From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Tue May 28 1996 - 04:54:13 EDT
At 11:12 AM 5/27/96, Mr. Timothy T. Dickens wrote:
>
>TTD: Brother Akbar, I am surprised that a fine student like
>yourself could
>fail to see the obvious danger in comparing one (Syriac) manuscript
>with a (Greek) manuscript. The languages are totally different from
>each other, and each language (Syriac/Greek) has its own particulars
>that the other language does not (If you have any doubts about this
>see 'The Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek' by Sebastian
>P. Brock. His article is found in a book called 'The Early Versions
>of the New Testament' by Bruce M. Metzger. It's really quite
>interesting!)
>
>I also feel that at this point there needs to be a better
>understanding, at least from my perspective, about why I am
>mentioning these manuscripts.
>
> The New Testament, Brother Akbar, was written in a common
>everyday Greek of Jesus' day called 'Koine.' 'Koine' itself simply
>means 'common.' There is no doubt that the message of Jesus was
>originally in Aramaic, the kin language to Syriac (Mark 7:11,34;
>15:34). But when the gospels were written down they were first
>written in Koine Greek, and shortly after into other languages, like
>Syriac. Thus, the 'OLDER' manuscript which we must consider was
>written in Greek.
>
> As I said in a previous message, I did not find in the textual
>apparatus of the Greek New Testament any indication that the word
>'holy' was missing in older manuscript traditions or had been
>inserted. If it were inserted, it would have been inserted by a
>scribe very early in the 1st. century; but all this would be
>conjectural, not based in anyway on what we are now discussing,
>namely the manuscripts.
>
> How do *you* suppose, brother Akbar, the use of a Syriac
>manuscript in any way helps the reader of the Greek New Testament?
****************************************
Brother Tim: I feel the issue of the Language of a manuscript
has been stretched far enough. Please allow me to wrap it up with
one comment, before everyone on this Net looses interest in the
debate.
The vast majority of Christians are the readers of the Old and
New Testaments in ENGLISH. A text which has been translated
from Greek into Latin and then re-translated into English; or
translated from the modern (other than Koine) Greek.
How do *you* suppose, brother Tim, the use of an English
manuscript in any way help these hundreds of million readers?
PLEASE, let's dwell on other issues connected with the subject
of the "Holy Spirit", viz., "another paraclete",
"arrival in future and subject to the departure", "scholars who
have suggested differently from the traditional identification", etc.
God Bless You
Akbar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:43 EDT