10-11-2004, 07:24 PM
Peshitta STILL superior
Had some thoughts this morning while getting ready for uni. These things hapen at the oddest times... Actually I started thinking on this ages ago, but just realised the implications while grilling my cheese. Life's funny like that.
1) Even if the Greek NT is the original and the Aramaic NT is a translation, what is the most important part of the whole Bible? Would you dare say it isn't the very words of Jesus? Now, what language did He speak? Aramaic. So even IF the GNT is the original, the most important bits are still only translations (which as we have seen with our many Peshitta proofs, results in many problems with the Greek NT).
Now with the Aramaic Peshitta, we often see that Jesus' words are filled with poetry, idiom etc. Are Greek primacists impressed? No, because Jesus spoke Aramaic anywahy. But what does this imply? That the Peshitta contains the original words of Jesus, whether it is the original NT or a translation of the Greek NT! Whether or not the Peshitta NT is the original, in the most important sections, the words of Jesus, it is superior to the Greek NT, whether or not the Greek is the original.
2) From this of course, you can branch off, with more ideas that scream "Peshitta primacy". What would happen if you wrote some poetry in English, translated it into Swahili, then had an expert translate that into English, without the help of the source text? Would it retain its poetry and even idiom? Unlikely. So why does the Aramaic Peshitta NT preserve the poetry and idiom of Jesus' teachings? Does it make use of a source text that has the original sayings of Jesus? If so, this makes the Peshitta superior to the Greek which is filled with translations of Jesus' words. What is this source? Could the Peshitta be its own source? The original? Either way, Peshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that even if the Peshitta is in the main part, a translation from the Greek NT, it is still superior due to having the original words, in the original language of the central figure in Christianity, Jesus.
As a sidenote, what applied here to Jesus can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the "crazy" notion that all of the NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.
Had some thoughts this morning while getting ready for uni. These things hapen at the oddest times... Actually I started thinking on this ages ago, but just realised the implications while grilling my cheese. Life's funny like that.
1) Even if the Greek NT is the original and the Aramaic NT is a translation, what is the most important part of the whole Bible? Would you dare say it isn't the very words of Jesus? Now, what language did He speak? Aramaic. So even IF the GNT is the original, the most important bits are still only translations (which as we have seen with our many Peshitta proofs, results in many problems with the Greek NT).
Now with the Aramaic Peshitta, we often see that Jesus' words are filled with poetry, idiom etc. Are Greek primacists impressed? No, because Jesus spoke Aramaic anywahy. But what does this imply? That the Peshitta contains the original words of Jesus, whether it is the original NT or a translation of the Greek NT! Whether or not the Peshitta NT is the original, in the most important sections, the words of Jesus, it is superior to the Greek NT, whether or not the Greek is the original.
2) From this of course, you can branch off, with more ideas that scream "Peshitta primacy". What would happen if you wrote some poetry in English, translated it into Swahili, then had an expert translate that into English, without the help of the source text? Would it retain its poetry and even idiom? Unlikely. So why does the Aramaic Peshitta NT preserve the poetry and idiom of Jesus' teachings? Does it make use of a source text that has the original sayings of Jesus? If so, this makes the Peshitta superior to the Greek which is filled with translations of Jesus' words. What is this source? Could the Peshitta be its own source? The original? Either way, Peshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that even if the Peshitta is in the main part, a translation from the Greek NT, it is still superior due to having the original words, in the original language of the central figure in Christianity, Jesus.
As a sidenote, what applied here to Jesus can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the "crazy" notion that all of the NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.
Download my free book at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?