judge

Maybe you have some details?

Chris has been unable to produce any. Neither has Jeffery. Spin tried and got walloped.

Funny aint it, here on infidels, the supposed home of evidence and all that.

spin

You might like to take a few deep breaths and then type a little more calmly.


spin

judge

look who is making the declaration.

The catholicos is ther head of the Ecclesiatical body, not as you infer the geographical body.

judge

Ok big shot...lol

Who made the declaration of independence linked to above. Did that cover all Syrian fathers?

Of course not..there was no united group. As I mention the RCC wishes us to beleive there was one united group so they can maintain that a split happened only after thier council.

spin

I wish you would try to talk on the subject a little. Imagine debating whatever it is you think you can debate.


spin

Roger Pearse

No hassle. I understand that you are dealing with a group lynching in this thread, and I hope you understand that I am not participating. I *am* interested in Syriac things.

I did write a reply, but I think perhaps this thread is not the time or place to discuss this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judge

Let's get this right.

1. I tell you there is no OS of pauls letters.

2. Despite me telling you this , you ask for the translation of romans 5:14 from the OS (otherwise called vetus syra).

3. I point out your mistake again and you come back and tell me there is no Os version (Syrus Sinaiticus) of of Pauls letters.

Well Der. :devil1: This is what i told you from the start.

Not one of your better efforts.

judge

No problem thank you for your gracious reply.

judge

Ok I will tell you what I think is the key to unravelling this issue.

Aphrahat, a COE monk, unlike ephram, never ever quotes any version word for word but the peshitta.
He either quotes the peshitta word for word or he paraphrases.

At times his paraphrasing will agree with a word or two fro the OS, just by chance, but he never agrees word for word with the full quote

These chance agreements of a word here and there have been used by poor scholarship to make a case that Aphrahat used the OS.

Once this argument falls the peshitta becomes prior to the OS, as aphrahat is prior to ephram, or anyone else of the so called syriac fathers.

The OS is probably the translation that Rabbula did. We know he made one but no one knows where it is.

Rabbula made a translation because he could not agree with the COE Christology. The aramaic terminology indicates a slightly different understanding of Christology.

But Rabbulas version didn't take hold widely. The peshitta was too well known So.....those in the west changed verses in the peshitta (Acts 20 and Hebrews 2:9) to agree with thier Christology.

The diatessaron was originally made from the peshitta, which is why the Arabic version , translated by a COE monk, agrees with the peshitta. Voorbus IIRC could only explain this by making the charge that they had doctored the texts.

any way that enough from me...

all the best

judge

One more time.

1.There are were two communities which used Syriac.
(a) One community became the SOC
(b)The other became to COE

2. The SOC was centred in Byzantine

3. The COE in Persia

4.There is heavy greek influence on SOC fathers.

5. There is not heavy greek influence on COE fathers.

You are confusing the issue by grouping them all togehter as "Syriac fathers".You need to distinguish between the two groups.



Well to properly analyse this we should mke the distiction between Syriac texts as i have done above. But, leaving that aside for the moment.
I am sure you are aware of the debates in this area.

The oldest greek is merely the oldest surviving greek, some geographies are more conducive to preservation.
It is an important to note the age of suviving texts are and one must consider it , but one cannot absolutize it.
Texts survive much better in dry climates. Your point is woth noting but is not insurmountable.
In other words there is an explanation