03-19-2014, 04:46 PM
If you examine the evidence, it becomes clear that there is a good case for Aramaic primacy. Sadly, q lot of Aramaic primacists are theologically motivated in believing in Aramaic primacy. There is nothing holy about languages, they are just languages through which God chose to reveal his word. Abraham most likely did not speak Hebrew, but Aramaic (which is older). Andrew Gabriel Roth 's theories that the Greek manuscripts are perverted just because they use titles used for Greek deities is stupid, but I respect most of his work.
Most Aramaic primacists do not mind calling the Messiah "Jesus". I am included in that number. People who claim that Jesus=Je-Zeus have no knowledge of Greek grammar or linguistics and are usually quite legalistic. Anyway, not all followers of the Aramaic primacy theories are Sacred-Namers or Hebrew Roots believers.
Syriac speakers and Galilean or Judean speakers would have very little issues with understanding each other. Aramaic dialects differed but not so much to where speakers of different dialects couldn't understand each other or even communicate (or even write in) different dialects.
The Talmud and other Eastern Jewish writings speak against the Septuagint. It was made for Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews. Most Jews in the Middle East used the Targums or the Hebrew if they could read it (as is the case with our Lord Jesus Christ). Why would you use the Greek if you were able to use Aramaic or Hebrew? While the Targums were paraphrases, they probably reach the meaning of the original Hebrew Tanach than the Septuagint.
The Judeans had a great hatred for the Gentiles, especially Romans and Greeks. Josephus mentions that the learning of foreign languages was not encouraged. Of course, that doesn't mean that some Jews did not learn Greek. The common people would not have spoken Greek fluently, but they probably knew enough to get by in conversation and commerce. The higher class people probably acquired a pretty good knowledge of Greek speech.
The real origin of the Peshitta is shrouded in mystery. Church fathers say that Paul wrote in "Hebrew" to Hebrews (maybe talking specifically about Hebrews, I don't know), that Matthew was written in "Hebrew", Luke was apparently a Syrian from Antioch, James was written to Jews in the diaspora, Peter wrote to Jewish Christians also. John's audience is never made clear in his writings, but at least it was partly Gentiles. Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's memoirs and was himself a Judean. The Assyrian Christians have claimed for several thousands of years that they received their New Covenant Writings from the Apostles themselves. Can this be proven? Of course not, but it is not implausible.
Until Westcott and Hort and Francis Crawford Burkitt the Peshitta was studied and revered by Western scholars, viewed as the most ancient version of the New Testament, and by some it was viewed as the original. They saw no issue with Syriac being understood by the Jewish Christians of old!
Most Aramaic primacists do not mind calling the Messiah "Jesus". I am included in that number. People who claim that Jesus=Je-Zeus have no knowledge of Greek grammar or linguistics and are usually quite legalistic. Anyway, not all followers of the Aramaic primacy theories are Sacred-Namers or Hebrew Roots believers.
Syriac speakers and Galilean or Judean speakers would have very little issues with understanding each other. Aramaic dialects differed but not so much to where speakers of different dialects couldn't understand each other or even communicate (or even write in) different dialects.
The Talmud and other Eastern Jewish writings speak against the Septuagint. It was made for Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews. Most Jews in the Middle East used the Targums or the Hebrew if they could read it (as is the case with our Lord Jesus Christ). Why would you use the Greek if you were able to use Aramaic or Hebrew? While the Targums were paraphrases, they probably reach the meaning of the original Hebrew Tanach than the Septuagint.
The Judeans had a great hatred for the Gentiles, especially Romans and Greeks. Josephus mentions that the learning of foreign languages was not encouraged. Of course, that doesn't mean that some Jews did not learn Greek. The common people would not have spoken Greek fluently, but they probably knew enough to get by in conversation and commerce. The higher class people probably acquired a pretty good knowledge of Greek speech.
The real origin of the Peshitta is shrouded in mystery. Church fathers say that Paul wrote in "Hebrew" to Hebrews (maybe talking specifically about Hebrews, I don't know), that Matthew was written in "Hebrew", Luke was apparently a Syrian from Antioch, James was written to Jews in the diaspora, Peter wrote to Jewish Christians also. John's audience is never made clear in his writings, but at least it was partly Gentiles. Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's memoirs and was himself a Judean. The Assyrian Christians have claimed for several thousands of years that they received their New Covenant Writings from the Apostles themselves. Can this be proven? Of course not, but it is not implausible.
Until Westcott and Hort and Francis Crawford Burkitt the Peshitta was studied and revered by Western scholars, viewed as the most ancient version of the New Testament, and by some it was viewed as the original. They saw no issue with Syriac being understood by the Jewish Christians of old!