Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 12-29-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

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.

There is no evidence that the didache was used by that community that became the COE.

So unless you have some evidence?

This is pure speculation on your part. That the liturgy of the COE is very ancient is well known.
Their liturgy does not contain the words of the institution .."this is my body", which found its way into later liturgies.

Quote:

Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East (or via: amazon.co.uk), New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141

spin · 12-30-2006, 06:24 AM

Here is Luke 15:7 (the transliteration reads left to right)

Code:

I say to you, that there will thus be joy in heaven, over one sinner that
)MR )N) LKWN DHKN) THW) XDWT) (L XD X+Y) 

repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just ones, to whom repentance 
was not necessary.
 DT)B )W   (L TS(YN WTS() ZDYQYN DL) MTB(Y) LHWN TYBWT) = Peshitta
DNTWB YTYR MN                        SNYQYN (L          = Aphra.
 DT)B )W   (L                        SNYQYN (L          = SSin
 DT)B YTYR MN                        MTB(Y) LHWN        = SCur

Hopefully you can see that the Peshitta is certainly not 100% in agreement with Aphrahat regarding this verse.

Try this (end of Mt 18:21 and 18:22):

Code:

up to seven times?
(DM) LSB( ZBNYN = Peshitta
      SB( ZBNYN = Aphra.
     LSB( ZBNYN = SSin
(DM) LSB( ZBNYN = SCur

Jesus said to him: 
)MR LH Y$W(

I do not say to thee, up to seven times,
L) )MR )N) LK (DM) LSB( = Peshitta
L)[--------------]  SB( = Aphra  "not seven"
L)[--------------]  SB( = SSin   "not seven"
)MR  LH L) [-----]  SB( = SCur   "I say to you not seven"

but up to seventy times seven.
)L) (DM)    LSB(YN ZBNYN SB( SB( = Peshitta
   [---] (L  SB(YN               = Aphra. but to 70 X 7
   [---] (L  SB(YN               = SSin
   [---] (L  SB(YN               = SCur

This should indicate that the Vetus Syra is closer here to Aphrahat than the Peshitta.

spin

judge · 12-30-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hopefully you can see that the Peshitta is certainly not 100% in agreement with Aphrahat regarding this verse.

Yes there ae instances where, due to paraphrasing Aphrahat will agree with a word or two from another text. I have been saying this all along

You dont even seem to be bothering to read my posts.
Just go back 8 posts and try reading first next time please.

Here is I wrote...

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

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.

All you have shown is that Aphrahat paraphrases, which is what I have been saying all along.

The most parsimonious solotion is that aphrahat used the peshitta and at times paraphrased.

No Vetus Syra version of Pauls letters has ever been known to exist, but the only way you can make your theroy fly is if we hypothesise the existence of one.

We dont need to hypothesise this when Aphrahats quotes already agree with the peshitta.

I anticipated all your arguments way back in this thread , which is why I posted Aphrahat quoting from pauls letter to Rome in the first place.

judge · 12-30-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This should indicate that the Vetus Syra is closer here to Aphrahat than the Peshitta.

spin

Spin the clincher in all this...the point that is strongest of all is that there is no Vetus Syra version of Pauls letters.

The only version Aphrahat could have been quoting is the peshitta. And his quotes often agree word for word with the peshitta.

1. We have no direct evidence that any Syriac/Aramaic version of pauls letters was around in Aphrahat time except the peshitta

2. Aphrahat often quotes the peshitta of pauls letters word for word.

The parsimonious explanation is that paul quoted the peshitta.

But what is your argument?

Noo...no....there must have another version, a version which has been totally lost. A version for which we have no evidence.

Dont you see ....this will never hold up in the long run.

Anyway I had enough..this is so boring now.

spin · 12-30-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes there ae instances where, due to paraphrasing Aphrahat will agree with a word or two from another text.

See, there you go covering your hind quarters already. God you're being so hypocritical with regard to data. You get shown where Aphrahat doesn't follow the Peshitta and now you say, well, he does paraphrase, though inconveniently for you his paraphrases support other texts. That's when you ignore your primary source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Here is I wrote...

And if I bother to show you more, I would show you many, many more instances where Aphrahat favours the Vetus Syra, but then the collation uses Serto instead of Estrangelo and I've got to do much more work transliterating the stuff than you cutting and pasting from your ready made apologetic sources and, with your running to water, I see no benefit, because your ducking and weaving is just so predictable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The most parsimonious solotion is that aphrahat used the peshitta and at times paraphrased.

There's nothing about parsimoniously favouring the Vetus Syra as frequently as he favours the Peshitta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

No Vetus Syra version of Pauls letters has ever been known to exist, but the only way you can make your theroy fly is if we hypothesise the existence of one.

Here's another problem, you haven't read what I said, despite your trumpeting that you are not receiving the reading you deserve! I pointed you to the Barbara Aland (and Andreas Juckel) book

Das Neue Testament in syrischer Ueberlieferung, vol 2, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 1991.

which deals with Romans and Corinthians, and the secondary sources, ie early Syriac writers who cited these works, and shows that there was an early Syriac version of these Pauline letters. This only makes sense of course if the Pauline texts were considered important there would be translations of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

We dont need to hypothesise this when Aphrahats quotes already agree with the peshitta.

Of the gospel material I've seen, it's not so frequent and it's rarely 100%. He just as, if not more, frequently favours the Vetus Syra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I anticipated all your arguments way back in this thread , which is why I posted Aphrahat quoting from pauls letter to Rome in the first place.

They are not arguments, they are data. I don't have Aland, which has gathered the Vetus Syra Paulines, the unclincher to your "clincher". That's why I pointed you to the book. You just have to cross the city. According to the review I read, for example, 1 Cor 15:37 is cited both by Aphrahat and Titus of Bostra, both different from the Peshitta and both with the same difference.

This stuff is supposed to be interesting to you. It's not for me. Find out about it, rather than being led by the nose by the white cane school which supplied you with that terrible notation which you don't understand.

spin

judge · 12-30-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

See, there you go covering your hind quarters already. God you're being so hypocritical with regard to data. You get shown where Aphrahat doesn't follow the Peshitta and now you say, well, he does paraphrase,

Stop, pause, take a breath and re-read my posts. I am not now saying it. I said it before you mentioned it about ten posts ago.

You are now desperately trying to insinuate that I have changed my tac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here's another problem, you haven't read what I said, despite your trumpeting that you are not receiving the reading you deserve! I pointed you to the Barbara Aland (and Andreas Juckel) book

Das Neue Testament in syrischer Ueberlieferung, vol 2, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 1991.

which deals with Romans and Corinthians, and the secondary sources, ie early Syriac writers who cited these works, and shows that there was an early Syriac version of these Pauline letters.

Stop , pause, take a couple of deep breaths and think about what you write here.

Of course I read what you wrote. Both yourself and Aland are hypothesising the existence a Vetus Syra version of Pauls letters.
No verion exists in real life..therefore you hypothesise that once one existed.
Pause take a breath and think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Of the gospel material I've seen, it's not so frequent and it's rarely 100%. He just as, if not more, frequently favours the Vetus Syra.

Stop , pause, take adeeep breath and think.
I am showing you 100% agreements. You on the other hand are showing texts you claim favour a text.

Stop, pause, think.

Dont you see that a 100% agreement, word for word, is superior to a text that does not agree but merely favours?

spin · 12-30-2006, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Stop, pause, take a breath and re-read my posts. I am not now saying it. I said it before you mentioned it about ten posts ago.

There, there, there. It's alright, judge. You trumpet the rubbish about how Aphrahat just had to have been using the Peshitta, while making an excape clause. So he used a text that was very "Vetus Syra"-genic, so where are you with your Peshitta claims... "Well, I didn't say that Aphrahat didn't adapt his sources."

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

You are now desperately trying to insinuate that I have changed my tac.

Yes, you are changing your tack. You now realise that there is information that you just haven't looked at, because you've been swallowing everything your sites have been telling you unanalysed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Stop , pause, take a couple of deep breaths and think about what you write here.

Uh-aahhh. Uh-aahhh. Uh-aahhh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Of course I read what you wrote. Both yourself and Aland are hypothesising the existence a Vetus Syra version of Pauls letters.
No verion exists in real life..therefore you hypothesise that once one existed.
Pause take a breath and think about it.

Just as your sources hypothesize their stuff. Only thing is that Aland's stuff is certainly early. It fits the evidence. It explains why your source's position is basically silly about the Pauline letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Stop , pause, take adeeep breath and think.

With your stuff, judge, you'll have me hyperventilating. But for what? You've provided me with nothing useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I am showing you 100% agreements. You on the other hand are showing texts you claim favour a text.

Jeez, judge, I tell you what, if you go and have a loot at the collation I told you about, you'd find at least 50 verses of the gospels where the Peshitta conflicts with Aphrahat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Stop, pause, think.

I think it's about time you started to think. You don't know the material. You just think what you've been told to think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Dont you see that a 100% agreement, word for word, is superior to a text that does not agree but merely favours?

There isn't evidence that can show that the Peshitta was around at the time.

spin

Chris Weimer · 12-31-2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There isn't evidence that can show that the Peshitta was around at the time.

As someone lauded me earlier, I know laud spin. Judge...yet again..."pwned".

:Cheeky:

judge · 12-31-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

No Spin, the reading is correct, the word for woman is there and the word for coin. The problem is not the source but merely that you are not familiar with the script used.
The script used is known as Estrangelo (V1.1)
I know yoy have said here before you dont have much experience with Syriac or Aramaic so I suppose it is understandable you are not familiar with it.
Literally it reads....
"or what (female) woman who's ten coins loses one of them not does lights lamp and sweep house and search it diligently till she locates it."

Added in edit:
The word for coins or "zuzin", is the seventh word.

Quote:

hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
Jwhnm dx dbwtw Nyzwz 0rs9
Fyb 0mxw 0gr4 0rhnm fw

I'm not sure how you missed this.

judge · 12-31-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There isn't evidence that can show that the Peshitta was around at the time.

spin

Ummm...er....ok...
I show Aphrahat who started writing his demonstartions around 330 C.E. quoting the peshitta word for word. But this is not evidence that he used the peshitta.

You show Ahprahat not quoting the Vetus Syra word for word but with some minor agreements
and this is evidence Ahprahat used the Vetus Syra?

I really appreciate your doggedness...:devil1:

Happy new year, I hope 2007 has much in store for you...I really do. I dont know why but I like you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.