03-26-2004, 12:45 AM
Shlama Akhi Stephen,
I agree with you about the original NT being written in a script like the one present in the bar-Kochba letters. However, for the New Testament to attract any attention whatsoever from all the rest of the Aramaic-speakers of the world, it would have to be in a script other than one used exclusively by the Jews.
In other words, what I am saying is that once the Apostles Peter, Thaddaeus, Thomas, etc. reached Edessa, Adiabene and Babylon - they were dealing with Aramaic-speakers and writers who were unfamiliar with the bar-Kochba type writing that was used exclusively by Jews.
At some point in time, these Aramaic speakers were either handed an NT in their own calligraphy or else they transcribed it themselves. There is a general oral tradition within the CoE which makes the latter more probable.
Anyways, in regards to the earliest date of the Estrangelo, we have no clue. You're right - it could be far earlier than 100 BC. The only thing we know of for sure is that the script wasn't invented for first-time use on the tomb of the governor of Birecik. Logic tells us that the script must have been well established by the time it was used on his tomb in 6 A.D.
The reason why you don't find any Estrangelo texts from the first 3 or 4 centuries is the same reason why they didn't find any Hebrew texts before the 12th century before they discovered the DSS. Until that time, the oldest text was sometime in the early 12th century, right? And what is that reason....????
That reason is that Semites destroy holy texts after they are copied so that they do not disintegrate and fall to the ground where they will be trodden on. If a manuscript is starting to fall apart and the name of God is in the text, then it is destroyed after being copied.
That's why you don't have any Hebrew texts of the Tanakh from the 3rd century (or the 2nd, or the 4th, or the 5th, etc.)
Take care Akhi.
I agree with you about the original NT being written in a script like the one present in the bar-Kochba letters. However, for the New Testament to attract any attention whatsoever from all the rest of the Aramaic-speakers of the world, it would have to be in a script other than one used exclusively by the Jews.
In other words, what I am saying is that once the Apostles Peter, Thaddaeus, Thomas, etc. reached Edessa, Adiabene and Babylon - they were dealing with Aramaic-speakers and writers who were unfamiliar with the bar-Kochba type writing that was used exclusively by Jews.
At some point in time, these Aramaic speakers were either handed an NT in their own calligraphy or else they transcribed it themselves. There is a general oral tradition within the CoE which makes the latter more probable.
Anyways, in regards to the earliest date of the Estrangelo, we have no clue. You're right - it could be far earlier than 100 BC. The only thing we know of for sure is that the script wasn't invented for first-time use on the tomb of the governor of Birecik. Logic tells us that the script must have been well established by the time it was used on his tomb in 6 A.D.
The reason why you don't find any Estrangelo texts from the first 3 or 4 centuries is the same reason why they didn't find any Hebrew texts before the 12th century before they discovered the DSS. Until that time, the oldest text was sometime in the early 12th century, right? And what is that reason....????
That reason is that Semites destroy holy texts after they are copied so that they do not disintegrate and fall to the ground where they will be trodden on. If a manuscript is starting to fall apart and the name of God is in the text, then it is destroyed after being copied.
That's why you don't have any Hebrew texts of the Tanakh from the 3rd century (or the 2nd, or the 4th, or the 5th, etc.)
Take care Akhi.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)