11-17-2013, 02:19 PM
If somebody restores an ancient painting, but the painting has had a lot of repairs, they still can determine the style of each painter and the Original.
In short, it leaves behind unique characteristics, that you cannot ignore and especially not using the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew mainly, not from Aramaic.
One point mentioned here is the Greek variant being Talita kum, and Talita kumi. The first was the correct pronouncement, the other was the way of writing. This is 100% evidence of an Aramaic Original.
Another one is the way Aramaic (Arabic as well) tends to accentuate emotion, by a double verb or double noun. This syntax is very common in the Peshitta, but in Greek it is a a few places. These are clearly left-overs of an erased (by a translator) Aramaic syntax, which needs not to be in Greek as in Acts 5:28.
I am not a Greek scholar, but I bet this is very ungreek.
In short, it leaves behind unique characteristics, that you cannot ignore and especially not using the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew mainly, not from Aramaic.
One point mentioned here is the Greek variant being Talita kum, and Talita kumi. The first was the correct pronouncement, the other was the way of writing. This is 100% evidence of an Aramaic Original.
Another one is the way Aramaic (Arabic as well) tends to accentuate emotion, by a double verb or double noun. This syntax is very common in the Peshitta, but in Greek it is a a few places. These are clearly left-overs of an erased (by a translator) Aramaic syntax, which needs not to be in Greek as in Acts 5:28.
I am not a Greek scholar, but I bet this is very ungreek.