From: Stephen S. Rives (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 1997 - 18:36:56 EDT
> I have been looking at these two books and am inclined to agree with the
> opinion that the Greek used is pretty convincing evidence that the
> was not written by the Evangelist. Can anybody comment on the pros and
> of this position? I still find Greek difficult and have limited
> that I have made a valid judgement.
If you read in Eusebius' Church history, you will find that Pantaenus found
an early copy of the Gospel of Matthew in India. What is interesting about
this early copy of Matthew is that it was written in Hebrew (Eusebius, The
History of the Church, Book 5, Chapter 9). See also Jerome, Letter To
Magnus an Orator of Rome, 4.8. Both of these sources can be found on the
internet, I believe.
What makes this applicable to your question is that it is very possible
that Revelation was also written in Hebrew. The copy that we have today
could have been Greek translation of the Hebrew original -- much like the
LXX. Another possible solution to the dilemma is that John dictated in
Hebrew while his letter was written down in Greek. We know that Paul
dictated some of his letters. I could think of many other plausible
reasons why Revelation is in the form that it is. However, I think that
this is sufficient to put you to thinking...
Mind you, I am not stating that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew,
I mentioned it as a possibility so as to explain how the same could be true
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT