08-28-2012, 04:03 AM
Thanks distazo for your post. I believe in an aramaic original. (I need to find out more because I believe Aramaic for this book yet waver with doubt).
**EDIT** Stopped doubting -- researched more on dukhrana -- Aramaic original to Ephesians. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Also, Paul, should Ephesians 1:18 be removed from the primacy proofs? -- because it seems likely that the Greeks understood "eye of your hearts".
{I do not want my post to come off the wrong way,} -- [I am] saying this because the Greek primacist could nail the Aramaic movement by making us out to be "misinformed amateurs".
And lastly, what I want to point out is that Peshitta has "sons of the inheritance" while Greek has fellow-heirs. Why would an Aramean scribe change a reading from "original" Greek into an idiom? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->
**EDIT** Stopped doubting -- researched more on dukhrana -- Aramaic original to Ephesians. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Also, Paul, should Ephesians 1:18 be removed from the primacy proofs? -- because it seems likely that the Greeks understood "eye of your hearts".
{I do not want my post to come off the wrong way,} -- [I am] saying this because the Greek primacist could nail the Aramaic movement by making us out to be "misinformed amateurs".
And lastly, what I want to point out is that Peshitta has "sons of the inheritance" while Greek has fellow-heirs. Why would an Aramean scribe change a reading from "original" Greek into an idiom? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->