judge

1. So do you intend to provide some detail of the evidence, or just repeat this assertion?
   
   
   
   
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by spin A collation of the Curetonian, the Sinaitic and the Peshitta with Aphrahat's gospel citations show that he was definitely not using the Peshitta

   Are you willing to provide details of such evidence?
   
   
   Quote:

   Originally Posted by spin , and At least one modern writer considers Aphrahat's citation source "pre-Peshitta".

So?..I'm not sure what you intend to say with this last remark. Do you have evidence or not?

spin

You were so keen on this stuff before. I thought you knew all about it. Why don't you just poo-poo it, without having read any scholarly literature, as you normally do? Why don't you get up with the scholarly literature instead of making absurd one-eyed remarks? What does it take to go to Sydney Uni library and do some real research?


spin

judge

hang on just a minute ago you said.


But still you have no intention of presenting any evidence or making any argument whatsoever.

A lot of talk but no action.
Come on lets see this alleged evidence.
You believe this stuff, you have intentions as to how you (supposedly) intend to argue, but still have no evidence and dont even know what the evidence is.

You have already made up your mind.

I know the verses used by scholars to argue that Aphrahat didn't quote the peshitta or quoted the OS.

You may be able to come up with one or two novelties , but the main verses used are known.

That is why I am confident I can deal with your supposed evidence.

Whats wrong are you afraid you might have to eat your words?

I mean come on Spin , let's do this...you and me...

spin

I've given you how I would argue.

You have been bleating about lack of peer review, yet you don't know what peer review has actually said about the relationship between Aramaic and Greek.

I cited Aland. I mentioned that there has been a collation which shows that the Peshitta was certainly not the source of Aphrahat's gospel citations. If you like I'll transliterate a few for you.

If you want to debate Aramaic rather than Greek priority, I might let you know.

This is hysterical coming from you, judge. You don't even know anything about the original languages so you've never been in a position to make a reasoned analysis of the material.

My collation shows that the Peshitta comes in third to the other early Syriac gospel sources.

That's why you ought to get out more.

Naaaa. It's a matter of priorities. I'm much more interested in other things. I'd need a good reason for wasting the time. Whereas this is something you believe in and have invested faith in. It's a shame.

But if you claim to know what scholarly literature says, what's the problem?

I don't give a stuff really that the Peshitta has, or has no, primacy over the other Syriac texts. However, it seems senseless for you to claim that Aramaic had primacy over Greek. That is what we have mostly talked about. Having taken a little time to look at what scholars have said about Aramaic, I think it's sad that you are wasting your time with all these people who are merely beating their own religious dripping.


spin

judge

Well let me know if you ever want to step up to the plate.

Let me know if you ever come up with any evidence at all.

Spin you haven't actually shown anything. You have not presented one iota of evidence.
Nothing...nothing...not one scrap.

spin

You wouldn't know if I came up with any evidence. But here's the reference to the collation I referred to:

A Collation of the Gospel Text of Aphraates with That of the Sinaitic, Curetonian, and Peshitta Text, by Julius A. Bewer,
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1900

(And if you want to complain about the date of the collation, perhaps you might like to tell me what changed about the given texts between the time of the collation and now.)

The Barbara Aland work on Syriac sources is:

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

When you won't do your homework, it's hard for you to deal with what is actually out there.


spin

judge

As I said earlier I am familiar with the verses used to allegedly show Aphrahat did not use the peshitta. Do you even know one?

As soon as you take a risk and stick your neck out, I can chop it off.

I dare you...go on...post some details. Post some of the actual verses used.

Lets see the actual evidence.

judge

It is quite simple Spin. First you claim no citations of the peshitta are found before rabbula, when i challenged you to a debate on this you ran away.

Now you are claiming that Aphrahat quotes the Old Syriac.

So again I am calling your bluff. Show me these quotes. Dont run away again, come back and show us the actual quotes.

It is not good enough make claims and when challenged run away or attack me because I call upon you provide evidence.

spin

As you will misconstrue the statement, which I have attempted to keep clear, I'll say again, the Peshitta can have verses in common with other translations. You'll find a vast number of verses in common between the Old Syriac texts and the Peshitta, so simply finding verses that are the same as the Peshitta is no indication that before Rabbula there were citations specifically from the Peshitta. If I cite well enough selected verses from the Greek, you'd never be able to tell me if the source was Byzantine or Alexandrian.

I said that Aphrahat's source was certainly not the Peshitta for the gospels, as they favour the Old Syriac versions -- though not totally.

You wouldn't know a bluff if I showed you the cards. I've given you some data. I've given you the source. It's up to you to go into denial.



Are you the same person who had the nerve to cry that peer review hasn't dealt with the sorts of stuff your unlearned sources have thrown together, as though nothing similar has been thought about before? Are you the same person who slavishly repeats others' awful transliterations of the Peshitta?

Still, I don't care. You do. Go look at the sources I cited, as you care.


spin

jgibson000

I wonder if anyone else besides myself sees not only the amazing irony but also the absolute hypocrisy in the charge above?

This is not only the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black, but, in the light of "judge's" persistent and perpetual engagement in the very thing he accuses "spin" of doing in the face of my (and other's) challenges to "judge" to provide evidence for his claims about the lack of "peer review" of the claims of Peshitta primacists and/or to tell us which of the works by the professional text critics and Syriac scholars I've referred him to he's actually read, it is behaviour that is as unconscionable as it is execrable.

JG