How established is Aramaic Primacy?

[distazo]

The Greek scribe comes along in the second or third century and not knowing Jewish ways, culture, the Law or history translates ?zeal? incorrectly as Canaanite.

I'm writing a Dutch article about this phenomenon, that translaters -just translate- using their own context, mind, history background, social thinking etc.

How is it possible that the Aramaic NT has -both- Aramaic as Greek speaking people, while the Greek NT, simple ignores the existence of 'Arameans'.

* It is because in there was a long Greek translation tradition e.g: you don't tranliterate (eg) Mar-Jah to Greek, since that is a girlsname and non-septuagint tradition.
* You don't transliterate Aram-na-rhain but translate it as 'Mesapotamia'. (therefore loosing connection between the aramaic speaking people and their homeland)
* Aramean speaking people, were associated with their neighbours, the Syrian nation. So, Estrangelo became syriac, Aramaens became 'Syrians'

These two backgrounds, would make it very strange to translate it this way, so that e.g. the former Cilicia (turkey) would seem full of syrian people.

Since there was no 'homeland' such as "Aram-land" for Arameans (but Syriac~Syria), I believe that Greek NT translators and readers simply did not understand geographic spreading of that language.
It would make scratch the head of Greek readers in churches. So, the transfer to 'pagans' / Greeks, would be their best decision for the translation.

For me, this again, is a case for Aramaic primacy.

Aramaic Primacy also can be established, using these phenonemons, according to true history facts, that turkey, Cilicia and other parts, were full of Jews and Arameans.

Another very *funny* NT passage, is the mention of the syrophoenician greek woman in the Greek NT.
Wow! Compare this: "An American-canadian russian, spoke with ..."

What was the Greek Mark referring to? To etnic or linguistic or to cultural context?
The Aramaic NT has: "A pagan Phoenician from Syria."