judge

Good grief!

You arelooking at the greek transliteration .
The Aramaic is b'nai regesh.

spin

Yeah and the Hebrew is BNY RGZ, beni ragaz. You won't see past your navel if you don't look.

Looking at the Greek transliteration tells you that there was a strong vowel in the first syllable. This points to the Hebrew beni being the more probable source.

Got it?

Why prefer your ideologically preferred source? You seem to be commited to Aramaic, not based on strong evidence but by belief.


spin

rlogan

well, actually judge - that is the problem, yes. Coupled with greek being the language of the realm.

Hi Judge. Curious about something. Are you saying that there were no copies except for those guarded by the Church, and that official church policy was to destroy older copies?

This too needs some evidence. It's a proposition at present, and we need some historical documentation here. Like the prescribed punishment for someone who kept an old copy in contradiction to Church law.

judge

You mean the
B'nai B'rith have got it wrong? It really should be Beni B'rith?

judge

Sure I understand. I'm a bit over it myself. After seeing CX's post
here, post #45 I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the scholastic attitude to the peshitta. I'm sure many posting here can add something.

But Vork although you are right that mainstream scholarship does reject the primacy of the peshitta, I think there is some value in scrutinising this claim.
You may notice above that Andrew Criddle remarks that
This is the view of scholarship. But notice how easily this view of scholars is refuted. Clearly Aphrahat does in fact quote the peshitta. Clearly scholars are therefore wrong...don't you think?

But before examining the attitude of scholars I thought it would be appropriate to deal first with the lack of early fragments of the peshitta as this I believe unerlies all published schloastic arguments against the peshitta. IOW even the other arguments ultimately rely on the fact that the greek texts have earlier fragments.
If this argument is not so stronmg then it is imporatnt to deal with it. (or attempt to)

judge

Yes some hard evidence of this sort would be very helpful. But i think you must agree the circumstantial evidence is quite apparent.
many many fragments of greek Mss and none...noe at all of the peshitta.

Also note that from 100 C.E. to 1100 C.E. there are no fragments of the Hebrew Bible either. It is evident these groups had a different attitude to scriptures.

judge

Do you have any published scholarship that makes this argument?
If so I would be interested in examining the specifics?

spin

Does that surprise you?

Lot's of things have changed since the second temple, including Hebrew phonology. (How did semi-vocalic waw end up vav?? How did ab become av? Answer thesounds of the language were reinvented when Yiddish had effects on temple Hebrew and this latter was used as the guiding source for modern Hebrew.)

Got any more such desperate arguments?


spin

andrewcriddle

The examples you gave of Aphrahat using the Peshitta in the Gospels involve very small textual issues where as Yuri commented, later assimilation by copyists is a possibility.

Because Aphrahat often quotes allusively it is difficult to determine the underlying text but most scholars hold for example that

Aphrahat had a text of the Beatitudes in Matthew chapter 5 in which verses 4 and 5 were interchanged (the general Western reading including the Diatessaron),

Aphrahat omitted God in Matthew 6:33 (the kingdom of God and his righteousness) reading 'his kingdom and his righteousness' in rough agreement with many ancient authorities,

Aphrahat was aware of the addition to Luke 23:48 found in other Syrian fathers some Old Latin and some apocryphal texts.

Aphrahat in John 11:43 read 'Lazarus Lazarus' probably a Diatessaronic reading. (This is an interesting example because Aphrahat's argument requires the duplication but the quotation itself has been assimilated to the Peshitta).

Aphrahat in John 15 read vineyard and vine instead of vine and branch along with other early Syrian fathers

Not all of these examples are rock solid by any means but IMO they are of more significance in determining the text used by Aphrahat than the very minor agreements with the Peshitta which you quoted.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This last sentence should be read for clarity's sake:

Answer: the sounds of the language were reinvented. Yiddish had effects on Hebrew spoken in synagogues and this latter was used as the guiding source for the construction of modern Hebrew.


spin