08-18-2012, 11:12 PM
Hi Paul. Thanks for pointing those out. So to me, it seems like the Aramaic primacy for this book is weak.
I want to say that the variant "understanding" only occurs in later manuscripts. (Even the Byzantine "Majority text" reads "hearts".) So let's just say: What if in the later centuries, a Christian Zorba familiar with Greek Old Testament (Picking up on the Semitic concept of heart from the Greek OT) -- that very same Zorba -- he may have changed the older reading to "understanding".
I feel that claiming an Aramaic original from "hearts-understanding" is not strong enough.
The Greek primacist could argue this: "Paul could have written the letter in Greek to the majority Greek congregation. Then...when the Gentiles would have encountered the verse -- they may have turned to the Semitic leaders of the congregation for clarification."
Maybe I'm just "lost in the fog"...
I want to say that the variant "understanding" only occurs in later manuscripts. (Even the Byzantine "Majority text" reads "hearts".) So let's just say: What if in the later centuries, a Christian Zorba familiar with Greek Old Testament (Picking up on the Semitic concept of heart from the Greek OT) -- that very same Zorba -- he may have changed the older reading to "understanding".
I feel that claiming an Aramaic original from "hearts-understanding" is not strong enough.
The Greek primacist could argue this: "Paul could have written the letter in Greek to the majority Greek congregation. Then...when the Gentiles would have encountered the verse -- they may have turned to the Semitic leaders of the congregation for clarification."
Maybe I'm just "lost in the fog"...