Boid On the Diatessaron

The bit that was covered up said that if we have three or four places in the Gospels where the Aramaic is transcribed phonetically, and in at least two of these instances there seems to be no need to do so, then these three or four phrases in Aramaic must have been in a different language to the main text. This would also explain the anomaly of our extant text being in Greek, not Aramaic. The Greek would then be the relic of a double translation, into both Aramaic and Greek. Where then is the missing old Aramaic? Re-edited as the Old Syriac Gospels, then re-edited as the Peshitta, at each stage with modernisation of the language and some influence from the Greek. As long as you think in terms of the Peshitta being a completely new product, the fate of the original Aramaic is a difficulty; but if you think of the place of the Old Syriac, then you see there is no break in the Aramaic transmission. As to how it is that the two Aramaic versions are influenced by the Greek, the answer could be that there had to be a new edition of the Aramaic in the form of four Gospels, and this made a psychological discontinuity.