I started a Thread that immediately disappeared into das Noumena concerning Aramaic Primacy vs. The Greekies. I thought I had enough material to begin but was inundated with a flood of examples that showed to me that the subject was much deeper.
The easier Path to refute the Aramaic Primacy Argument is through John and the Composite Author Theory of, for example, Teeple. If Teeple is correct, 4 or 5 Greekies wrote John with the E-ditor writing the recognizable John and the R-edactor finishing the Task. If there were 4 or 5 writers authoring a Book with recognizable Greek constructions ("Arthrous" vs. "Anarthrous" names, for example) AND the Aramaic followed this construction, even if not entirely word-for-word, then it would be easier to presume that the Greek came first.
Steve Caruso attempts to show that the language of the NT is Galilean in nature and the Syriac came later.
This makes a hash of certain Primacy arguments since it then becomes plausible to assert a Primitive Galilean John that was supplanted by a later Syriac Version "that everyone recognized", following from the Greek.
The Aramaic Side is found in Mark, oddly enough, since the obvious rewrite telescopes two stories into one, with John "correcting" Mark as to which crucifixion was the "Real One". Raskin, again, attempts to show that there was a Source Document that BOTH Mark and John used. If True, in what Language was this Original written?
The first thought would be that if this Document was seized in the rubble of the Temple, it would have been most likely an Aramaic document. if a Nicholas of Damascus authored it, however, it might have been in Greek. Unless Zakkai helped. 'N so on. It gets complicated.
You bring up a good point. What is your view on the word "Gabbatha"? It is given as "Hebrew" (as is "Golgotha") though Teeple states that it is Aramaic and was inserted by the Redactor, showing that the Redactor really doesn't know Hebrew. Bauscher states that it is a "One-Way" Transliteration, that it would never get Transliterated from Greek back into Aramaic, thus illustrating Aramaic Primary, certainly not Greek.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:20 amThe Peshitta is far closer to the Greek Byzantine text than to the Vaticanus/Alexandrian reader's digest abbreviated text. However, there are many important spots where it does not match the Greek.
As an aside, if the Empty Tomb Section was written by Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, the Roman Thesis would also bring the Primacy Arguments to ruin but that might be for another day.
Thanx all,
CW