12-29-2010, 06:47 AM
konway87 Wrote: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."
Shlama:
I'll keep this brief and it is not written to offend David Bauscher, however I am not a fan of his books. I understand that John Gwynn was a Greek Primacist as was John Wesley Etheridge and James Murdock. I see far more indepth scholarship in both John Wesley Etheridge as well as James Murdock. James Murdock was used as a cornerstone by Andrew Gabriel Roth in his rewrite of the Peshitta New Testament. Both Roth and Bauscher are top grade scholars but I just don't agree with some of their writings. Neither is an authority on the Peshitta, but they both have made considerable contributions to Aramaic Primacy.
Being a Greek Primacist in the middle of the 19th Century is far different than being an Aramaic Primacist today. For one thing, any scholar of the 19th Century was expected to hold at high esteem the KJV. Today there are many more accepted versions from Greek to English.
That to say this, just because John Gwynn was a Greek Primacist doesn't mean that his grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic as well as Semitic idiomatic expressions was lacking. It was just the immense pressure placed upon the Christian clergy that made it quite difficult to go it alone. Aramic Primacy is a relatively new concept in Western Christianity. I don't think the scholars of today come close to the exhaustive work done by 19th Century scholars like Etheridge, Murdock and John Gwynn. This is just my opinion and in no way is meant to undermine the works of Roth or Bauscher. However, I have read enough of both to know that I strongly disagree with both on major points. I have had lengthy dialogues with both and it was a very trying experience for me because as I have said they are both top notch scholars.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->