Aramaic Primacy in the East

[distazo]

In any case, it's not up to *me* to convince you that the word "yamtha" is appropriate for the context. It is up to *you* to convince me why an Aramaic translator would translate the same Greek work differently in v.19 than he would in v.18, v.16, v.22, v.25, etc. You've given me no indication whatsoever that any sort of misreading of the Greek grammar caused the alleged "mistake" in the Aramaic.

Agreed. If it is the same context, why would a translator use more than one word to translate a Greek word? It is possible that a translator would do so of course, but not as likely.

Well, why would I suddenly promote Greek primacy friends? <!-- stern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="tern:" title="Stern" /><!-- stern: -->

What I meant that if the original Aramaic had the two words yamta and yama, the Greek SHOULD make the distinction as well.
Because, this is one-one-one (verbally) with Aramaic anyway. The Greek Luke has Yamta translated as lake and yama as sea.

What I meant, is that there is possibly a scribal error by adding a 'tau' to yama, which became 'yamta'.
Is it such a profanation to write such a thing? I tried to explain this because the original text could have been damaged since the Western Peshitto and the Eastern Peshitta differ in exact wording in John 6:19, a rare thing. (Have you compared it?)

But this is just an opinion. I don't believe any of todays manuscripts are faultless copies of the 1st century. Wasn't there some 'mar' from the East who said there was a faultless copy in Edessa (now lost)? Why did he say this?

@Paul, in the Netherlands, we have many types of 'water' we make a lot of distinction and we manage the water levels as well, both for drinking as for we live under sea level. But I just don't see how a topographic distinction would exist even in the original sea of Galilee. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif" alt="" title="Crying" /><!-- s -->