Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Main arguements against..
#1
I am trying to find the main couple of arguements/misconceptions against Aramaic Primacy and the answers to those arguements. Thanks in advance.
Reply
#2
garyfromvernon Wrote:I am trying to find the main couple of arguements/misconceptions against Aramaic Primacy and the answers to those arguements. Thanks in advance.

Some common arguments.

1. Our earliest NT's are in greek.
This is true, although IIUC there is not that much difference if we look at complete copies. The COE did not keep fragmentary or damaged copies of the NT and many of the early greek mss are ust fragemnts.
Before the discover of the DSS the earliest OT was in greek too, but no one though the OT was rwitten in greek.

2.The peshitta contains some greek words

Yes and the greek NT contains many Aramaic words.

3. Greek was the common language ofthe day
Possibly and possibly not, but certainly not amongst jews.

4. On a couple of occaisions the peshitta contains explanations to the meaning of the Aramaic, such as "...to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder'" (Mark 3:17).

Firstly the greek contains this same type of thing many many times.
Secondly the reason it occurs in mark 3:17 is that the Aramaic word here had two meanings, rage and thunder.

5. The Old Syriac are older than the peshitta (this is an argument specifically against pershitta primacy).

If we look at the evidence we see that the earliest use of any aramaic/syriac verson is the peshitta not the old syriac.
The peshitta is used in the COE liturgy and by Aprahat. No one can show any evidence of the OS being used earlier than this.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)