Christ's OT quotes and Pshitta primacy

[Paul Younan]

Thanks brother.

I would *not* expect that the Peshitta NT quotes the Peshitta OT in any manner.

Reason being, despite the fact that they share a common name, the two texts are totally unrelated. I think the common name confuses people.

If you carefully study the nuances of the Aramaic of the POT, it is a very rigid translation of the Hebrew in a very Mesopotamian-style dialect (in particular, it contains many "Chaldeanisms" in addition to its "Hebraicisms".) This is exactly what we would expect of an Aramaic translation made by Jews in Babylonian Captivity. However, this version was not used outside of Mesopotamia.

If you carefully study the nuances of the Aramaic of the PNT, it is a very natural Aramaic of Palestinian origin. The reason why I say that is, it contains many Hellenisms. This is exactly what we would expect of an Aramaic work made by Jews who lived under Graeco-Roman domination. The fact that it contains these Hellenisms is important to our Aramaic Primacy cause.....because if it didn't, then it couldn't have been written in 1st-century Palestine.

An important observation of any linguistic study is that dialects form and are influenced by regional and governmental factors. For instance, if you study the Arabic used in Lebanon (my parents were born in Beirut), you will notice that they have many French loan-words in their Arabic dialect. Why? Well, the French ruled Lebanon for a long time. French became a second language there. My mother worked as a maid for a French family in Beirut. The French language was taught in schools, right alongside Arabic.

If the Peshitta NT did not contain loan-words of Greek origin, then we would rightly dismiss it as a later translation made by Mesopotamians. Why Mesopotamians? Because Greek was unknown in Mesopotamia, unlike the Levant where it was almost a second language much like French is today in Lebanon. A translation made by Mesopotamians would not contain any Hellenisms or Greek loan-words, simply because Mesopotamians didn't live under the rule of Greeks - they lived under the rule of Persians.

If the Peshitta NT was a translation made in Mesopotamia, you would find that it would contain Persian loan-words, instead of Greek. You would find that the translators would've gone to great lengths to translate key terms for currency, ranks of soldiers and names of Roman admnistrative roles.

But you don't. Why? It's simply because it was written by Jews who called Roman coins by their names, because they lived by trading with these coins. They transliterated these into their local Aramaic vernacular....along with many other words of everyday importance.

The presence of Greek (and, Latin) loan-words is not a weakness for Aramaic Primacy - it's a strength. And likewise, the fact that the Peshitta NT is completely unrelated to the Peshitta OT is also a strength.

If the Peshitta NT contained quotes from the Peshitta OT, then it would immediately be suspect. Why would it do so if the Peshitta OT wasn't used outside of Mesopotamia? Do you see the trouble that would present? It would immediately place the Peshitta NT in Mesopotamia, and therefore give weight against our Aramaic Primacy arguments.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but think about it. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->