Paul Johnston wrote:
> > >There is (and as far as we know never was) any
> > original of the
> > >Gospels in "copula-less Aramaic." All we have are
> > the Gospels in
> > >Syriac (that is, Aramaic in Syriac characacters--a
> > bitch to read for
> > >those of us who only know Aramaic in Hebrew
> > characters) in what's
> > >called a "retro-translation" from the Greek,
> > produced by the Syriac
> > >Christians.
>
>Moreover, any original of the Gospels in the
>"copula-less Aramaic" if perchance it *did* exist
>would stand no greater claim to canonicity than the
>Greek NT. Just because a given text is earlier does
>not mean it is or should be the authoritative text for
>some religious tradition or that theological
>understandings ought to be changed to reflect a new
>understanding of the textual "original". Tradition
>has a certain legitimate weight.
>
>The extreme form of this argument would insist that
>since it's the Clementine Vulgate that's canonical
>(and not the Greek NT or an Aramaic NT), and the
>Clementine Vulgate reads "hoc *est* corpus meum," then
>it oughtn't to matter if Jesus himself said otherwise!
Could someone explain or re-explain the philosophical consequences of this
discussion of presence or absence of the copula in various languages? I
started reading this thread long after it started, so please forgive the
request for what is probably obvious to those who have been involved.
I am interested because many (if not most) Asian languages lack the copula
in their sentence structures. Since the discussion of a "copula-less
Aramaic" is rather speculative, perhaps it would help to discuss current
languages which lack copula.
Anthony Crifasi
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
