Book of Revelation
- Thread starter subwayrider
- Start date
I'm not really sure why you would consider this valuable. Any Aramaic translation would already be a translation from the Greek. Reading a translation of a translation??? Have you seen how copies degrade if you make copies of copies of copies?
It's 12 squared. Twelve is a significant number in Judaism, and so also in Christianity. Twelve sons of Israel. Twelve disciples of Jesus. Etc. It is not meant to be taken literally, but basically means "a whole awful lot of significant people."
Oh no problem. I wasn't trying to imply that the beginning of Revelation was insignificant, ONLY that it is a different genre (not apocalyptic).just me;577053 [MENTION=4576 said:
I've seen much evidence supporting Aramaic primacy.
I believe the Greek was translated from the Aramaic text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy#Peshitta_primacy_approach
http://aramaicnt.com/articles.htm
Pretty much all arguments for Aramaic primacy are focused on the Gospel accounts, especially the Gospel of Matthew. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels were all originally composed in Greek, but likely relied at least somewhat on sources (whether written or oral) which were in Aramaic.
Many of the earliest church fathers taught that our Gospel of Matthew was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which most agreed was written in Aramaic despite its name. (Some said Aramaic in Hebrew script, which is odd considering that by the time of Christ Hebrew was already almost always written using the Aramaic script, with only the Samaritans sticking to Paleo-Hebrew.) Their quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews though shows that it could not have been a literal or direct translation though, as it started with Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist rather than the nativity and included longer accounts of things like why it is so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Jesus denounces the rich man for violating the commandment to love thy neighbor by hoarding his wealth while surrounded by so many fellow Jews who are too poor to support themselves.) I am inclined to believe Matthew was composed in Greek but drew primarily from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
However, it seems highly implausible that the entire new testament was originally written in Aramaic. It makes absolutely no sense for epistles written to churches in Greek speaking cities to be written in Aramaic rather than a language that the recipients would understand. As Greek was the language spoken in all of the churches in Asia Minor to whom Revelation was addressed (and at Patmos where it was written), I cannot see much if any value in reading an English translation from the Aramaic.
It would be a different matter if you actually spoke Aramaic (and not Greek), as that could help you pick up nuances that are not easily conveyed in English grammar. I personally do like my Latin Vulgate.
Many of the earliest church fathers taught that our Gospel of Matthew was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which most agreed was written in Aramaic despite its name. (Some said Aramaic in Hebrew script, which is odd considering that by the time of Christ Hebrew was already almost always written using the Aramaic script, with only the Samaritans sticking to Paleo-Hebrew.) Their quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews though shows that it could not have been a literal or direct translation though, as it started with Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist rather than the nativity and included longer accounts of things like why it is so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Jesus denounces the rich man for violating the commandment to love thy neighbor by hoarding his wealth while surrounded by so many fellow Jews who are too poor to support themselves.) I am inclined to believe Matthew was composed in Greek but drew primarily from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
However, it seems highly implausible that the entire new testament was originally written in Aramaic. It makes absolutely no sense for epistles written to churches in Greek speaking cities to be written in Aramaic rather than a language that the recipients would understand. As Greek was the language spoken in all of the churches in Asia Minor to whom Revelation was addressed (and at Patmos where it was written), I cannot see much if any value in reading an English translation from the Aramaic.
It would be a different matter if you actually spoke Aramaic (and not Greek), as that could help you pick up nuances that are not easily conveyed in English grammar. I personally do like my Latin Vulgate.
Certainly Jesus spoke Aramaic. So what? The texts were written in Greek. AT MOST, the early Greek manuscripts are all that survived. So..... ALL translations come from the Greek. You are reading a translation of a translation. It will contain IMHO too many errors.