Shusshhh

[oozeaddai]

Khati Shushan,

Do you think we've presented a compelling case that the Greek versions were translated from the Aramaic original your ancestors helped to preserve in the Peshitta?

I think you've done an excellent job. OF course you got to understand I was already sold on some aspect Aramaic primacy, where I was with American bishop who had Assyrian lines and used Lamsa's Bible etc.


I think one problem is that people who beleive in the Greek text aren't really interested in researching or looking into things like document disagreement. I remember studying a debate with Judge with one guy on another board. he simply was not willing to consider, that Greek textual differences were do to much beyond scribal erros, and dialectal differences. He also found the lack of variation in Peshitta to be to good to be true.


I think another thing that influences is the fact Voobus etc. who have handled scores of the anceint manuscripts come up with different theories, that of course are different that Assyrian tradion. the fact that they handled and studied so much original source material and are experts in the field makes me want to listen to and consider what they have to say, even though in retrospect they may be ingnorant of some facts etc. that put things into perspective.



I think perhaps in the future, it may be an affective in the future to systematically document the differences in the Greek texts. And perhaps come up with a detailed theory and explanation of how and why they ended up the way they did.



I know some critics I have, have crtiized reconstructive textual attempts in lack of archeolgical evidence. Because it can seem flakey or too hypothetical. But I know I find it affective. Because I shows a mastery of the material, beyond what the other side can do. People in the past, on other forums have been very excited about the Aramaic heritage behind the New Testaments. I also noticed that critics may make a remarks but they don't stay around for a line, upon line debate. Which I interpret as a sign of weakness. They for the most part rely on argumentum ad populum arguments, and archelogy, etc. to carry the weight of their claims. Anyway I think the deconstructive work on the Greek texts, over time will build the case for Aramaic.


Unfortately this issue is tied into so many other ones (especially psychological ones, like peoples need for security, and for many things like the existence of an Asiatic Aramaic speaking and writingchurch is completely new and seems a little fantastic to be believable) and it hard to make a lot of headway (I think especially because there are so many experts in Greek whose entire livelihood, position of authority etc. is based upon the belief in that texts primacy and infallible nature).


I do know that there is a growing "post modern" church movement in America. And people are rethinking many, and many issues related to church (especially in Evangelical circles). Anyway in this movement, from what I seen first hand people are very interested and curious with the news of Aramaic scriptures, and aramaic heritage behind the New Testament. So while it may be tempting to try to out argue the Greek academics to convert their followers over, it however may be better to concentrate influencing some of the newer more open minded contemporary church goers of today.