Couple of questions

[Burning one]

i don't mean to disagree, but it seems like there were two sets of measurement at work. 99.5% is word-by-word, ignoring variances in spelling, i think. i do not know, how 62.9% came to be, but, if you measure book-by-book, NOT ignoring spelling, you may even reach 0% (since someone may have misspelled one single word, making it 0% agreement for that book).

the number Kurt Aland gives does indeed take into consideration spelling variances, but it also takes into consideration actual differences in terms found between the Greek, so that a 0% difference cannot be reached. spelling differences between the Greek are prolific, as is changes in word order in sentences, but those are not as problematic as the actual differences between the contents of the varying texts. those are what are important, and when held up to the content of the Peshitta, spelling differences aside, there are only a few places where content differs. between the Eastern and Western Peshitta, there are only a few actual differences of content. these are found in Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and one other that i noticed in Hebrews, but don't recall the exact verse off the top of my head. this makes for a consonance in content far superior than the myriads of dissonant readings in the Greek texts.

So you would say that Paul would write Aramaic even to a group of people he clearly and exclusively labeled as gentiles (like in Romans)? i think there can't be any argument about the Diaspora here, since Paul would surely make a distinct greeting for the Jews (Else, they would be offended for being called gentiles.) If Greek was not bridge language, what was (Latin?)? Do you mean to say Roman gentiles spoke Aramaic?

in Romans the group he speaks to is twofold, both Hebrew and Gentile. it is not just Gentiles. this he makes clear in the text itself, as he addresses both in the letter. and this would be expected, of course, because there probably wasn't any group of Gentile-only believers in the Diaspora, since Paul went forth into the cities preaching mostly in the synagogues, where both Jews and Gentiles who believed in the Hebrew deity would worship together, and where the people could thus come to belief in Messiah. we must remember that the actual bridge language of the Middle East was not exactly Greek, but Aramaic, as it had the longest and most widespread influence. Greek was present, and it certainly was used, but it seems that Aramaic had a stronger presence among the nations that comprised the Roman Empire, since their arm was so far-reaching. this goes along with the testimony of the historian Josephus, as i mentioned before, who wrote to other Jews in the Diaspora in Aramaic. it would be the same for Paul, who was writing to both Jews and Gentiles who had taken the step in the "Jewish" direction in the first place to even be in a position to care about a Jewish Messiah.

hope that makes sense! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy