11-18-2013, 04:35 AM
To play the other hand, most folk in that time weren't particularly standard, nor were they formally educated. :-)
However, I am one who does see the merit in the syntax argument, as it betrays an underlying layer -- if only that layer is a "generic" Semitic one rather than a Greek one. Pointing to those layers (solely under the context of this argument) can't even resolve definitively on its own whether the original text in any pericope was an Aramaic language or Hebrew (as their structures are similar enough). However, text read in translation is noticeable and of a different "texture" than text by a native speaker, and the Greek New Testament has swaths of both.
So yes, it is evidence, but not "smoking gun" evidence. It's evidence that needs to be factored in with other context. It's a pointer, or marker that greatly strengthens other arguments pertaining to Aramaic under-workings.
However, I am one who does see the merit in the syntax argument, as it betrays an underlying layer -- if only that layer is a "generic" Semitic one rather than a Greek one. Pointing to those layers (solely under the context of this argument) can't even resolve definitively on its own whether the original text in any pericope was an Aramaic language or Hebrew (as their structures are similar enough). However, text read in translation is noticeable and of a different "texture" than text by a native speaker, and the Greek New Testament has swaths of both.
So yes, it is evidence, but not "smoking gun" evidence. It's evidence that needs to be factored in with other context. It's a pointer, or marker that greatly strengthens other arguments pertaining to Aramaic under-workings.