05-04-2008, 07:56 PM
Shlama Akhi Otto,
Loan words is a topic we have dealt with quite often at peshitta.org. If the Peshitta did not have loan words, if it did not reflect the reality of Hebrews under Roman occupation, then it would be fraud.
There are other complexities to this matter that have to be dealt with before going to the overly simplfied solution of "it had to be in Greek". For example, take KRISTIANAY in Acts and in Peter's writings. In that case the Peshitta is simply recording the sound the writers heard in Antioch as people called the disciples by a term in their language of Greek. They would not have called the disciples MISKHANEE. But it is important to note the disciples never called themselves KRISTANAY.
I really don't think much of "scholars" who reach for such sweeping conclusions by the misapplication of such small data points.
I think this brief summary from Paul Younan in 2004 says it best:
Report this postReply with quote Why are there Greek words in the Aramaic NT?
by Paul Younan on Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:35 am
The same reason why there are Aramaic words in the Greek NT (i.e., Sikera, Luke 1:15 among many others), Persian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., Tirshatha, Ezra 2:63, Neh. 8:9 among many others), Egyptian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., hartummim, Genesis 41:8 among many others).....and, for that matter, Spanish words in English (and vice-versa.)
They are called loan-words, and all languages have them. Every language borrows from every other language it comes into contact with.
If you study the Aramaic text of the Elephantine Papyri (5th-c. B.C. -Egypt), you will notice many Greek loan-words.
See viewtopic.php?t=97 for more Aramaic loan-words in the Greek versions of the NT.Paul Younan
Site Admin
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Loan words is a topic we have dealt with quite often at peshitta.org. If the Peshitta did not have loan words, if it did not reflect the reality of Hebrews under Roman occupation, then it would be fraud.
There are other complexities to this matter that have to be dealt with before going to the overly simplfied solution of "it had to be in Greek". For example, take KRISTIANAY in Acts and in Peter's writings. In that case the Peshitta is simply recording the sound the writers heard in Antioch as people called the disciples by a term in their language of Greek. They would not have called the disciples MISKHANEE. But it is important to note the disciples never called themselves KRISTANAY.
I really don't think much of "scholars" who reach for such sweeping conclusions by the misapplication of such small data points.
I think this brief summary from Paul Younan in 2004 says it best:
Report this postReply with quote Why are there Greek words in the Aramaic NT?
by Paul Younan on Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:35 am
The same reason why there are Aramaic words in the Greek NT (i.e., Sikera, Luke 1:15 among many others), Persian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., Tirshatha, Ezra 2:63, Neh. 8:9 among many others), Egyptian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., hartummim, Genesis 41:8 among many others).....and, for that matter, Spanish words in English (and vice-versa.)
They are called loan-words, and all languages have them. Every language borrows from every other language it comes into contact with.
If you study the Aramaic text of the Elephantine Papyri (5th-c. B.C. -Egypt), you will notice many Greek loan-words.
See viewtopic.php?t=97 for more Aramaic loan-words in the Greek versions of the NT.Paul Younan
Site Admin
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth