Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Dave,

It's arbitrary. I showed you specific evidence when you first came on the forum and you actually found a fantastic proof of Aramaic primacy which cleared up a contradition in the Greek text.

The point is this: I showed you how the verb in that inflection could have been a 3rd-person feminine or masculine verb. I demonstrated overwhelmingly with empirical evidence how the error happened.

That's what's missing in your proposal. The how. I don't want to know why - why is arbitrary - I want to know how. You propose that it's a superior reading. I would be happy to entertain the idea, as long as it's clearly documented how the error in Aramaic arose from a Hebrew source.

And the Greeks would have had to make the same error independently...since you are claiming that they didn't translate from the Aramaic.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. It's just that I put a lot of effort and research into a piece of evidence that I propose supports my position - and I expect those who wish to debate me to return the favor.