01-22-2014, 02:57 AM
I thought I would have look at Steve Caruso's arguments against Peshitta primacy, found here, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.org/articles/problems-with-peshitta-primacy/">http://aramaicnt.org/articles/problems- ... a-primacy/</a><!-- m -->
The arguments seems to be that as the present day interpretation of the peshitta misses the wordplay in Matthew 26 that the peshitta can?t be the original.
All it more likely means is that some COE member/s in the 3rd 4th 5th or 6th century missed the wordplay. Which would be expected as it wasn?t a wordplay in the East.
Peshitta primacy has no need to argue that later COE members must have understood every word.
I don't think this is really an argument against peshitta primacy, but against an idea that COE members several centuries later would be expected to ackowledge wordplays that weren't wordplays in their dialect.
A more parsimonious solution might be that Matti was written by a westerner, but that it was the COE who added plurals, vowel markings etc.. and standardised the meaning of ambiguous words several centuries later
The arguments seems to be that as the present day interpretation of the peshitta misses the wordplay in Matthew 26 that the peshitta can?t be the original.
All it more likely means is that some COE member/s in the 3rd 4th 5th or 6th century missed the wordplay. Which would be expected as it wasn?t a wordplay in the East.
Peshitta primacy has no need to argue that later COE members must have understood every word.
I don't think this is really an argument against peshitta primacy, but against an idea that COE members several centuries later would be expected to ackowledge wordplays that weren't wordplays in their dialect.
A more parsimonious solution might be that Matti was written by a westerner, but that it was the COE who added plurals, vowel markings etc.. and standardised the meaning of ambiguous words several centuries later