judge

Well der...But it is an indication if the verses agree with the peshitta but disagree with the Old Syriac.

Do you understand?

Let me make it real simple.

Aphrahat quotes the peshitta and where he does, these quotes, time and time again, disagree with the Old Syriac.

So aphrahat agrees withe peshitta word word for word, and in these exact same quotes disagrees with the Old Syriac.

Do you now understand?



Well come on then...show us some evidence. Show me where Aphrahat ever quotes the Old Syriac.

Still, you are prepared to make assertions but unwlling or unable to back them up with evidence.
It is simple Spin, all you have to do is show us an example of aphrahat quoting the Old Syriac against the peshitta.

It is that simple.

judge

Here is an example where Aprhat quotes the peshitta word for word and disgarees with the Old Syriac.From Paul Younans research.

Spin you can hurl personal attacks you can blow smoke out your ears, you can make excuses, but you cannot deal with the evidence, or provide your own.

Want more examples? there are plenty, but you cant even show us one example of Aphrahat quoting the Old Syriac, not even one.

jgibson000

Do you know what the date of the MSS is from which these quotes from Aphrahat (who the hell is Aprhat??) are taken. Do you know for certain that the MSS tradition of Aphrahat hasn't been harmonized with/conformed to the text of the Peshitta?

Will the pot ever stop calling the kettle black?

JG

judge

Many of Aprahat demonstrations are dated via colophon IIRC. So yes we now when Aphrahat lived and wrote.


Hilarious, cant refute the evidence so you pick me up on a spelling mistake.


Yes we can see this because not all of aphrahats quotes agree with the peshitta!!
Sometime he freely paraphrases, but he never agrees "word for word" with the Old Syriac.

1. Aphrahat often agree word for word with the peshitta.

2. Aphrahat often paraphrases.

3. Aphrahat never agrees word for word with the Old Syriac.

4. At times his paraphrases agree with a word or two from the Old Syriac, but never fully.

Now lets for the sake of argument assume I am right. The implications are huge.

All of the scholarship relies, as Spin shows on Aphrahat not using the peshitta.

If Aphrahat does indeed use the peshitta then all this will have to be overthrown. If the peshitta is original then virtually all of NT criticism will be overthrown as well.

Think about it.

jgibson000

I did not ask you when Aphrahat lived and wrote. I asked what the date of the MS of the text of the writing you quote from was. Do you know?


Is that what that was?

More importantly, is trying to refute "the evidence" what I was up to? So far as I can see, all I was trying to do was to determine what "the evidence" was and how good it is.

I was asking a question about whether you were certain, and how you know if you are, that the text of the Demonstrations that you quoted from has not been harmonized to the Peshitta. Are you working from the autograph? Does an autograph of the Demonstrations actually exist?


Apharat's

And you know this how? Have you yourself looked at a critical text of the Demonstrations and compared it to a critical text of the OS versions?

JG

judge

And I answered your question.
If the demonstrations were harmonised to agree withe the peshitta at a later date then then the demonstrations would always agree with the peshitta. So.....since the demonstrations dont always agree with the peshitta we know they were not harmonised.

Spin's sources are just wrong on this matter.

Here again is what Spin wrote.

But I have already shown where Aphrahat quotes the peshitta "word for word" against the Old Syriac.

Here is another example from the same researcher.

There are many more examples

jgibson000

Really? What if at some points -- say, in the copying of the text of NT verses that Aphrahat uses that had long been fixed in, and familiar from, the liturgy -- scribes transmitting the text of the Demonstrations preferred or remembered the older/more familiar liturgical reading over that of the Peshitta?

Really? Is this the only conclusion that can or should be reached even if it's true that things are as you say they are? Is it really an either/or situation as you claim? Do text critical studies of MSS where harmonization is known to occur (e.g., in Lk. 11:2-4) back up your either/or claim?

Moreover, can you tell me exactly (a) how many times the purported disagreements between the Demonstrations and the Peshitta occur and (b) where it is within the Demonstrations that we may find them?

I assume you know given the confidence and the tone of paternalism with which you are making your claims about such disagreements. Am I wrong to assume so?

And I'm still waiting on your answer to my question of whether or not you know what the date of the MS is from which the quotes from Aphrahat that you've been adducing are taken?

For that matter, what is the date of our earliest MS of the Demonstrations? Do you know?

JG

judge

Yet agian you are hampered by lack of any direct evidence at all.

1.The COE liturgy only uses the peshitta.

2. There is no evidence of any other COE liturgy that uses another text.

So you are forced to hypothesise the existence of another liturgy, that no one has heard of of and that no one has any evidence for.


One more time...

Spin claimed that..... I have shown this to be false. I have shown Aphrahat quoting the peshitta word for word against the Old Syriac.

So you are forced to come up with more and more fanciful hypotheses to avoid the evidence.

But the most parsimonious explantion is that Aphrahat did in fact quote the peshitta.

I showed Aphrahat quoting the peshitta version of Romans too. Spin cannot accept this, even though the quote agrees word for word.

Spin suggests that Aphrahat was , instead, quoting another version of Romans, a version which is lost and for which we have no evidence that it ever existed.

The most parsimonious answer is that Aprahat used the peshitta.

That way Spin doesn't have to hypothesise the existence of lost texts.., and you dont have to hypothesise the existence of lost liturgies.

We have no evidence for either the allegedly lost texts or liturgies.

spin

Look judge, if your sources can't use decent transliterations you should look for better sources and stop pouring this crap onto the screen. There are good academic means of transliteration available. The crap that you have supplied looks nothing like the verse you are claiming it represents. Can you see for example ten drachmas [(SR) ZWZYN, either backwards or forwards] anywhere in those loads of confusion? I know you can't, but it should be there in Lk 15:8. Even find the word for woman, )NTT). My only conclusion is that you've supplied the wrong verse. Please try again, in something that makes some sense. Thank you.


spin

jgibson000

What did Syrian Christians use before the establishment of the COE?

That's fine. But it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the worship practices that Syrian Christians engaged in before the birth of the COE. Surely you recognize that Syrian Christians had and participated in a fixed liturgy before the development of the COE that was not the same in shape or substance as what is promulgated in COE worship services. Witness the Didache.

I suggest you read the Didache.

In any case, I am not forced to do anything. Nor was I doing anything anywhere near what you say I was doing.

I was, however, asking you several questions which I note you have studiously avoided.

To remind you, they are first off the questions of:

1. Whether the conclusion you draw from your claim that "since the demonstrations (sic) dont (sic) always agree with the peshitta (sic) we know", namely, that the NT quotes found in the Demonstrations were not later harmonized to the Peshitta, is the only conclusion that can or should be reached even if it's true that things are as you say they are;

2. whether on this point it really is an either/or situation as you claim, and

3. whether you know of, and can adduce, any text critical studies of MSS where harmonization is known to have occured (e.g., in Lk. 11:2-4) that back up your either/or claim.

Then there were the questions of

4. whether you know and can tell me exactly (a) how many times the purported disagreements between the Demonstrations and the Peshitta occur and (b) where it is within the Demonstrations that we may find them;

5. whether, in the light of the confidence and the tone of paternalism with which you are making your claims about such disagreements, I was correct to assume that you could tell me what I asked you to do in question # 4;

6. whether or not you know what the date of the MS is from which the quotes from Aphrahat that you've been adducing are taken; and

7. Whether you knew what the date of our earliest MS of the Demonstrations is.

You have produced a few examples of a MS of the Demonstrations "quoting" the NT according to the Peshitta form of the texts cited. But you have by no means "shown" that Aphrahat himself originally did what you say he did, let alone as frequently as you have claimed him to have done so.

Sorry, but until you answer the questions I posed above, you have no right to claim that you have "shown" anything, save how slippery you are, how typical it is for you to run from questions posed to you, your lack of acquaintance with the scholarly literature on the matters you pronounce upon, and how much you do not possess the knowledge you lay claim to.

yasaptz

JG