Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eastern vs. Western dialects of 1st century Aramaic
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I prefer to use "Aramaic" myself. People almost treat "Syriac" and Aramaic as two completely different things.

And that, my dear friend, is the Greek Primacist goal. By giving a certain Aramaic dialect a completely different name, they hope to disassociate it from Aramaic completely in your mind. Words have powerful imagery.

Imagine if Mishnaic Hebrew were renamed to, simply, "Mishnaic." Over time, people would begin to disassociate it from "regular" Hebrew.

Imagine if Koine Greek were simply renamed to "Koinaic." Over time, people would begin to disassociate it from "regular" Greek.

Why isn't "Palestinian Aramaic" called "Palestiniac?" Why isn't Galilean Aramaic called "Galiliniac?" Why isn't Talmudic Aramaic called "Talmudiac?" Why isn't the Aramaic of the Zohar called "Zohardiac?"

Why, exactly, is the Aramaic of Edessa the *only* Aramaic dialect that is worthy to have its own etymologically-unrelated name? Ponder that.

The fact that the GNT is written in a single dialect of Greek doesn't bother anyone. Never mind that none of the Apostles had this as their native tongue. However.... merely suggest that the New Testament might have been written in Aramaic, and suddenly they get very picky, and their requirements change - it must be EXACTLY the same Aramaic dialect the Apostles spoke at the time. (a single dialect, too. Never mind Luke was a Syrian, and Paul was from Tarsus in modern day Turkey.)

Their argument for Koine Greek is that it was the most widespread dialect, and it makes sense for the New Testament to have been written in this particular dialect, so as to reach the widest audience.

They don't afford the same to the Peshitta, which was written in the dialect in most common use among the Aramaic-speaking world. They don't consider that the vast majority of Aramaic-speaking Gentiles alive during that time would have understood that dialect. Somehow, Aramaic was not a factor outside of the Jews or the Holy Land. Never mind the vast Aramaic "Syriac" speakers (Jew and Gentile) just outside the border in the other empire. The Apostles didn't have them in mind when penning the NT.

The Apostles knew Koine Greek so well, but another "eastern" dialect of their own language was too hard for them to write in. Of course, it makes sense. Right?

Ponder the above for a moment. Are we in a fair fight with our opponents, with conditions like these?


Messages In This Thread
Re: Eastern vs. Western dialects of 1st century Aramaic - by Paul Younan - 04-10-2013, 03:43 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)