10-23-2004, 03:02 PM
[quote="gbausc"]Shlama Addai,
QUOTE
Your opponents are merely parroting info. they have never investigated, as do most Greek primacists. The Greek they have learned is the canned variety dished out in most seminaries and theological institutions.
QUOTE
Yeah I know and I've presented other evidence earlier from LAmsa who sites the historical stuff like the spread of Arabic through the areas that were previously Aramaic etc.
I just though it would be good to exposed to counter arguments on things like semantics. For example it was said that Mark is not proper Greek based upon word order, as far as where nounds etc. goes and it shows evidence of it coming from Aramaic.
They say that rules concerning word order are not air tight. So which is right? IS this simply projecting pro-Aramaic evidence on the Greek text? Or is it simply a matter of Biblical Greek grammarist "changing the rules" of Greek to accomodate bad translated Greek from an Aramaic original source.
As for me I believed in Aramaic primacy for 10 years when I had friendship and was mentored for a time by a indenpent American bishop that had COE apostolic lines that used the LAmsa Peshitta, and an English translation of "the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles, Mari and Addai". But didn't get my own copy of that work until much later, 2001 I think. For a long time, it really wasn't carried by any bookstore and I didn't know a translation of that text was in wide distribution.
QUOTE
Your opponents are merely parroting info. they have never investigated, as do most Greek primacists. The Greek they have learned is the canned variety dished out in most seminaries and theological institutions.
QUOTE
Yeah I know and I've presented other evidence earlier from LAmsa who sites the historical stuff like the spread of Arabic through the areas that were previously Aramaic etc.
I just though it would be good to exposed to counter arguments on things like semantics. For example it was said that Mark is not proper Greek based upon word order, as far as where nounds etc. goes and it shows evidence of it coming from Aramaic.
They say that rules concerning word order are not air tight. So which is right? IS this simply projecting pro-Aramaic evidence on the Greek text? Or is it simply a matter of Biblical Greek grammarist "changing the rules" of Greek to accomodate bad translated Greek from an Aramaic original source.
As for me I believed in Aramaic primacy for 10 years when I had friendship and was mentored for a time by a indenpent American bishop that had COE apostolic lines that used the LAmsa Peshitta, and an English translation of "the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles, Mari and Addai". But didn't get my own copy of that work until much later, 2001 I think. For a long time, it really wasn't carried by any bookstore and I didn't know a translation of that text was in wide distribution.