12-17-2007, 09:45 PM
His theory is based upon Greek primacy, so he says that the Hebrew was translated, but the Aramaic left as it was. My theory would be more likely to be that it was originally in Hebrew, and the Judean Aramaic was left as it was when translated to Syriac.
As you pointed out, Judeo-Aramaic, not Syrian Aramaic.
However, mightn't it be argued that these are proper in modern Aramaic due to its close association with the Peshitta, and that it went from the Peshitta into Syriac, rather than from Syriac into the Peshitta?
As you pointed out, Judeo-Aramaic, not Syrian Aramaic.
However, mightn't it be argued that these are proper in modern Aramaic due to its close association with the Peshitta, and that it went from the Peshitta into Syriac, rather than from Syriac into the Peshitta?