09-18-2008, 05:13 AM
Shlama Akhi Michael,
The Aramaic in the Peshitta, like the Greek of the GNT, varies. I'll give you an example.
In Mattai, for instance, we find examples of a more Hebraic Aramaic. If you read chapter 23 of the Interlinear, you'll find two Aramaicized Hebrew terms that only Mattai uses. "Tekhelet" and "Tefillin" are found in verse 5. No other author in the Aramaic NT used these terms. But we would expect the audience of Aramaic Matthew, who were Jews, to understand these basic terms from their liturgical use.
There are other minor, grammatical differences between writers mostly demonstrating preferences, and not as substantial as the above examples, or Mattai 7:6.
If the Aramaic of the Peshitta were uniform, we would be in big trouble. Uniformity is usually a mark of a translation. Unless, of course, several different people worked independently on each book, or unless there are textual families from different regions of the world like the GNT.
I'm not sure I understand. How so? Luqa doesn't record this particular saying of Meshikha found in Mattai 7:6.
Not a different dialect at all, the Aramaic words that Mattai (27:46) and Marqus (15:34) recorded as the last words are exactly the same. The only difference is that Marqus includes a gloss explaining "Eil" to mean "Alahi", since that is the more standard way in "Koine Aramaic" to say "My God." Mattai does not bother to include the gloss, since his Gospel was addressed to Jews who understood the word "Eil."
+Shamasha
judge Wrote:How uniform I wonder is the Aramaic of the peshitta across the board?
The Aramaic in the Peshitta, like the Greek of the GNT, varies. I'll give you an example.
In Mattai, for instance, we find examples of a more Hebraic Aramaic. If you read chapter 23 of the Interlinear, you'll find two Aramaicized Hebrew terms that only Mattai uses. "Tekhelet" and "Tefillin" are found in verse 5. No other author in the Aramaic NT used these terms. But we would expect the audience of Aramaic Matthew, who were Jews, to understand these basic terms from their liturgical use.
There are other minor, grammatical differences between writers mostly demonstrating preferences, and not as substantial as the above examples, or Mattai 7:6.
If the Aramaic of the Peshitta were uniform, we would be in big trouble. Uniformity is usually a mark of a translation. Unless, of course, several different people worked independently on each book, or unless there are textual families from different regions of the world like the GNT.
Quote:This might be an argument against the tradition that Luqa was from Antioch.
I'm not sure I understand. How so? Luqa doesn't record this particular saying of Meshikha found in Mattai 7:6.
Quote:Marqus for example IIRC gives us initially a different dialect in chapter 15 to that of Matti.
Not a different dialect at all, the Aramaic words that Mattai (27:46) and Marqus (15:34) recorded as the last words are exactly the same. The only difference is that Marqus includes a gloss explaining "Eil" to mean "Alahi", since that is the more standard way in "Koine Aramaic" to say "My God." Mattai does not bother to include the gloss, since his Gospel was addressed to Jews who understood the word "Eil."
+Shamasha