09-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Yiasou Mikhali,
I agree with akh Doug, first deal with the 22 for which we do have Aramaic autographs, and then approach the W5 from what you've learnt by examining the 22. I personally believe that the W5 were originally penned in Aramaic and Revelation is the most obvious case, IMO there's no way that Greek was the original language of the this book, it's an extremely Judeo-Aramaic book. The Greek of Revelation in particular is extremely awkward and unnatural, it's to be brutally honest, absolutely horrendous, arguably the worst Greek in the history of Greek literature, it clings for its dear life to its "Semitic father" as akh Andrew Gabriel Roth calls it. Plus the Greek versions of Revelation are full of variants, as Byzantine Greek Primacist, Wilbur Norman Pickering wrote in his translation of Revelation from the Byzantine Majority Text:
1There are two forms of the ???Majority??? text in print: The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), and The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (The Original Word Publishers, 1991). Revelation is the one book of the N.T. where, because of a basic three-way split in the manuscript evidence, a ???majority??? text can be dubious [there are about 150 places where no variant reading has 50% attestation, plus another 250 where the majority is under 60%]. In consequence, R-P differs from H-F in some 175 places (I agree with R-P in almost every case), I differ from H-F in some 300 places while differing from R-P in about 135 [I can furnish a comparative list of the variants upon request].
And that's just the variants of the Byzantine Greek mss, then there are the Alexandrian Greek mss to consider.
Those variants had to come from somewhere right?
I agree with akh Doug, first deal with the 22 for which we do have Aramaic autographs, and then approach the W5 from what you've learnt by examining the 22. I personally believe that the W5 were originally penned in Aramaic and Revelation is the most obvious case, IMO there's no way that Greek was the original language of the this book, it's an extremely Judeo-Aramaic book. The Greek of Revelation in particular is extremely awkward and unnatural, it's to be brutally honest, absolutely horrendous, arguably the worst Greek in the history of Greek literature, it clings for its dear life to its "Semitic father" as akh Andrew Gabriel Roth calls it. Plus the Greek versions of Revelation are full of variants, as Byzantine Greek Primacist, Wilbur Norman Pickering wrote in his translation of Revelation from the Byzantine Majority Text:
1There are two forms of the ???Majority??? text in print: The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), and The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (The Original Word Publishers, 1991). Revelation is the one book of the N.T. where, because of a basic three-way split in the manuscript evidence, a ???majority??? text can be dubious [there are about 150 places where no variant reading has 50% attestation, plus another 250 where the majority is under 60%]. In consequence, R-P differs from H-F in some 175 places (I agree with R-P in almost every case), I differ from H-F in some 300 places while differing from R-P in about 135 [I can furnish a comparative list of the variants upon request].
And that's just the variants of the Byzantine Greek mss, then there are the Alexandrian Greek mss to consider.
Those variants had to come from somewhere right?