2 The above chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. 1 Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross-checked for accuracy. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. But, there is ample manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability over all other ancient documents. Despite the traditional view of Syriac churches, certain segments of Messianic Judaism, and the Hebrew Roots Movement, the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic.The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. Peshitta Primacy, or Aramaic Primacy, is not supported by evidence or scholarship. In other words, all available evidence points to the Peshitta’s being a later translation, not an original manuscript. The massive number of biblical manuscripts available makes it possible to recognize variations, translation choices, and so forth, over time and geography. The Peshitta utilizes phrases that obscure wordplay and metaphor this is expected of a translation but not an original autograph. The dialect used in the Peshitta is from a later time period than that of Jesus and His disciples. Textual scholars have examined the Peshitta and found clear evidence of influence from later translations. His translation work is inaccurate and filled with subtle changes to the text that undermine the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ, among others. More problematic is Lamsa’s translation of the Bible from the Aramaic, published in full in 1957. Both contemporaries of Lamsa and later scholars have concluded he frequently confused then-modern Syriac with ancient Aramaic, two languages that are extremely similar. As with other views running contrary to general scholarship, Aramaic/Peshitta Primacy is primarily supported by the work of a single author, in this case, Lamsa. George Lamsa, a proponent of the Nestorian heresy, was instrumental in advancing the view that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. A large number of researchers suggest that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew may have drawn from earlier Aramaic sources, but the claims of Aramaic Primacy go far beyond this.Ĭertain denominations hold to Aramaic Primacy as an article of faith, such as the Assyrian Church of the East. The Aramaic Primacy Theory is drastically different from the consensus of historians and New Testament scholars, who hold that the original works of the New Testament were in fact written in Greek. This theory is more commonly referred to as “Peshitta Primacy,” referring to the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible, a collection known as the Peshitta. The term Aramaic Primacy is used, informally, to refer to the claim that the New Testament was originally written not in Koine Greek but in a dialect of Aramaic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |