Basic questions about Peshitta primacy

[Paul Younan]

Hi John,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your kind words.

If Luqa wasn't writing in Greek, why is the recipient's name a translation of a greek word?

Here is an epistle (dated June 7, 2004) from a bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Meelis (Aramaicized form of "Miles", of Latin origin meaning "soldier") to another bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Gewargis (Aramaicized form of "Georgos", of Greek origin meaning "farmer").

http://www.zowaa.org/news/news/assyrian/pr1.pdf

Here you have a guy with an Aramaicized Latin name writing to another person with an Aramaicized Greek name. Much the same as Luqa (Aramaicized form of a Latin name) writing to Tawpeela (Aramaicized form of a Greek name).

What language is above epistle written in? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Is it not Aramaic, because these two people have Aramaicized Latin and Greek names?

I understand that this is a Eurocentric view - that God chose a language for his message that the Western world could understand (and we are supposed to ignore everything east of Pax Romana).

That's an excellent summary of the main obstacle we as Aramaic primacists face, and I thank you for your fairness.

However, it seems that most of Paul's writings are addressed to churches in the Western world, and it makes sense for him to compose these messages in Greek. What is the reasoning for Paul to use Aramaic?

Another excellent question.

There are several valid reasons why Paul may have written to these communities in the Aramaic language:

(1) The congregation was made up of mostly Aramaic-speaking people, even though the surrounding population was Greek-speaking. You find the same thing happening in immigrant populations today, that tend to congregate in the same general locations within highly-populated urban areas. In Paul's time, we know that the early church was made up mostly of Jews and other Aramaic-speaking peoples, like the Syrians (Arameans.)

(2) Paul only knew enough Greek to get by, but was much more comfortable in his native Aramaic tongue (he was a Pharisee and deeply educated in the language, as well as Hebrew.) In order to have attained the social and religious standing he was in, he would have been required to be very fluent in Aramaic and in Hebrew.

(3) It was probably the universal language of the Church at the time, much the same way Latin was in the European church before the Reformation. We have clues in the Greek NT itself, which preserves some of Paul's Aramaic words (Abba, Maranatha, etc.)

It is worth noting that even today, the Patriarch of the Church of the East issues several epistles each year in Aramaic to the world-wide church. These epistles reach the Middle East, Russia, India, Europe, the United States, Australia.....and yes, even Greece.

Even though the Indian churches speak absolutely no Aramaic, they receive the letters in the original Aramaic. Someone there (a priest, bishop, deacon or whatever) translates it into the local Indian tongue.

This very well may have happened with Paul's letters.

Take care.