11-04-2008, 06:51 PM
If the doctrine of a significant difference between the words is indeed bogus, then I don't think the lack of randomness in the Greek words found in the various texts theoretically derived from the Peshitta it troublesome to Peshitta primacy. It simply indicates that the original Greek text was written early, and that there was one primary text from which all of the rest of the Greek evolved. Peshitta primacy does theoretically allow for the possibility of simultaneous, separate translations. But, this issue is probably good evidence that this is not the case.
Instead, I think it's likely that the Greek texts were done under the same methodology that Josephus claims his book was translated: He learned a bit of Greek, then sat down with a Greek expert and explained what he meant as he translated from Aramaic. This also explains why the only difference that I've noticed you found is in "D", as western text, since they were scribed much later than the eastern Greek texts (this is not in dispute).
Though I am very impressed by the Peshitta primacy argument, one of the things I've come to appreciate through the last three months of study is how SIMILAR both the Greek and Peshitta are. I'm not aware of one major point of Christian doctrine that is changed if the Peshitta is primary. If there is one, please point me to it. I think that Peshitta primacy adds some valuable flavor to the text, and clears up some otherwise weird or awkward phrases. It is obvious to me that it produces a superior English translation. But, the major pillars of theology stand.
If there is a significant difference in the concepts of "love", I don't have a satisfactory answer right now. It's possible that if the original Peshitta author consulted on the original translation of his texts in to Greek, he discovered more options in Greek than were available in his language. It's possible that discovering this, he asked that this extra level of clarity be added to the Greek text. That doesn't mean that the Peshitta wasn't first, or that Greek does a better job overall of communicating what God wanted us to know. Or, maybe we'll discover something subtle about the Aramaic language which is not understood right now, and which might have indicated to the Greek translators which they word they should have chosen. In the case of Greek, there have been some significant advancements in the last few hundred years in understanding how to differentiate between Greek dialects. It think it would be presumptuous to think that we know as much right now about Aramaic as the people who lived in the first century did.
Regardless, all of your efforts on the topic are very valuable and I hope they will be embraced by the mainstream. I wouldn't expect it in the very near future, if for no other reason than you still have several generations of seminary students who beat their brains out learning Greek, and they won't be happy to learn it was at least something of a waste of their time.
Keep up the good work.
Instead, I think it's likely that the Greek texts were done under the same methodology that Josephus claims his book was translated: He learned a bit of Greek, then sat down with a Greek expert and explained what he meant as he translated from Aramaic. This also explains why the only difference that I've noticed you found is in "D", as western text, since they were scribed much later than the eastern Greek texts (this is not in dispute).
Though I am very impressed by the Peshitta primacy argument, one of the things I've come to appreciate through the last three months of study is how SIMILAR both the Greek and Peshitta are. I'm not aware of one major point of Christian doctrine that is changed if the Peshitta is primary. If there is one, please point me to it. I think that Peshitta primacy adds some valuable flavor to the text, and clears up some otherwise weird or awkward phrases. It is obvious to me that it produces a superior English translation. But, the major pillars of theology stand.
If there is a significant difference in the concepts of "love", I don't have a satisfactory answer right now. It's possible that if the original Peshitta author consulted on the original translation of his texts in to Greek, he discovered more options in Greek than were available in his language. It's possible that discovering this, he asked that this extra level of clarity be added to the Greek text. That doesn't mean that the Peshitta wasn't first, or that Greek does a better job overall of communicating what God wanted us to know. Or, maybe we'll discover something subtle about the Aramaic language which is not understood right now, and which might have indicated to the Greek translators which they word they should have chosen. In the case of Greek, there have been some significant advancements in the last few hundred years in understanding how to differentiate between Greek dialects. It think it would be presumptuous to think that we know as much right now about Aramaic as the people who lived in the first century did.
Regardless, all of your efforts on the topic are very valuable and I hope they will be embraced by the mainstream. I wouldn't expect it in the very near future, if for no other reason than you still have several generations of seminary students who beat their brains out learning Greek, and they won't be happy to learn it was at least something of a waste of their time.
Keep up the good work.