Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts

[Rob]

Shlama Akhay,

This is an interesting discussion, but I must start out by saying that I am no longer a Peshitta primacist. Aramaic written primacy is at it's core unlikely. Aramaic oral primacy is another issue. I still love the language and love studying it, though.

I came to this conclusion from debating with Zorbas, and objectively weighing the argument. And I must admit, as a calvinist, I agree with this remark:

With as much technology nowadays, and all the discoveries and learned men, GOD has still not moved from the greek scriptures. Is it just a bias? Is it scholarly concenses? Or is it something more that The Holy Spirit has a purpose in?

People often argue that God can use any language, and he certainly can, but gross mistranslations do not properly convey his will, hence it is still necessary to check and crosscheck the scriptures in their original language. It's hard for me as a Calvinist to believe that the scriptures were altogether unknown by the vast majority of the church. I don't understand the theology of a "Remnant Text."

For some reason, there is a space of time missing here with the peshitta though. There seems to be nothing earlier than around 4th century. Everyone that was associated with 1st century history and documeted it for us, mentions nothing about it. People here have explained it as the text was hidden from the west at that time, yet there is nothing of the peshitta text dated prior to around the 3rd or 4th century in the areas that it was supposedly prominent.

This is true, and the Gospels themselves were very clearly written after the destruction of the Temple. Both Matthew and Luke are dependent on similar sources and Matthew very clearly embellishes the temple's destruction. None of the Gospels were in major circulation until the middle of the 2nd century; effectively after the split between the church and synagogue. Hence a Greek text would best serve the community of Hellenistic Jews and Greco-Roman Gentiles. Pauline (whom we know knew Greek) epistles were in circulation beforehand, since they were written beforehand. Since the vast majority of his letters were directed at thoroughly hellenized cultures, it would only be logical to compose the Gospel literature in the language of the rest of the canon: Greek.

I actually think LAmsa did a really good job in talking about the difference on perserving documents between east and west.

Since the East maintained a sole tradition it is only logical to assume it has less variants. The fact that it has this could just as well mean it has kept a single Greek tradition.

There are other factors which contribute to this, such as the use of the word "Rabbi" being almost an exclusively 2nd Century title, and the fact that a semitic Greek style could just as well mean that the scribes' first language was Aramaic. But I will leave that to another day.