>>13608256 (pb)

>The Gospel of John was originally written in Aramaic

>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/abs/aramaic-origin-of-the-gospel-of-john/70F5585DC9ED6E9E53B60DB377848373

I am not going to say anything about specific scholarly arguments on this issue (except to point out that any scholarship regarding biblical texts may be colored by non-scholarly motivations).

But I think that anying thinking the Gospel of John was somehow "really" Aramaic is completely missing the point.

You really only see the strange nature of the Gospel of John if you read it IN GREEK.

And I am thinking especially of the very begining, which is fairly well-known.

John 1:14 (KJV):

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Unless you grasp that Word translates Logos, and that this was probably the single most important word in the preceding five centuries of Greek philosophy, then you really don't perceive the overtly paradoxical nature of this passage. How could the Logos be this one guy? On the surface, it is absurd. But the absurdity is central.