Hebrew New Testament

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Fri Aug 17 21:28:46 EDT 2001

In a message dated 08/17/2001 1:50:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
thielogian at yahoo.com writes:

<< 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. >>

Dear David:

I think you are missing some key points here. First, Paul concluded his 

<< >  Sound ridiculous?  It's the same argument. >>

It is in no sense "the same argument." For him to write this way to someone 
like Lamont who is clearly just looking for answers, who does not know 
whether to take such a remark seriously or with a grain of salt, is not 
helpful in my opinion. But I am not offended by it, nor do I hold anything 
against Paul for witting it. I merely wrote to head off a potential 
misunderstanding. I try not to presume that someone's attempt to make a point 
by exaggeration will not be misunderstood. In this case, I think it might 
have resulted in a misunderstanding. 

As for Latin, again this is not a proper analogy. It's better in terms in 
dating, but since the amount of Latinisms you find in the NT will be greatly 
surpassed by Hebraisms/Aramaisms and since the syntactical data suggesting a 
Hebrew/Aramic vorlage for certain books or sections of books, and, further, 
since no church father or other ancient writer, to my knowledge, suggests 
that Latin was the original NT language, there are gaps that cannot be filled 
in one's attempt to create a parallel between a suggested Hebrew/Aramaic 
original and a Latin original. 

Best regards,

Greg Stafford 

More information about the B-Greek mailing list