08-31-2008, 12:21 AM
Shlama Khati Christina,
Actually, yes. There are internal clues within the Greek text. The major obstacle we have is this: imagine, for a moment, that we have two Greek manuscripts of Revelation and we find a "split-word" example, where there's two different Greek words for the same reading. And now we can determine that there does exist an Aramaic word that just-so-happens to have those two meanings. Great, right?
Problem is, we have no Aramaic manuscript that we can point to that proves the dual-meaning Aramaic word was the one actually used.
So yes, there are several different types of internal evidences that may be convincing. Another type is grammar, when something obviously is not proper Greek but reads more like a Semitic sentence (sort of like the language of the LXX.)
But again, our critics will come back with "So what? The apostle John spoke Aramaic, and we would expect this type of creole-Greek from a Semitic writer."
See, we are at a severe disadvantage either way.....we are going to have an unconvincing argument without the actual text, and argument from silence.
But it should be undertaken nevertheless. I highly recommend those who know Greek better than I to do so. Reason is I usually start with the Aramaic text and compare the Greek, my strength is not looking at the Greek first. Most of my examples have been found starting with the Aramaic text and a word that I know could be easily mistranslated.
+Shamasha Paul
Christina Wrote:IYO do you see similarities between Greek revelation & the 22 Greek books that you KNOW are translated from Aramaic? Is there evidence in Greek Revelation of split words, mistranslations, Aramaic idioms, etc? IOW Is there reason to question the assumption that the original language of Revelation is Greek?
Actually, yes. There are internal clues within the Greek text. The major obstacle we have is this: imagine, for a moment, that we have two Greek manuscripts of Revelation and we find a "split-word" example, where there's two different Greek words for the same reading. And now we can determine that there does exist an Aramaic word that just-so-happens to have those two meanings. Great, right?
Problem is, we have no Aramaic manuscript that we can point to that proves the dual-meaning Aramaic word was the one actually used.
So yes, there are several different types of internal evidences that may be convincing. Another type is grammar, when something obviously is not proper Greek but reads more like a Semitic sentence (sort of like the language of the LXX.)
But again, our critics will come back with "So what? The apostle John spoke Aramaic, and we would expect this type of creole-Greek from a Semitic writer."
See, we are at a severe disadvantage either way.....we are going to have an unconvincing argument without the actual text, and argument from silence.
But it should be undertaken nevertheless. I highly recommend those who know Greek better than I to do so. Reason is I usually start with the Aramaic text and compare the Greek, my strength is not looking at the Greek first. Most of my examples have been found starting with the Aramaic text and a word that I know could be easily mistranslated.
+Shamasha Paul