Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do you believe in Aramaic Primacy for ALL NT books?
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama oozeaddai,

I believe that just as much of the NT was originally written in the language of Jesus, as was:

(1) the OT written in the language of Moses.
(2) the Quran in the language of Mohammed.
(3) the Theravada written in the language of Buddha
(4) the Avesta written in the language of Zoroaster

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

lol. Yeah its my general opinion that too. Although my Syrian friends cautiousness made me think. And I also noticed or thought of similar things to that one gentleman who posted the thread on the gospel of Luke (where he thought there were names etc. which might support some Greek primacy claims).

And one thing that got me to thinking in particular are some scribal notes, which are in (I think) the Peshitto. Speaking specifically I have two Bibles from Lamsa. One is the familar, "Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text". And the second one is the "the Modern New Testament, from the aramaic, Deluxe Study addition".

Anyway the second book, has these scribal notes at the end of every New Testament book (which I recall LAmsa says come from the western syrian canon) Anyway they say different things. While I think they fit Aramaic primacy pretty wel sometimes they will mention things. Like the caption at the end of the Gospel of John, says "Completion of the Holy Gospel, the announcement of John the Evangelist; which he uttered, in Greek at Ephesus"

Anyway if some of those captions are true. Then that would also mean that in some books the Greek might also be important. So you could have a situation, John, Peter, or Paul is thinking in Aramaic. But speaking to people in Latin or Greek, then there is a transcipt made of that speech. In either Greek or perhaps back into Aramaic.

Anyway as much as I support Aramaic primacy. I think its fair to think that there are layers or levels of primacy. Something like the words of Jesus defintely are purely Aramaic. But something like a Gospel or epistle that was sent to largely converts, could or would later in church history. At times appear in a foreign language, or be given in a foreing language. And thus the nature of the document, is a little bit different than something that was thought out and planned in Aramaic, then written in Aramaic only to be later translated.

Messages In This Thread
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 07-14-2004, 06:17 PM
[No subject] - by oozeaddai - 07-14-2004, 07:05 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 07-14-2004, 08:52 PM
[No subject] - by oozeaddai - 07-15-2004, 01:49 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)