Hebrew New Testament

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Fri Aug 17 21:34:05 EDT 2001


In a message dated 08/17/2001 5:43:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net writes:

<< Should I have used Akkadian?  Or Persian?  The point of the analogy was 
that
 the theory, as stated, is unprovable, since you cannot prove a negative.  If
 all the copies are gone and all the testimony to something's existence is
 gone, then you can never advance beyond the theory, which is why so many
 dismiss it out of hand. >>


You should not have used either one, let alone "the King's English." You 
should have pointed to the evidence *suggesting* a Hebrew/Aramaic original 
and noted that we do not have any original NT docs, so that we must accept 
the mss. we have all the while noting where there is evidence that the NT may 
have been translated, in whole or in part, from a Semitic original. This 
*evidence* does not prove the point, but it suggests something, and that 
something is far more worthy of serious scholarly reflection than an attempt 
to pass it off as an issue equivalent to arguing whether or not the NT was 
originally written in the King's English.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford



More information about the B-Greek mailing list