Phlox Pyros

Ok...proto-Matthew, which I believe may have been the source for Mark. Nothing I can prove, of course. Everyone has to have their pet theories if they have an independent mind, don't they?

Phlox Pyros

Chris, have you ever read Matthew Black's work on Aramaic in the Bible? He, to my knowledge, is not Orthodox, but he is a reputable scholar (who worked, I believe, on the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the Greek New Testament). There is a lot of convincing material there.

Chris Weimer

Odd. I once held this as part of my theory as well. Specifically that the large chunks of teachings of Jesus were the original M and then the author built a narrative around it using Mark and his own thoughts. But then, there isn't too much evidence that Mark used that at all and if you remove M from Mark then you get Mark and Q as the two-source hypothesis. I went from noQ to Q in a very short time.

Chris Weimer

I have not. What does he specifically deal with, that the Peshitta was first or that there is Aramaic in the NT?

judge

No offense taken and I underdstand your scepticism.

Unfortunately the ideas about the Aramaic primacy of Acts have not been subjected to peer review.
One day they will be no doubt.



You will find Acts chapter 9 at peshitta.org in PDF format but not Acts chapter 22.

I am not sure where you can find the entire book of Acts in Aramaic online as peshitta.com is no longer up either.

Phlox Pyros

No, he seems to believe that the material in the gospels (and surprisingly, to me anyway, even in Acts) was likely first written in Aramaic. I do not remember him referring much to the Peshitta, as it is a later text. Instead, he mentions things, for instance, like Josephus was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek and also does a ton of interesting textual analysis.

I can look for quotes about something if you like, but I doubt I can remember much of it any more. I need to read it again.

An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Matthew Black

I do not know how familiar you are with the languages, but be prepared and forewarned that there is lots of fun Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac (at the least). If you get it, enjoy!

Chris Weimer

You have repeated this, judge, before, but think of how ludicrous it is.

"Ideas about the existence of alien people who live on the surface of the sun have not been subjected to peer review."

"Ideas about my invisble talking dog have not been subjected to peer review. One day they will no doubt."

You have not given us a good reason to review them academically. As it stands, Peshitta primacy is merely apologetics.

Phlox Pyros

Judge, you may be interested in Matthew Black's work as well, as he includes Acts (in at least saying that Aramaic speach may underlie the written Greek).

Blacks' work is considered "foundational" and is probably one of the most influential works on the subject in quite some time. So, I'm not sure what you consider peer reviewed, but I'd say Black's work has definitely been peer reviewed.

judge

I know of his work and I know of a lot of the arguments, although i think a case can be made that WRT to the peshitta an Aramaic text underles the greek.

We have a had a few threads here in the past including this one.

Was mark written in Aramaic?

I meant that the claims of Peshitta Primacy have not been peer reviewed.

It is only a matter of time before they are.

As with most areas of study there is a lot of resistance from the old guard.