From: Trevor & Julie Peterson (06peterson@cua.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 21:46:51 EDT
Actually, it depends on what you mean by "tradition." I have seen a fairly
elaborate argument articulated for something very close to this notion. I'm
not saying I buy it, but it does show that at least someone holds such a
tradition. There is an e-list that has no relationship to B-Greek or
B-Hebrew, called B-Aramaic. It is hosted by SANJ, the Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism. They have put out a "Hebraic Roots" NT--an
English translation taken (supposedly) from Aramaic and Hebrew versions
instead of Greek. What that basically means is that they used an old Hebrew
manuscript of Matthew and a couple of Aramaic manuscripts of the same, but
resorted to the Syriac Peshitta for the rest of the NT. An abbreviated form
of the same argument that was posted in a multi-part series on their list is
articulated on their Web site: http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/index.htm
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:28 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Hebrew New Testament
>
[snipped]
> there is NO tradition about the whole NT
> originally being Hebrew. The person initiating the query with you was
> evidently poorly informed.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:04 EDT