Orthodox_Freethinker

If the Peshitta is not the original, it is the closest that we have to the original.

"For many centuries, the Christian church had two distinct branches that knew practically nothing about one another. As the Roman Catholic church spread westwards, the churches in Syria, Persia, India, and China flourished and grew from the 1st Century onwards. Instead of carrying Greek texts with them, as their western counterparts, these churches utilized Aramaic Manuscripts. In the last 100 years, these manuscripts have been brought under critical light... and some astonishing phenomena have been uncovered, as to the language that was used to compose the New Testament, itself..."
http://www.aramaicnt.org/NEW/index.php?p=2

Orthodox_Freethinker

You have not 'devestated' anything.

Again, I point you to Matthew 24:34 in the Aramaic -
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Mattich24.pdf

gregor

OF

Regulars to this forum know the aramaic priority issue is rubbish and that the reference from Eusebius is not out Matt.

Please pull up any thread created by judge.

And thanks for the just-so stories - you never disappoint.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I beg to differ. It is rubbish to expect a transliteration of Jesus' words (the Greek) to be accurate in every detail.

Aramaic Peshitta Primacy Proof
http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com/

Diogenes the Cynic

Eusebius was quoting Papias. :banghead:

The Peshitta is a translation from Greek. It is not the original text.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Greek is a translation from Aramaic. It is not the original text.

For a moment, allow us to assume that you are correct. In the Greek, the word which translates as 'generation' is GENEA, which can refer to a race of people rather than a generation:
"Independently of the idea of time, generation is employed to mean a race or class of men as characterized by the same recurring condition or quality. In this sense, the Bible speaks of a "just generation", literally "generation of the just" [Ps. xiii (Heb., xiv), 6; etc.], a "perverse generation", equivalent to: "generation of the wicked" [Deut., xxxii, 5; Mark, ix, 18 (Gr., verse 19); etc.]."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06412c.htm

In the Aramaic, rather than 'generation', we have the word 'tribe'. This only corroborates that Jesus did not predict His return to be within the first century.

Diogenes the Cynic

Evidence? Are you aware that practically nobody, including conservative Christian Bible scholars, believes this to be the case? The problem with the Peshitta Primacy argument is that it draws a fallacious conclusion from some Aramaisms which may have survived in the sayings tradition. There isn't a lot of scholarly doubt that some of the sayings were Aramaic in origin however, those sayings had already been translated into Greek before the NT was written. The Gospel of Matthew as a whole composition is pure Koine. Just because you can find some Aramaic in the sayings doesn't mean that the Peshitta must therefore be the primal source, and it isn't.

countjulian

Irenaeus was writing towards the end of the second century, and any way he lloks to be dependant upon Papias, ignoring the fact that Papias was clearly not referring to out canonical gospel of Matt. Also, Ireneaus gives no indication that any of the others was written in anything but Greek, and he quotes all of them (including Matt.) in Greek. Origin was was writing in the the third century, and was probably dependant on Papias or some other (maybe Irenaeus?) who knew him. All of the Greek texts antedate the Peshitta in age and in reference by the fathers. Greek wins.

Chris Weimer

Once again people, I repeat my call for disengagement. It's futile. FUTILE!

Orthodox_Freethinker

Firstly, there is the patristic evidence. Another evidence is how the words of Jesus are more clear in the Aramaic than the Greek, which is expected considering that Aramaic is the language which Jesus spoke.

Whether or not the Peshitta is the Aramaic original, Jesus' words were spoken and written down in Aramaic.