From: Peter Phillips (p.m.phillips@champness.shef.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 30 1998 - 05:08:29 EDT
I am not too sure whether it is necesary to bring up a postulated but
unverified Aramaic original. We have no proof that Jesus prayeed in
Aramaic or taught his disciples to pray in Aramaic - it is certaily an
argument from silence.
Moreover, the point is surely that there is less distinction between "who"
and "which" in Elizabethan English than there is in present day English -
or rather than "which" was the old English accusative and "who" was the old
English nominative.
Either argument suggests that we should no longer be using an ancient
translation which needs retranslating before the modern day reader can
understand it. I am always amazed how so many Americans are so happy to
accept their former suppressors' text as being the only text valid.
Perhaps there is something in the psyche of America which says that you
really hanker after the old Colonial days. As a Brit, I must say that we
would prefer you to go your own way now we've set you on the right track
:>)
Ahh, the flames are a-coming this way!!!
Pete Phillips
New Testament Tutor,
Cliff College, Sheffield, UK
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:50 EDT