Dave's books on Peshitta primacy

[gbausc]

Shlama Otto,

You know my position Otto, so why do you ask? Don't you really mean to ask why I believe as I do, or what evidence do I have ?

I am not the only "ONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE THE ONE TRUE AND PERFECT ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD" , as you seem to intimate.
Paul Younan, Andrew Roth, and others believe they have "THE ONE TRUE AND PERFECT ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD." At least you admit you are undecided as to which canon and Peshitta is the original inspired New Testament. I congratulate you for that honesty and openness, and for your pursuit of the truth.

In the mean time, I think we can agree that the 22 books of the Eastern text are original and inspired in all their content and practically error free, except (in my view) the significant variants in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, each of which involves a one or two word difference in Aramaic! Actually, Hebrews 2:16 is also significantly different in the two Peshittas also. I have written extensive notes on the Hebrews verses at issue in my interlinear, which you have. You may want to have a look at them and comment on them.

I also have notes on the "Western five" books in the interlinear showing that the Greek versions of those books were translated from the Gwynn-Crawford edition Aramaic text of those books.
Have a look at 2 Peter's notes. There are four illustrated examples in 2 Peter alone, showing how the Greek came from the Aramaic. I have added one to Jude in a recent edition and there are 11 such illustrations in Revelation, with many other non-illustrated examples. I have also shown similar examples in John 8:5 & 6 (pericope adultera).

If John 7:53-8:11 were added by a scribe other than John, he certainly added it in Aramaic, most probably wrote in either the square Ashuri Aramaic or (even more likely) in Dead Sea Scroll (also called Herodian) Aramaic. That means it was written most probably in in the first century, as those scripts in Aramaic would not have been used much later than that.

Since most Greek mss. have the pericope in John's Gospel, they represent an Aramaic original with the pericope in John's Gospel where we find it today (called chapter 7:53-8:11) in the narrative of the Gospel. If John wrote 7:52 & 8:12, how likely is it that a scribe snuck twelve verses in before John continued writing at 8:12 ? And how likely is it John would not have noticed that someone had just added 12 verse to his Gospel in different handwriting?

There are other reasons for accepting those books and those verses as original. I will reserve them for another time.

The Eastern text is authoritative in what it contains. It is not authoritative in what it does not contain, especially when other 5th century Aramaic mss. contain material not found in the Eastern text, mirrored by hundreds of Greek mss., ancient versions and church fathers going back to AD 222. One witness containing a reading is worth more in that particular than many which do not contain that reading. That is only logical.

Occam's Razor applies here quite nicely. Either a scribe invented and added the story and managed to foist it on the Western churches as inspired and as John's work, or someone inadvertently left it out when copying a manuscript. Which is the simplest explanation?

Blessings to you,

Dave