spin

Gulp, you're just saying that to embarrass me.

I shouldn't have sent you that link for cheap teletransporter technology.


spin

judge

Chris unfortunately you are still wrong. And if you wish to complain then I challenge you to a debate.

You need to distinguish between those who think the peshitta is a translation of the OS and those who think the Peshitta is the original.

It is the arguments in favour of the Peshitta being the original that have not been subject to peer review.

The evidence for the priority of the Peshitta has never been peer reviewed.

If you imagine it has then you do not understand the nature of the various papers you have cited, nor the history of the the subject.

Some of the evidence for the priority of the Peshitta can be found at this site.

Aramaic Peshitta

The arguments here has never been subject to peer review (with the possible exception of some of the semiticims). It is a fact.

So I challenge you to a debate on this Chris.

I say that the arguments in favour of the peshitta have never been subject to peer review. Do you wish to deny this?



No it is not, but you don't know this because you dont know this history of the issue, or the details of of what is being examined in the sources you refer to. Most of the your sources are assuming the priority of the OS, not the peshitta. Big difference.

Once you get your mind around that you will see what I am arguing.

Al the best. :-)

judge

Well Jeffrey I am quite certain the evidence for the priority of the peshitta has never been subject to peer review.
It would be quite easy to prove me wrong on this though.
Heck if someone can actually show me to be wrong on this I will change my mind and publicly recant.

Roger Pearse

I got sick of that myself a year or two back. All such posts reveal an absolute lack of contact with the ancient sources, on which alone such a statement could be grounded, a willingness to believe something because it is convenient without checking, and (all too often) a determination to fight for it, if questioned.

These ideas are still out there, but just needs rebutting whenever they appear. I have noticed that no-one learns anything real or useful about Mithras from such material.

Returning to the OP, I don't see how the idea that the consensus of scholars in NT Studies should be considered an authority on things which are matters of public controversy is one that can sensibly be maintained. (Whether the idea that the gospels were originally composed in Aramaic is one such example, tho, seems doubtful to me). No-one believes it -- all that (e.g.) Jesus Seminar stuff did nothing for the public reputation of the discipline.

All the best

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, judge? It's like the more you speak, the more anyone takes you seriously. Not only did you, at first, claim that Aramaic priority wasn't peer reviewed, because of the amount of investment in the Greek New Testament, you, when I easily produce numerous articles for Aramaic priority, you push the goalposts a bit to the side and claim that it has to be the ridiculously naive Peshitta primacy. I mean, why not, while we're at it, discuss whether the Talmud Jmmanuel is really the first gospel? Because both positions are equally vapid. Regardless, there have been articles examining and noting the lateness of the Peshitta. Among the ones I found, besides the ones already mentioned, are listed below.

Clemons, James T. "Some Questions on the Syriac Support for Variant Greek Readings." Novum Testamentum vol. 10, fasc. 1 (1968): 26-30.

Conybeare, F. C. "The Growth of the Peshitt \ a Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions." The American Journal of Theology vol. 1, no. 4. (1897): 883-912.

Baarda, Tjitze. "νομικός in Syriac Texts." Novum Testamentum vol. 41, fasc. 4. (1999): 383-389.

Watch how again the goalposts will shift.

Judge, why don't you submit an article for peer-review? Obviously if you're competent enough to discuss it here, you should be competent enough for submitting one to a journal?

Chris Weimer

Roger,

One of the major criticisms judge has announced was that his pet theory, Aramaic priority of the gospels, now shifted to specifically Peshitta primacy, has never been subject to peer review. I got fed up with him saying that. So I produced a list. The arguments stand or fall on their own, but now I just wish judge would shut up about "the old guard" and "our biases". It's typical bullshit and no different than calling us "apologists". I've had enough.

judge

Now come on Chris , be honest, you well know in all our previous discussion I have argued that it is peshitta primacy. To jump upon an instance that I used the more general "aramaic primacy" and argue as you did in ingenuous, dont you think?






Well I'll say it agian Chris you have no idea what is being studied in these papers.
I'll give you a hint though it is not the evidcne for the priority of the peshitta.

Now....are you up for the debate or are you raising the white flag?

judge

Again as you are well aware Chris i have always without exception argued for peshitta primacy. On a recent occaision i called it Aramaic Primacy for the sole reason that I linked to a wikipedia article discussing peshitta primacy that is itself named "Aramaic Primacy".

You pounced on this and produced a string of papers not dealing with peshitta primacy.


look Chris you might as well , at least be open minded about this, you dont know what will happen on the day they finally are subjected to peer review.

All the best for the festive season.

p.s You unwllingness to debate me is noted...scaredy pants! :P

spin

Now you come on, judge. You believe in Peshitta primacy, although you have no datable evidence for such a belief. You don't know the languages to be able to argue for Peshitta primacy, yet you believe it. You haven't read the scholarly literature on the subject, which is generally negative, but you still believe in Peshitta primacy. You want to debate about Peshitta primacy but you don't have the linguistic tools to do so, yet you believe. I don't know what you can hope to debate. You can only use the arguments of others which you usually cut and past here. It's a bit rich to have you wielding the term "ingenuous", don't you think, judge?

Well, I have read some of the literature, as it is available on the web. I've seen work by Younan and Roth and they aren't even dealing with the sorts of problems necessary as outlined in those articles you haven't read.

Well, not exactly. They don't have the linguistics to do so. They are putting together assumption laden artifices that cannot be tested.

What on earth do you think you can debate??


spin

jgibson000

I take it that you haven't read (or for that matter ever even glanced at) the section on the "Peshitta Syriac Version" in the chapter entitled "The Syriac Versions" in Bruce Metzger's The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (or via: amazon.co.uk), let alone the work on the date of the Peshitta by Burkitt or much if anything on the text by Arthur Voobus and Matthew Black? Do you even know who these scholars are?

But if you have read the works Voobus and Black on the Peshitta, perhaps you'd let us know which ones they are.

Jeffrey Gibson