04-22-2004, 01:58 PM
Shlama Akhi John,
In and of themselves, idioms are inconclusive because as you pointed out the meaning would be recognizable by someone in the same cultural setting regardless of the language it was conveyed in - most of the time, at least. Some idioms, especially those related to etymology of words, are totally incomprehensible outside of the language they are first conceived in.
Nevertheless, the strategy here is to combine multiple aspects of Aramaic primacy....to take them as a whole. While idioms are, in and of themselves, a weak argument for the language the NT was written in - when they are combined with the "bigger picture" and more conclusive evidence (mistranslations, polysemy, variants, etc.) then they become part of a more powerful argument. (Which is why we have all the different categories split up here on the forum.)
In and of themselves, idioms are inconclusive because as you pointed out the meaning would be recognizable by someone in the same cultural setting regardless of the language it was conveyed in - most of the time, at least. Some idioms, especially those related to etymology of words, are totally incomprehensible outside of the language they are first conceived in.
Nevertheless, the strategy here is to combine multiple aspects of Aramaic primacy....to take them as a whole. While idioms are, in and of themselves, a weak argument for the language the NT was written in - when they are combined with the "bigger picture" and more conclusive evidence (mistranslations, polysemy, variants, etc.) then they become part of a more powerful argument. (Which is why we have all the different categories split up here on the forum.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)