Aramaic Primacy Questions

[Burning one]

I don't really see how they can determine if it has marks of a translation. The main reason why I lean towards Aramaic primacy is because of the split readings and such.

Shlama akhi,


this reason is a wise one. you're a step ahead of Greek scholars! split-readings, mistranslations, word-plays, poetry, Janus Parallels, omitted/included passages, absence of "explanations" except for key terms, etc, are what one should look for to determine marks of originality.

for example, the Hebrew text of Scripture is riddled with word-plays, poetic devices, Janus Parallels, and such, and all these are lost in the LXX. it is VERY difficult to maintain a word-play in a new translation. it is somewhat easier to maintain poetic structures from Hebrew to Greek, however, since it is largely parallelistic in nature. however, the very curious Janus Parallels are basically impossible to translate. even when the Hebrew was translated into Aramaic for the Tanakh, some of these JPs still could not survive intact. then, of course, there is the possibility for mistranslation, which we see from time to time in the LXX.

these kinds of things are important, because the LXX gives us a standard to test the NT Greek on, when we compare it to the Peshitta's Aramaic text. if the Greek NT were to be original, it should show similar marks of originality, like the Hebrew Scriptures do. after all, the same AUTHOR is at work, right? but we don't see these similar marks, except in some rare instances of obvious Semitic parallel poetry.

so that is how a sane person can ascertain whether or not the Greek is original, or the Aramaic is original, of the NT. it isn't really hard, it is just time-consuming. i've been working since 2009 to document everything that i see by comparing Greek and Aramaic, and all the myriads of variants found in the Greek. Alaha willing, one day the work will be done and shared with all.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy