judge

ok let me see if I understand.
1.Sometime around 180 ce there are many copies of Galatians both in and out of the roman empire.
2.somewhere someone changes a copy or maybe a few copies and gets away with it.
3.after Nicaea the roman church destoys all the old copies in the places where it can do so.

Ok this can explain some of what we see but not all.

How can we explain the the peshitta displaying the same corruption in every copy?
If we posit a late date for the peshitta then their following the roman church on this point makes no sense because they insisted on a different canon and resisted both this and other differences we see in the peshitto.
There is a lot that could be written here but it may help if you could posit a tentative date for the creation of the peshitta, as I think there will be problems with any date , but I may be wrong

aa5874

Nobody knows what "Paul" means by "apostle", "brother", "son of God", "sinful flesh", "Lord", "lie", "crucified", "resurrected" and even "MAN".

All we KNOW is that the Pauline writings can be found in the NT CANON where MARY was found with Child of the Holy Ghost who was called Jesus and that he was the CREATOR of heaven and earth.

What does it mean for a writing to be Canonised by the Church?

Nobody knows?

The Canonical Pauline Epistles are COMPATIBLE with the NICENE CREEDS.

In the NT Canon, Jesus was God Incarnate, God's OWN Son made of a Woman.

spin

It is not reflective of what I said.

How many pre-200 manuscripts and fragments of the Pauline letters? "None" is not a surprising answer.

The peshitta was translated after the time the gospels had both Nazara and Nazareth, both Nazarene and Nazorean, and the translators made the decision to use a single form in each case. The gospel development was pre-peshitta. It should not be a surprise that all the epistles are as well.

It also should not be too much of a surprise that the language of the peshitta, referred to as "Middle Syriac" (but really Eastern Middle Aramaic), distinct from the Old Syriac of numerous inscriptions, appeared in the 4th century. (See Beyer, Klaus, The Aramaic Language: Its Didstribution and Subdivisions, Goettingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986, 43-44.) The peshitta is not an issue.

judge

if the interpolations started in a Greek text and ended up later in the peshitta then there must be a process and a time when this occurred.
I trust we can agree on this ?
Neither an early date nor a later date make any sense as far as I can see.
It seems reasonable to seek an explanation for what we see.

We can't look to the roman church to explain what we find amongst Nestorian Christians. That is the problem I see.
Aren't you arguing that there an original version of galations and that all these originals were destroyed by the roman church because they wanted the new version with the interpolations?

If not, then what are you arguing?

angelo

Just had time to quickly read through this thread. How can someone be the seed of David while it's also claimed that he was born of a virgin. The holy ghost was the father of this spook. Only ghosts can beget ghosts.

angelo

Oh, I get it. God was the father of David?

spin

You need to think about it. The Nestorian schism was in the 5th c., the fruit of a teaching that moved, and took root in, the east, and again not particularly relevant. Why are you now talking about them?

Texts not considered orthodox would tend to go out of circulation, because they were less likely to be copied by knowing scribes. You don't reproduce texts that are missing important bits.

judge

I am happy to consider any evidence


Do you have any evidence for this schism?
The story seems to be religious propaganda put out by the roman catholic church to bolster their authority. There is no need for us to believe it if the evidence is against it.
Before this alleged schism the eastern church had already asserted its independence.
From East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia


Do you have any evidence for this, other than claims from the Roman catholic church (or others merely repeating these claims)?

See above.

So I am still interested in what you are arguing. I tried as best I could to repeat it back to you to see if i understood. You wrote..."It is not reflective of what I said. "

So can I ask you to give some more information about what you are saying.

thanks

spin

To try to limit this wandering even further away, let's just use the chronological fact that Nestorian material is not helpful.

I was working on the notion that Theodore of Mopsuesta was a big influence on Nestorius (a Syrian) and Nestorianism took root in the east. Nothing more. And stop bringing in the catholic church when I don't follow what they have to say. It's a little too pavlovian.

It didn't answer the question.

I said,

[T2]Texts not considered orthodox would tend to go out of circulation, because they were less likely to be copied by knowing scribes. You don't reproduce texts that are missing important bits.[/T2]
I also talked of orthodoxy beginning to emerge in the late second century, so before.

That which triggered of this ever tangential curve was a comment about Paul's credentials and theology, given in Rom 1 and called an interpolation here, a claim which I discounted as it was not a normatizing section, but had something that seems to be pre-normative, ie the defining of Jesus as the son of god only upon resurrection.

judge

We need an explantion for how interpolations found their way into the peshitta.
At the moment we have none. Unless you can suggest one.


It showed that your idea about a schism was contary to the evidence, and so any ideas which rely upon the schism are void.

I said,

[T2]Texts not considered orthodox would tend to go out of circulation, because they were less likely to be copied by knowing scribes. You don't reproduce texts that are missing important bits.[/T2]

But just a few posts ago when I asked for evidence of your that the verse in question was unorthodox you gave none. You replied..."Umm, for the ultra-orthodox trinitarians the notion of Jesus not being the son of god until resurrection is arch-heresy. If that doesn't ring a bell, don't worry about it. You just have some different notion of orthodoxy from me."

Do you have evidence that supports your view? I think this is the crucial point for you.





ok

Im happy to drop the tangent if you wish. Probably needs its own thread.


Ok so you think that if it were an interploation it should make it clear that christ was a son of god prior to the resurrection.

Im going to give myself a holiday for a month, and we've probably exhasuted this so all the best