From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 04:49:28 EST
B-Greekers:
Ben Crick has mentioned that, " It is axiomatic that the Gospels were
translated out of Aramaic/Hebrew originals (/pace/ Papias)." He argues
from Papias and
from the Gospel of Luke (see below).
Does anybody know of additional arguments for this position? How about
rebuttals? I am very interested.
Thanks, Ben, and anybody else who responds with helpful information.
Paul Dixon
On Tue, 23 Dec 97 01:34:41 Ben Crick <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>On Mon 22 Dec 97 (14:02:23), dixonps@juno.com wrote:
>>=A0Ben, could you either:
>> 1) expand/clarify your argument regarding this=axiom, or
>> refer me to some reading on it? My first reaction is that this is
>> not so axiomatic, at least I had never considered it so. What exactly
>> is the argument for the position that the Gospels were originally
>> written in the Hebrew language?
>
> Well, Paul, I referred to Papias' well-known dictum, quoted by Eusebius
> in E.H. III.39: "Now concerning Matthew it is stated: 'So then Matthew
> recorded the oracles [LOGIA] in the Hebrew tongue, and each interpreted
> them to the best of his ability'." (H Bettenson, /Documents/, 2nd Ed.,
1963,
> p 39). No doubt you can find it in Greek somewhere on the Web.
>
> As for Luke, you only have to compare the style of chapter 1 verses 1-4
> in immaculate Greek, with verses 5 and following in its Hebraistic
style,
> with almost every clause beginning with KAI: the Waw Consecutiva.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT