Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)
#1
Hello all,

I'm hoping that my concerns are merely the result of my ignorance on the subject matter, but I'm finding a heavy pattern of alleged primacy proofs (and internal ones, to be specific) that either lack any supportable documentation (a problem in itself) or are easily countered through other explanations.

I've become a bit perturbed that no one could answer my legitimate question here (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3956">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3956</a><!-- l -->), and so I've begun to actually test (i.e. 1Th 5:21-22) some of the allegations behind Aramaic primacy--specifically the ones that would convince me the most--mistranslations, contradictions, and polysemies. With all due respect, let's limit the discussion here to internal evidence.

To state my intentions up front, I'm hoping that I'm completely wrong about everything I'm about to share here, but I want to let you know that the following six (6) AP claims that I've tentatively refuted are the very first six I reviewed. In other words, I'm 6 for 6 in terms of finding significant problems with these claims, which either refutes them altogether, or at least weakens them to the point that they're useless.

That's where my honest and sincere concern is. If you take nothing else from this, and if I'm wrong about everything I say, then at least test it out and see if you can provide documentation for the (internal) primacy proofs that you use to convince others and yourself.

Note: Most of these are copied out of another document of mine, so if certain words or formatting is incorrect, please feel free to contact me for clarification. Also, due to space limitations, I'm assuming that if you are willing to read this, you are already familiar with the Aramaic primacy (AP) claims below.

Claim #1) "With fire everything will be vaporized and all sacrifices will be seasoned with salt." (Mat 9:49) One claim states that the root (mlk) can mean "to salt, season" or on the other hand, it can mean "to destroy, vaporize, or scatter." The AP argumentis that this points to an Aramaic original..." which I might agree makes sense if it could be proven or demonstrated.

Response: There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "destroy / vaporize" in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL lexicons. These lexicons only give salted, or maybe "scatter," but that doesn't make any sense in the context of the passage, and wouldn't make much difference from the Greek-based English reading.

(These are the only three Aramaic-English lexicons that I currently have, so please feel free to enlighten me to others. I would certainly appreciate it). Furthermore, I don't every find the root "mlk" used in the NT for "destroy / vaporize" (i.e. no cross-references to support this claim). Therefore, there appears to be no evidence to back this claim up. How would that look to a Greek primacist?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting) - by Thomas - 01-04-2015, 09:51 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)