The Age of the Peshitta

[SteveCaruso]

And then everyone "gangs up." <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Six replies to sort through. You'll have to excuse me if I pick at them one-by-one over the next few days as I have a very pressing distraction:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...372&type=1 <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

That said:

Just like Josephus said, Aramaic (a.k.a Syriac) he spoke was the same spoken in Galilee, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, remotest Arabian regions, and beyond Jordan.

Where did he say it was "the same" Aramaic?

The word "aramaith" also mean "Aramaically." The word "Ebraith" also mean "Ebraically." That doesn't mean anything. It is just basically saying that this word was the common word for Hebrews while other word was common word for Arameans.

Now we're dealing with Special Pleading, choosing one definition over another common and well-attested one where it suits your argument. :-)

This is just like the word "Eraser" commonly used in America while "rubber" is the word commonly used in England and in India. Another example is "restroom" is the common word used in America while "toilet" is the common word used in England and in India.

No, one is nomenclature where the other are shibboleths. They do not represent the problem I've presented.

Josephus himself points out the extreme rarity in terms of Jews knowing Greek in first century AD.

And yet, the vast majority of Jewish funeral inscriptions were in Greek and the very wide use of the Greek LXX among the diaspora also paint a much more complex picture. This isn't a black and white issue when it comes to Greek and Aramaic. Some enclaves of Jews were Aramaic speakers, others were predominantly Greek speakers (such as those in the Diaspora). Josephus came from a monied, predominantly Aramaic-speaking culture and due to that status had to learn Greek. His situation was not typical by any means.

Second, Greek NT manuscripts are filled with script tamperings and contradictions.

You are using Greek for your misguiding theories just like Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew as a part of his messianic idealogy for misguiding 580,000 people. Greek NT are not reliable.

For example, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are 2 Greek NT manuscripts highly valued by so called Greek scholars.

According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies" (1914) volume 2, there are 3,036 textual variations between Greek NT manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" and Greek NT manuscript "Codex Vaticanus" in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.

Whenever you have a large body of copies made by hand, there will be variants. Josephus' works have variants. Even Peshitta manuscripts have variants (and I'm talking about beyond spelling or word division; the Leiden Institute are documenting these). Of course we can squabble all day as to their significance.

On the top of this, these manuscripts have tamperings (For Example, Matthew 27:9) and errors. Josephus himself criticized Greek scholars for neglecting the real truth of historical facts (Jewish Wars, Preface, Paragraph 5).

Josephus was also not a "saint" when it came to facts. :-) There were several (including Eusebius) who complained about inaccuracies in his work.

History in that day and age was not about literal, objective fact as it is today. Historians were much more interested in the character of the people they portrayed more than the most appropriate preposition to use in describing their actions. If we lose sight of this, then we're stuck arguing motes.

In any case, this loses sight of the issue once more: How could Josephus write using language 1,000 years younger than him? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->