From: David Thiele (thielogian@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 16:50:39 EDT
Dear Greg,
Your analysis is technically correct, but I wonder if
you haven't missed the essential point of Paul's
comment.
If you are going to argue that the NT was written in
Aramaic and all the original language manuscripts have
been lost (which was Norman's starting point), your
thesis is, by its very nature, highly speculative and
completely disprovable. The essential evidence is
missing.
Obviously Paul was being facetious in suggesting the
King's English. However, I wonder in an idle sort of
way, how your response would have stood up if he had
suggested Imperial Latin as the original language.
(I'm not seriously suggesting it). If there's no
evidence, surely only the imagination limits the
possibilities.
Regards
David Thiele
Pacific Adventist University
Papua New Guinea
GregStffrd@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated
08/16/2001 6:03:15 PM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> p.l.schmehl@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << Actually, the entire Bible was originally written
> in the King's English and
> subsequently translated into the Greek we have now.
> No one knows this
> because after the translation was done, all the
> scribes and supporters were
> murdered to hide the evidence.
>
> Sound ridiculous? It's the same argument. >>
>
>
> Dear Paul (and Lamont)
>
> Actually, it's not the same argument. We know that
> the "King's English" is
> not a possibility, but Hebrew certainly is as it was
> in use during the time
> when the NT docs were authored; therefore, the
> analogy given above is not a
> good one.
>
> Additionally, we have the testimony from a variety
> of Church fathers (Origen,
> Eusebius, Jerome, and others) that certain NT books
> were written in Hebrew.
> Furthermore, the grammar of some books (such as the
> books of Mark and
> Revelation) seems to reveal a Hebrew/Aramaic
> vorlage. Finally, books like
> Matthew actually have a textual tradition that
> includes several Hebrew
> manuscripts reflecting an early text-type.
>
> So while I would not abandon the Greek mss. in favor
> of partially unknown
> Hebrew versions, the theory of an original
> Hebrew/Aramaic NT has much more
> going for it than the suggestion that the NT was
> originally written in the
> "King's English."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as:
> [thielogian@yahoo.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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
---
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