A Theory of History

[Yochanan5730]

In my research, I have found that the oldest Aramaic Peshitta manuscript is from about 450ce. Now, the Khaburis Codex is from about 1000ce, and claims to have been a copy of a much older manuscript from about 100-300ce. As a disclaimer, these dates were found online, even within the confines of the forums as well as elsewhere. And of the Greek manuscripts, and there are tons of them, the oldest I have found, so far, dates to about 100-300ce also. I have found that looking at the dates for any proof of primacy to be rather??? well??? useless.

shalom again <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

i was uncertain about bringing this up, i dont know why, i just was. i have stated:

I am not one to give into the ???oldest is most accurate??? claim. Nor am I one to give into the ???majority is better??? claim either.

but i must ask: how is it to be dealt with when, as far as my investigation has taken me, the Greek manuscripts are in fact older than the oldest Aramaic manuscripts we now have? there is a 150-350 year difference in which the greek are the oldest. what could be said in support of Aramaic primacy in light of this information?

Much love and blessings,
Z'ev Yochanan