spin

If you can't show me the Vetus Syra for the citation you gave from Farhat, then you have to assume, using your logic that the text hasn't survived. That's what you do, isn't it judge? That's pretty simple. If you can't, then your Peshitta argument falls apart, right?

You know, if the Peshitta is based on the Vetus Syra, then you expect there to be similarities, so if you cite one verse that Farhat uses which is the same as the Peshitta you don't have a decent sized sample to assume that it was directly from the Peshitta.

OK?


spin

judge

No. To assume the text hasn't survived one must first assume the text existed.
There is no reason to assume the text of Romans (as part of the vetus syra) existed in the first place.
We have no evidence it did.



If the Vetus Syra is earlier then we would expect to find the earliest fathers quoting the Vetus Syra and not the peshitta.
However this is not what we find. We find Aphrahat, the earliest father have, quoting the peshitta word for word against the Vetus Syra.
So using Occhams Razor we would not posit the vetus syra being prior.


If only you would take up my challenge to a debate. Yes you might lose, yes your ego may be bruised, but so what ?

You would see the extent of the evidence. I gave you one small quote as an example there is much much more.

One day this will be subject to peer review, till then i dont really give a toss any more.

all the best

Sven

Details for your evasions?
No problem: You've yet to answer the question which one of the scholary works you requested yourself you've read. Or if you've even read any.

Details for back-pedalling?
No problem. Everyone reading this thread can see quite easily your goal-post moving.

Oh, you want evidence against your claims? Hint: Just try acually reading some of the work cited here. Instead of relying on some obsucre websites which just shout "No! Can't be right!".

Chris Weimer

Jeez, judge, even neutral by-standers can see right through you. Go figure.

spin

There is no reason to assume that the Peshitta existed before the Vetus Syra. As the earliest gospel material is from the Vetus Syra tradition, it is merely an assumption that that tradition did not include other texts held important to christians.

Occam's razor doesn't work with you. You have eliminated it out of the equation with your arguments about Aramaic primacy, which fail to meet the standard of Occam's razor. It is therefore hypocritical to come back with it here.

It should be noted that when Farhat/Farhad/Aphrahat/Aphraates uses gospel material, it comes from the Diatessaron, which should certainly indicate that the Pauline material he uses should be considered in circulation in a form separate from the gospels .

But I'm just not interested enough in the topic you choose. If you want to debate I will deal with the primacy of Greek versus Syriac, which is what has been the center of the discussion here.

I'm not interested in a biased collection of source materials. If I had access to enough of the source material myself I might consider this as a temporary stop in the demolition of your sources' attempt to insinuate Aramaic as the source of the gospel literature.

As you refuse to read what is available in the free world, you are clueless about peer review. The reason why you "dont really give a toss any more" is that no-one, understandably, takes your proposition seriously.


spin

judge

You are just parroting something someone told you , you don't know this to be true.
I will debate you on this too if you like.

But no, you are prepared to write these things, but not prepared to back to support your assertion

Aprahat uses the peshitta, word for word, whern he quotes the gospels.

I will back this up if you want to debate the point.


You were interested enough to post it here. Again here are you own words

But when challenged you are not interested enough to back it up.



Well to be frank , I am not that interested in whether folk here take my proposition seriously. I have a very active life(or facsimile of a life ) , with a lot of other stuffgoing on and although this is of some interest to me I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

spin

Who do you think could have told me, so that I could parrot it, my good parrot?

If you want to debate I gave you the topic I was prepared to spend time on. The linguistics behind claims of priority between Greek and Aramaic.

As you are so backward in coming forward with evidence, you can back it up to anyone who is interested enough to linger in the Syriac traditions.

Perhaps you could work it into a debate about the claim for primacy of Aramaic.

Spoken like a true believer.


spin

jgibson000

I very much appreciate the sentiment. And the joys of the season to you in return. May you be rested merry.

But if you really want to show that you are sincere in your holiday wishes, would you please answer my question about just what the ground of your "knowledge" about the lack of "peer review" of the claims of, and arguments for, Peshitta primacy actually is. Is it nothing but Peshitta primacy web sites? Or is it first hand acquaintance with the works of the scholars I referred you to. If it is the latter, which works in particular are you directly acquainted with?


Jeffrey Gibson

spin

Just so that you would know, judge, I would argue with your premises thus:

1. Barbara Aland has shown that Paul's letters were definitely part of the Vetus Syra through secondary sources, ie the citations one used,
2. A collation of the Curetonian, the Sinaitic and the Peshitta with Aphrahat's gospel citations show that he was definitely not using the Peshitta, and
3. At least one modern writer considers Aphrahat's citation source "pre-Peshitta".

spin

spin

* bump *