03-29-2004, 04:03 PM
HI Paul:
I understand that the Greek New Testament is a translation of the Aramaic "autograph". I'm no scholar but I would like to make a few points that I hope will clarify (at least for myself) the Aramaic primacy of the "autograph" of the New Testament.
1) The use of the Aramaic grammar rule "Casus Pendens" demonstrates that translating the specific and contextual meanings in the Aramaic New Testament required a departure from Classical Greek.
2) To it's credit the Greek New Testament is more an interlinear translation than a paraphrase. The grammatical structuring of Classical Greek would be no more than a loose paraphrase of the Aramaic New Testament.
3) Classical Greek was rejected by the New Testament translators because it could not accurately illuminate the specific contextual meanings within the Aramaic New Testament.
Do you know of other specific Aramaic grammar rules, like Casus Pendens that show that the New Testament Greek follows the Aramaic?
Regards,
Stephen Silver.
I understand that the Greek New Testament is a translation of the Aramaic "autograph". I'm no scholar but I would like to make a few points that I hope will clarify (at least for myself) the Aramaic primacy of the "autograph" of the New Testament.
1) The use of the Aramaic grammar rule "Casus Pendens" demonstrates that translating the specific and contextual meanings in the Aramaic New Testament required a departure from Classical Greek.
2) To it's credit the Greek New Testament is more an interlinear translation than a paraphrase. The grammatical structuring of Classical Greek would be no more than a loose paraphrase of the Aramaic New Testament.
3) Classical Greek was rejected by the New Testament translators because it could not accurately illuminate the specific contextual meanings within the Aramaic New Testament.
Do you know of other specific Aramaic grammar rules, like Casus Pendens that show that the New Testament Greek follows the Aramaic?
Regards,
Stephen Silver.