01-05-2015, 02:41 AM
Hey man. You mentioned on another post, ?I've become a bit perturbed that no one could answer my legitimate question here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3956)?.
Personally I think those three examples you gave are not particularly compelling one way or the other for the Aramaic or Greek.
Instead of those three examples, you can find better examples from David Bauscher. He spent about 20-years reading Greek, and then around ten reading Aramaic before he translated the Book of Revelation word-for-word in the context of Aramaic primacy. For example, here is how he covers the Greek variance in Revelation 13:1:
And here is how Bauscher covers the Greek variance in Revelation 14:20:
And for the Greek variance in Revelation 22:13
It?s evidence, it adds up. But if the Father wanted Aramaic primacy to be self-evident anywhere, it would be. For example, the first words of Revelation would be something like ?This book was originally written in Aramaic by Yahshua?s apostle John?. And for that matter, the Torah would be written in preserved Hebrew right in the big blue sky for all to obey. But no, that?s not our world. Our world is one of perspective and lost history because it is what helps us grow, and what we deserve.
In our world, a scholar can make a case for Revelation in Greek if he wants, or even Egyptian (seriously, it?s be done). For example, with every one point of wordplay evidence you find two of conjecture. I wouldn?t be surprised to see a 400-page book claiming that Satan himself is the author! Ultimately it comes down to faith. And in matters of faith that are reconciled in public forums, tradition frequently receives the spotlight.
But in the meantime, you'll find there is both logic and evidence behind theories for an Aramaic original?
Some of the key Aramaic primacy points from Bauscher?s interlinear (2011 edition):
He also covers Greek & Aramaic script variations, semiticisms, wordplay, and poetry.
And he observes quite logically, ?Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis were destroyed by an earthquake in AD 66. Laodicea was not rebuilt until 120 years later by Marcus Aurelius. This little know fact is extensively documented by Bishop Lightfoot in his commentary on Colossians and Philemon, pp 274-300. This says volumes about the date for the Book of Revelation, does it not? It must have been written before AD 66, else there had been no Laodicea left to which John could write! Tacitus, the Roman historian wrote that Laodicea ?without any relief from us, recovered itself from its own resources.? Tacitus wrote this in the early second century. Another source says that Laodicea ?lay in ruins for quite a period of time? until the Roman emperor Hadrian, at the beginning of the second century (reigned AD 117-138) revived it after he visited the place.? It was almost totally rebuilt during the reign (AD 188-217) of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Nicknamed Caracalla).? There was apparently no major rebuilding of Laodicea before the second century and it is highly unlikely that this destruction should go unmentioned if a letter to its church were written after AD 66 to a place in ruins and which furthermore boasts, ?I am rich and affluent and have need of nothing? (v. 17). It is amazing that modern Bible commentators seem to be completely ignorant of this historical information, dating the writing of Revelation at AD 95 ? an absurdly late date.? For dating, see also Bauscher?s Historical introduction at pp. 578-79.
Like Bauscher, I have also found evidence of Aramaic primacy in Revelation:
Is all this evidence compelling? Maybe. In a personal way for me, yes -- the best evidence is the way that Alha weaves synchronicity through your life, to tell you the story of yourself in relation to Yahshua. I think that?s one way we learn to hear the shepherd?s voice.
I believe Revelation comes from the Father, through Yahshua, and should be recognized first in that primary context. Whatever Babylonian language in which the message was first written to us Babylonians would just be sub-context. The Father can encode more meaning into the eye of a needle (in any language and at any time) than Intel can squeeze into a sewing machine factory - so Babylonian language primacy is academic.
The real primacy is the language of the heart. For example, imagine there were six men who read the admonition to Pergamus. Five of them read it in Greek and two in Aramaic. Three of these men heard the message in their hearts and repented. Now, who worked the Father?s will? The answer reveals we all share the same definition of primacy.
Personally I think those three examples you gave are not particularly compelling one way or the other for the Aramaic or Greek.
Instead of those three examples, you can find better examples from David Bauscher. He spent about 20-years reading Greek, and then around ten reading Aramaic before he translated the Book of Revelation word-for-word in the context of Aramaic primacy. For example, here is how he covers the Greek variance in Revelation 13:1:
- ?The majority and Critical Greek has ?names? ? [omicron-nu-omicron-mu-alpha-tau-alpha]. The Aramaic Shma is singular. Whoever penned the original Crawford Aramaic text was highly expert in the language; if he was translating from Greek, he would have known easily the difference between the singular Greek [omicron-nu-omicron-mu-alpha] and the plural [omicron-nu-omicron-mu-alpha-tau-alpha] only 3 old Greek mss. & the Textus Receptus Greek mss. Have the singular [omicron-nu-omicron-mu-alpha] ?name?. The fact that the Crawford has Shma (?name?) mitigates strongly against a Greek original behind it; if it were a translation of Greek, it would have Shmha (?names?) or Shmhyn (?names?), as does the Harklean Syriac version ? (Shmha), unless one would argue the Crawford was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek text, since it agrees with that text alone in two readings in this verse: ?I stood? and ?names?. But that would be difficult to maintain since the TR disagrees with the Crawford in quite a few major readings in Revelation. Even in this verse, the word order of the two texts differs for ?ten horns and seven heads?.?
And here is how Bauscher covers the Greek variance in Revelation 14:20:
- ?Greek mss. have ?a thousand, six hundred stadia?; the Greek ms. Aleph (a, 4th cent.) has [chi-iota-lambda-iota-omicron-iota delta-iota-alpha-kappa-omicron-sigma-iota-omicron-iota] - ?a thousand two hundred?, as does the Philoxenian Syriac Version (early 6th cent.)? If the Aramaic is the original, how did most Greek mss. get 600 instead of 200? Ah, but the Aramaic wmaThyn is 600 and 200! How? The Aramaic language uses letters for numbers as well as words. wmaThyn can mean ?and two hundred? (which it most likely does) or it can be interpreted as ?(hundreds) maThyn (six) w since w ? (waw) is also used for the number six. The Greek interpretation may have been influenced by the Hebrew form for ?hundreds? ? mawTh; The correct Aramaic form would be maa. The more accurate use of this method would actually give ? ?six ?two hundreds? which is exactly what the Sinaiticus has! (Greek does not have a six ?two hundreds). So the 4th Century Greek Sinaiticus bears witness to the Aramaic text of Revelation (The only Greek ms. With 1200 stadia in this place) as does The Majority Greek Text with its subtle but sloppy use of Gematria to obtain 1600 stadia.?
And for the Greek variance in Revelation 22:13
- ?The Greek mss. are split (approx.. 100 each group) between ?The First and the Last and the Beginning and The End? & ?The Beginning and The End and The First and Last?. What is truly interesting is that the Aramaic words in the Crawford text qdmya waKhrya wShwrya w Shwlma ? the last four words in the verse all have double meanings. qdmya can mean ?First? or ?Beginning?; aKhrya can be ?The last? or ?The end?. Shwrya can be ?Beginning?, ?Origin?, ?Introduction? and Shwlma is ?End?, ?Completion?, ?Consummation?. It is easily conceivable that a Greek translator and a later reviser or translator using the same Aramaic text would translate these words differently, thus producing the two major Greek readings here.?
It?s evidence, it adds up. But if the Father wanted Aramaic primacy to be self-evident anywhere, it would be. For example, the first words of Revelation would be something like ?This book was originally written in Aramaic by Yahshua?s apostle John?. And for that matter, the Torah would be written in preserved Hebrew right in the big blue sky for all to obey. But no, that?s not our world. Our world is one of perspective and lost history because it is what helps us grow, and what we deserve.
In our world, a scholar can make a case for Revelation in Greek if he wants, or even Egyptian (seriously, it?s be done). For example, with every one point of wordplay evidence you find two of conjecture. I wouldn?t be surprised to see a 400-page book claiming that Satan himself is the author! Ultimately it comes down to faith. And in matters of faith that are reconciled in public forums, tradition frequently receives the spotlight.
But in the meantime, you'll find there is both logic and evidence behind theories for an Aramaic original?
Some of the key Aramaic primacy points from Bauscher?s interlinear (2011 edition):
- ? Greek variances explained by the Aramaic. Examples: 1:5 (?and releases?); 1:8 (?tav?); 1:14 (?of Laodiceans?); 12:3 (?of fire?); 13:1 (?name?); 14:20 (?one thousand two hundred?); 16:14 (?demon?); 22:13 (?the First, and the Last, and the Origin, and the Fulfillment?)
? Greek mistranslations made transparent by the Aramaic original : 1:12 (?to know?); 1:13 (?ephod?); 9:11 (?Abdu?); 18:7 (?exalted herself?)
? Greek exegesis: 1:11 (adds ?in Asia?); 1:13 (adds reference to Antipas); 6:16 (adds plural reference); 8:8 (?angel?)
? Aramaic harmony with the old testament: 3:7 (?who opens?), 11:4 (?of the whole?); 19:2 (?blood from her hand?)
He also covers Greek & Aramaic script variations, semiticisms, wordplay, and poetry.
And he observes quite logically, ?Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis were destroyed by an earthquake in AD 66. Laodicea was not rebuilt until 120 years later by Marcus Aurelius. This little know fact is extensively documented by Bishop Lightfoot in his commentary on Colossians and Philemon, pp 274-300. This says volumes about the date for the Book of Revelation, does it not? It must have been written before AD 66, else there had been no Laodicea left to which John could write! Tacitus, the Roman historian wrote that Laodicea ?without any relief from us, recovered itself from its own resources.? Tacitus wrote this in the early second century. Another source says that Laodicea ?lay in ruins for quite a period of time? until the Roman emperor Hadrian, at the beginning of the second century (reigned AD 117-138) revived it after he visited the place.? It was almost totally rebuilt during the reign (AD 188-217) of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Nicknamed Caracalla).? There was apparently no major rebuilding of Laodicea before the second century and it is highly unlikely that this destruction should go unmentioned if a letter to its church were written after AD 66 to a place in ruins and which furthermore boasts, ?I am rich and affluent and have need of nothing? (v. 17). It is amazing that modern Bible commentators seem to be completely ignorant of this historical information, dating the writing of Revelation at AD 95 ? an absurdly late date.? For dating, see also Bauscher?s Historical introduction at pp. 578-79.
Like Bauscher, I have also found evidence of Aramaic primacy in Revelation:
- <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3390">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3390</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3763">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3763</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3454">viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3454</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3961">viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3961</a><!-- l -->
Is all this evidence compelling? Maybe. In a personal way for me, yes -- the best evidence is the way that Alha weaves synchronicity through your life, to tell you the story of yourself in relation to Yahshua. I think that?s one way we learn to hear the shepherd?s voice.
I believe Revelation comes from the Father, through Yahshua, and should be recognized first in that primary context. Whatever Babylonian language in which the message was first written to us Babylonians would just be sub-context. The Father can encode more meaning into the eye of a needle (in any language and at any time) than Intel can squeeze into a sewing machine factory - so Babylonian language primacy is academic.
The real primacy is the language of the heart. For example, imagine there were six men who read the admonition to Pergamus. Five of them read it in Greek and two in Aramaic. Three of these men heard the message in their hearts and repented. Now, who worked the Father?s will? The answer reveals we all share the same definition of primacy.