Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"POLITARXAS'' could be big blow for Aramaic Primacy in Acts
#4
Tikanes Mike,

Another clue is that, let's say for argument's sake that Acts was written in Greek....with this obscure term, "politarchas", used locally in Macedonia. It would be pretty darn amazing that some dude sitting in Mesopotamia, writing in Aramaic, would have translated it perfectly as "city rulers."

Far more convincing an example for a Greek original to Acts, even more so than a transliteration (which happens, by the way, with certain units of measure or governmental offices) would be a mistranslation for "politarchas", where perhaps the Aramaic scribe confused one of the roots of the compound word, say "archas", for something else that was spelled similarly.

You never find, btw, an example of that in the Aramaic NT (an obvious mistranslation of a Greek word that could have multiple meanings.)

If Greek was the original language of the NT, then the individuals responsible for the Aramaic NT were perfect translators (something we know is not possible.)

But we do find plenty of mistakes in the Greek, like the aforementioned Acts 2:24

+Shamasha
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: "POLITARXAS'' could be big blow for Aramaic Primacy in Acts - by Paul Younan - 08-20-2008, 08:24 PM
Simon the Canannite - by Stephen Silver - 08-22-2008, 10:54 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)