11-25-2013, 06:18 AM
But Akhi Konway, you're preaching to the choir.
I find it absolutely absurd how much emphasis is put on "dialectal" differences, by the same people who have *no* issue with how far apart KOINE GREEK is from "Galilean" Aramaic.
It's OK, apparently, for the NT to have been written in Koine Greek, because that would have reached the widest possible audience in the West (so their reasoning goes.) However, if the same people are speaking about Aramaic, then they don't care which dialect was the most widely spoken one ... you know, the one that would've reached the widest possible audience in the East.
No, no, no. If the NT was written in Aramaic, then it had to have been written in a *very* specific dialect, one that the *least* number of people would have understood very easily.
Do you see the double standard here, or is it just me ?
My goodness.
+Shamasha
I find it absolutely absurd how much emphasis is put on "dialectal" differences, by the same people who have *no* issue with how far apart KOINE GREEK is from "Galilean" Aramaic.
It's OK, apparently, for the NT to have been written in Koine Greek, because that would have reached the widest possible audience in the West (so their reasoning goes.) However, if the same people are speaking about Aramaic, then they don't care which dialect was the most widely spoken one ... you know, the one that would've reached the widest possible audience in the East.
No, no, no. If the NT was written in Aramaic, then it had to have been written in a *very* specific dialect, one that the *least* number of people would have understood very easily.
Do you see the double standard here, or is it just me ?
My goodness.
+Shamasha