01-22-2014, 10:58 PM
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Brother Steve also mentions a word used Luke 23:46 that is absent in Galilean Aramaic. This assumes (in error) that if Luke wrote in Aramaic that he would have written in the Galilean or Judean dialect of Aramaic. Being a Syrian from Antioch, if he wrote in Aramaic (which I believe he did), he would have wrote in the Assyrian Aramaic (Syriac) dialect. Historians in the 1st century were also not concerned with the exact words used by their subjects, but sought to capture the meaning of their words. This shows that the Gospel writers did not feel the necessity to capture every single word of Jesus exactly as it was spoken. The assumption that Jesus had to have used a wordplay when he spoke the quote from Matthew is also erroneous.
Many wordplays are preserved in the Peshitta, more than in any other ancient version of the Gospels. If you translate the Gospels into Hebrew I am sure you will get some similar wordplays to the Peshitta because of how similar Hebrew and Aramaic are, but I don't think you will get as many. You hardly ever hear talk of wordplays in the Greek or Latin Gospels! The fact that there are so many wordplays in the Aramaic Gospels is not only evidence that Jesus spoke His teachings in the Aramaic language, but also adds evidence to the possibility that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. The Gospels and Acts have a stronger case for Aramaic Primacy than any other parts of the New Testament. The fact that the Galilean Aramaic words we have preserved in the Greek Gospels are so similar to the Assyrian Aramaic words shows a great affinity between the two dialects.
Shlama Akhi,
There's a double standard, in case you didn't already know, among modern "scholarly consensus." Namely, if the NT was written in Aramaic - it must have been written in the exact dialect that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. However, if the NT was written in Greek, then it needn't be in the exact dialect that Jesus and the Apostles spoke.
Worded differently - it's ok of the GNT was written in the "universal Koine of Greek" .... but it's not ok if the ANT was written in the "universal Koine of Aramaic."
See where I'm going with this?
The first thing a Greek Primacist will tell you is that it's impossible that the Peshitta is the original NT, because it's not in the same dialect that Jesus spoke. (that's debatable, but for sake of argument, grant them that.)
But, is the GNT the original NT because it's written in the same dialect that Jesus spoke ?
Why can't the Peshitta be the original NT, from which the Greek was translated ? Even if it is in a more "universal Koine" dialect, isn't that the point? To reach the maximum audience ? Most speakers of Aramaic in the 1st century were eastern, not western. It would make sense to write the original NT in the eastern dialects, not the western.
Or, is that not the argument that the GPs use for Koine ?
+Shamasha