Any scholars care to comment on the authority/primacy of one over the other?
Aramaic Peshitta vs. Greek New Testament
by agonus 3 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
It's a version, and thus is a step removed from the original Greek owing to the translation choices of its preparers (the same goes for the Vulgate, the Coptic, etc.). There is also not one single Syriac text; there are older Syriac translations (the Peshitta dates to the fifth century AD). Nonetheless it has value for attesting an eastern (Syrian) variety of the Greek text that forms the Vorlage of the Peshitta, and it is thus of special value (just as the Old Latin attests forms of the Western Text). It may thus have some readings superior to those found in certain Greek text-types.
Bear in mind too that the Aramaic of the Peshitta is not the same as that spoken in Judea in the first century AD. It does not preserve the original Aramaic words, say, of Jesus. In other words, the Aramaic is a retroversion by way of translation. It may be of interest however to see how Aramaisms in the Greek correspond to the language of the Peshitta. It is also of interest in comparing the kind of NT text found in the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron which is also of Syrian provenance.
The Peshitta of the OT is also important because it attests a form of the text similar to the Aramaic targums and older than the extant Masoretic text. The translation of Daniel is also notable for having glosses that evidence a more conservative interpretation of the visions (analogous to the second century BC interpretations found in 1 Maccabees and the third Sybilline Oracle) than that found even in first century AD sources (including the NT).
-
agonus
Thanks LL! How did I know you'd be the first to take the bait? ;)
I'm mostly curious after reading something to the effect that the Syriac church averts that the original NT was received in Aramaic and there was a Roman Catholic bishop who supported this view. I'll post the link if I can find it.
-