At 10:21 AM -0700 10/26/01, P. 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!
But what does matter is that neither Jesus, his writers, nor anyone
else connected with show up to and including Heidegger were
copula-less, and no significant Biblical word to my knowledge is
"metaphporical,"in the sense in which Judd means it. There's no
sense at all in making Bible-talk if you're goal is to make things
easy. Any religion worth its salt (that's Dead Sea salt we're
talking about) should be read as making things almost as difficult as
philosophy. And so when he said, "This is my body" he meant, "This is
my body."
Thanks Paul for your clarification.
Allen
--
Allen Scult Dept. of Philosophy
HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics": Drake University
http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html Des Moines, Iowa 50311
PHONE: 515 271 2869
FAX: 515 271 3826
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
