12-28-2010, 11:13 PM
Hello Stephen,
I thought John Gwynn was a greek primacist. Maybe I am wrong. But Dave Bauscher strongly disagrees with John Gwynn in Page 364 of his book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English."
Dave Bauscher says like this "I have a different view of the nature of this text which Gwynn?s findings support; for instance, Hebraisms (or Aramaisms) would not come from
Greek, they would come from Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic idioms, of which Gwynn lists a considerable number specifically, are evidence of original Aramaic, not Greek. The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek. Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed."
I thought John Gwynn was a greek primacist. Maybe I am wrong. But Dave Bauscher strongly disagrees with John Gwynn in Page 364 of his book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English."
Dave Bauscher says like this "I have a different view of the nature of this text which Gwynn?s findings support; for instance, Hebraisms (or Aramaisms) would not come from
Greek, they would come from Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic idioms, of which Gwynn lists a considerable number specifically, are evidence of original Aramaic, not Greek. The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek. Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed."