Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now
#5
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Thank you for your in-depth thoughts. There is another angle here: let me explain it from the perspective of the CoE.

If the CoE does not accept that the book popularly called "2 Peter" was actually written by Peter, hence the absence of that book from our Canon, then it does not matter to Aramaic primacy at all what language "2 Peter" was written in. In other words, we believe the Apostle Peter wrote "1 Peter" in Aramaic, and someone else, not the Apostle Peter, may have written "2 Peter" in Greek. It does no damage to our case at all. "2 Peter" could have been written in Swahili for all it matters to the CoE.

Now, from Andrew's viewpoint let's say he believes that Peter actually wrote the book known in the West as "2 Peter." Well, it still does not present a problem for Aramaic primacy, even in Andrew's position. I'll explain why, and hope he doesn't mind my speaking on his behalf:

Andrew may believe that only the book called "1 Peter" has survived in Aramaic. The book called "2 Peter", although originally written in Aramaic, survives only in Greek and later Aramaic translations.

So therefore, Andrew will look for evidence from within the actual Greek texts of "2 Peter", and if it indeed was a translation of an originally Aramaic work...then it should have some clues within the Greek text itself.

However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic/Peshitta primacist to make a case for any particular example (say, a mistranslation) by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of "2 Peter." That would, of course, be absurd.

I hope I explained it properly.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now - by Paul Younan - 08-28-2008, 06:18 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)