02-25-2010, 01:26 AM
Nimrod,
Thank you for your fast reply to my question. May God bless you for your kindness.
In regards to Aramaic primacy's argument, it assumes too much. (1) it assumes that Jesus' oral teachings, logically conducted in Palestinian Aramaic, were not first translated into Greek, the region's lingua franca, but were instead first penned, word for word, in the dialect of a distant kingdom in Edessa, which was irrevelent to Christianity until the second century. Indirectly, it assumes that Jesus' disciples (a) wrote the Gospels and that (b) their written testimonies are completely accurate. (2) It assumes that since the Peshitta preserves the semiticisms characteristic of Middle Aramaic speech, that it necessarily contains the historical Jesus' actual words. (3) It assumes that Tatian and the Greek-fluent scribes at the schools of Edessa and Nisibis translating the Greek gospels into the Syriac dialect, which in effect would restore lost aramaicisms, is impossible. Aramaic primacists must ascertain 1-3 to strengthen its argument.
My hypothesis is that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek Gospels, which are themselves translations of the Palestinian Aramaic original. If my hypothesis is correct, then we will find at least one corruption therein imported from Greek christology. Of course, much research needs to be done to prove this. I have collected many materials needed to prove/disprove my hypothesis.
Thank you for your fast reply to my question. May God bless you for your kindness.
In regards to Aramaic primacy's argument, it assumes too much. (1) it assumes that Jesus' oral teachings, logically conducted in Palestinian Aramaic, were not first translated into Greek, the region's lingua franca, but were instead first penned, word for word, in the dialect of a distant kingdom in Edessa, which was irrevelent to Christianity until the second century. Indirectly, it assumes that Jesus' disciples (a) wrote the Gospels and that (b) their written testimonies are completely accurate. (2) It assumes that since the Peshitta preserves the semiticisms characteristic of Middle Aramaic speech, that it necessarily contains the historical Jesus' actual words. (3) It assumes that Tatian and the Greek-fluent scribes at the schools of Edessa and Nisibis translating the Greek gospels into the Syriac dialect, which in effect would restore lost aramaicisms, is impossible. Aramaic primacists must ascertain 1-3 to strengthen its argument.
My hypothesis is that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek Gospels, which are themselves translations of the Palestinian Aramaic original. If my hypothesis is correct, then we will find at least one corruption therein imported from Greek christology. Of course, much research needs to be done to prove this. I have collected many materials needed to prove/disprove my hypothesis.