01-29-2012, 02:59 PM
The very state of the textual history will testify to whether a document was originally penned in that language. The Aramaic is relatively stable (especially the eastern copies), whereas the Greek is wildly divergent. One acts the part of an original, the other a translation. It's rather easy to tell and recognize.
Now, if the Greek textual tradition was relatively stable while the Aramaic copies varied wildly, well then I would be a Greek Primacist. It would be obvious which is the original and which the translation.
The forensics speak volumes...textual CSI.
+Shamasha[/quote]
Its not only that which proves Aramaic Primacy though...its the internal evidences, such as mistranslations in Greek (the same Aramaic word being translated into two different Greek words as the translators thought they saw something else)
Now, if the Greek textual tradition was relatively stable while the Aramaic copies varied wildly, well then I would be a Greek Primacist. It would be obvious which is the original and which the translation.
The forensics speak volumes...textual CSI.
+Shamasha[/quote]
Its not only that which proves Aramaic Primacy though...its the internal evidences, such as mistranslations in Greek (the same Aramaic word being translated into two different Greek words as the translators thought they saw something else)