02-12-2009, 01:25 AM
...
Kria,
The Greek manuscript copies that exist...are all copies of other earlier Greek copies, back to the 1st century...and the few original Greek manuscripts, say 27, that all the rest are copies of copies of, just perpetuate the overall readings of the original Greek manuscripts right?
Then there would only be 27 of the Greek manuscripts at the start, rather they be the 1st translations of the Original Aramaic manuscripts, or they themselves being the Original writtings...
So, really, there would only be 27 original Greek manuscripts either way...and if they still exist somewhere only 27 translator or Scribal hands doing them, like Tertius for Romans and Silvanus for 1st Peter and so forth...in which it was common back then to employ a scribe...and all the thousands of other copies of these 1st ones would just be copies of copies of copies of copies of them....with various scribal errors in each one of the many copies, as would be normal in a handwritten copy and multiple copies thereof....
I don't think your argument has any merit really if you consider what I just said.
And for arguments sake....try and use the same logic you used if the Aramaic were just copies of the Greek originals...would you find the same would be true as you have concluded about the Greek copies?
...
Kria,
The Greek manuscript copies that exist...are all copies of other earlier Greek copies, back to the 1st century...and the few original Greek manuscripts, say 27, that all the rest are copies of copies of, just perpetuate the overall readings of the original Greek manuscripts right?
Then there would only be 27 of the Greek manuscripts at the start, rather they be the 1st translations of the Original Aramaic manuscripts, or they themselves being the Original writtings...
So, really, there would only be 27 original Greek manuscripts either way...and if they still exist somewhere only 27 translator or Scribal hands doing them, like Tertius for Romans and Silvanus for 1st Peter and so forth...in which it was common back then to employ a scribe...and all the thousands of other copies of these 1st ones would just be copies of copies of copies of copies of them....with various scribal errors in each one of the many copies, as would be normal in a handwritten copy and multiple copies thereof....
I don't think your argument has any merit really if you consider what I just said.
And for arguments sake....try and use the same logic you used if the Aramaic were just copies of the Greek originals...would you find the same would be true as you have concluded about the Greek copies?
...