”

If not so would he speak this way of the Jews:

The idea isn’t to excuse sin but to acquire a reality that no longer makes it egotistically desirable:

Just as Christianity had the natural tendency to devolve into Christendom for a great many, Judaism had the corresponding tendency to devolve in a similar fashion with the help of all these experts. I just don’t know the corresponding term that reflects the same relationship as does Christianity to Christendom.

Paul’s message is mature enough to realize the impossibility of such a goal because of the limitations of our personal being. Life will continue as it is because of what we are.

Tell your wife tonight that in the interest of diversity and setting an example of how we can all get along, accomplish more, and develop our understanding and tolerance of others, that you’ve reluctantly accepted the challenge to take on two mistresses so as better to understand the diversity of the opposite sex and display through its success the advantages of mutual cooperation in the pursuit of the elimination of singularity.

She will explain the “other side” better than I can which will be applicable for most man made religious interpretations to retain a certain exclusivity…