Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Parallel Statement
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
It is written in the NAB introduction to the book of Baruch, "The prose sections were certainly composed in Hebrew, though the earliest known form of the book is in Greek" (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->). It seems easy for scholars to say that Baruch, a work possibly contemporary with the Peshitta, was written in Hebrew, though the manuscript chronology begs to differ; the same cannot be said for a scholar making a claim about the Peshitta. Though there is the house of scholars which would say the Peshitta text is the earliest known form of the book, the most liberal Peshitta primacist would say, "The writings were certainly composed in Aramaic, though the earliest known form of the book is in Greek," and that would be scoffed upon.
If someone had spent years studying NT greek and knew nothing of Aramaic how likely wouldthey be to admit or even consider they had become an expert in the wrong language?
The more of an expert one is in NT greek the less likely one is to admit or consider they have become experts in the wrong language.
However the more of an expert one is the more the average person is going to look to you for help.

Greek primacy is dead, but it will take a generation for this to become apparent.

NT criticism is going to be turned in it's head, but one cant expect the multitudes who have backed the wrong horse to admit that. They will die off and a new younger generation with no investment either way, will take hold of a new paradigm.