02-21-2012, 08:44 PM
Shlama Akhi Mike:
Indeed I agree that Paul spoke in "more tongues than ye all". However, the 22 book Peshitta was delivered to the Church in Babylon. Would it not be more consistent to consolidate the New Testament in Aramaic as the Gospels were written and then translate the WORD into Greek? Since Aramaic was also written in the Hebrew Scriptures and this WORD was also universal would it not be more cohesive to follow the original tradition of using Aramaic, as the Targums were also written. The LXX is a unique independent witness but the Peshitta A"NK is a cohesive interlinear translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Targums are a para-phrase, "to give the sense". If the Western Church did not have so many versions of so-called "original manuscripts, I might agree that the Greek and the Aramaic were both used. However, the Eastern Peshitta New Testament used by the A.C.O.E. has virtually no variants whatsoever. The many Greek manuscripts have about 80% agreement with one another. Why is this, if they are all copies of the original? Shouldn't it be the other way around. If the Greek was translated into Aramaic, would you not find many variants of the Eastern Peshitta. What is it with these Eastern Scribes who seemed to follow the Jewish Scribal method and come up with ONE version, rather than many dozen variant texts to "give the sense". Where there are synonyms there are different scribes at various times and places. When you have ONE textual tradition you have the original copied faithfully using the Jewish Scribal tradition, which was set in place at the time of Ezra the Scribe.
Shlama,
Stephen
Indeed I agree that Paul spoke in "more tongues than ye all". However, the 22 book Peshitta was delivered to the Church in Babylon. Would it not be more consistent to consolidate the New Testament in Aramaic as the Gospels were written and then translate the WORD into Greek? Since Aramaic was also written in the Hebrew Scriptures and this WORD was also universal would it not be more cohesive to follow the original tradition of using Aramaic, as the Targums were also written. The LXX is a unique independent witness but the Peshitta A"NK is a cohesive interlinear translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Targums are a para-phrase, "to give the sense". If the Western Church did not have so many versions of so-called "original manuscripts, I might agree that the Greek and the Aramaic were both used. However, the Eastern Peshitta New Testament used by the A.C.O.E. has virtually no variants whatsoever. The many Greek manuscripts have about 80% agreement with one another. Why is this, if they are all copies of the original? Shouldn't it be the other way around. If the Greek was translated into Aramaic, would you not find many variants of the Eastern Peshitta. What is it with these Eastern Scribes who seemed to follow the Jewish Scribal method and come up with ONE version, rather than many dozen variant texts to "give the sense". Where there are synonyms there are different scribes at various times and places. When you have ONE textual tradition you have the original copied faithfully using the Jewish Scribal tradition, which was set in place at the time of Ezra the Scribe.
Shlama,
Stephen