jgibson000

Your claim was this:
There's nothing in the "particulars" of your claim about what is said in any existent peer review of the evidence having to be convincing. So responding to the "particulars" of your claim only involves showing that a scholarly review of the "evidence" has been undertaken.

Now I've noted that your certainty is unfounded by pointing to both a text where what you say has not been done is been done and to scholars who have done what you claim no one did.

So unless you are the sort of slime who does not live up to his word, then your are obliged to tender your admission that you were wrong and the recantation of your words.

JG

judge

No they did not examine the evidence, although they may have examined small portions of it

Sorry Jeffery you wont be able to use that kind of guilt manipulation with me.
"if you dont do as i say then you must be slime"...lol..it wont work.

You can easily prove me wrong if you are in fact familiar with the sources you presented. Show,as just one example where any of these men deal with polysemy. There are may examples in the link I provided.

This evidence was never even considered.

added in edit:
Look, let me make this very simple.

1. polysemy is part of the evidence for the priority of the peshitta.

2. None of the sources you refer to deal with polysemy.

3. Therefore the evidence has not been subject to peer review.

jgibson000

Don't know about others, but it's pretty certain you can't.

JG

judge

Once again Jeff,


Look, let me make this very simple.

1. Polysemy is part of the evidence for the priority of the peshitta. (and this is just the tip of the iceberg)

2. None of the sources you refer to deal with polysemy.

3. Therefore the evidence has not been subject to peer review.

Which point here are you having trouble with?


added in edit:
Some examples of polysemy.

This evidence and many other kinds are not touched upon by any of your sources. Until this evidcne is subjected to scrutiny we must say the evidence has not been subjected to peer review.

jgibson000

How do you know this since you've not read the works on the Peshitta by the scholars I mentioned?.

But the question of what you are is determined by not but whether or not you follow what I say, but by whether you live up to your own word And since you haven't lived up to your own word...

Again, how do you know this since you yourself have never read the works of the scholars I referred to?

Moreover, at what point in your original claim about no scholar ever reviewing the question of Peshiitta Primacy did you state that the one and only criterion for determining whether any scholar has or has not done so is whether or not he/she dealt with polysemy?

You do keep shifting the goal post, don't you.

And as to no scholar having dealt with polysemy, you do not seem to be aware of Sebastian Brock's "Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek' or of J.T. Clemmens "Some Questions on the Syriac Support for Variant Greek Readings". Have you read these, yes or no?

The problem with this is is that you've not made it simple. You've made it simplistic. More importantly, you've also made it fallacious in two ways.

First, its major premise engages in petitio principii. Is polysemy really part of the evidence? And if it is, is it good evidence? Have the web pages you relied on presented the evidence accurately or drawn their conclusions from it legitimately? (And how would you be able to determine this, since you yourself have neither Syriac nor Greek and seem to be unaware of the rudiments of sound logical thinking?).

Second, since, as you yourself admit, polysemy is only part of the evidence for Peshitta primacy, it is invalid and logically indefensible to conclude, as you do, that if polysemy is not dealt with, the question of Peshitta priimacy has not been subject to peer review.

At best, the only thing that you could legitimately claim, and then only if it is true that none of the sources I referred to dealt with polysemy, is that some of the (alleged) evidence for Peshitta primacy has not been dealt with.

So unless you are willing to retract you claim that polysemy is not all of the "evidence" for Peshitta primacy brought forward by the advocates of this position (as the very web pages you have pointed us to show it is most certainly is not), and say that it is the only evidence for PP, then your have no grounds to claim, as you do, that none of the "evidence" put forward by Peshitta primacists has ever been subject to scholarly review.


yasaptz

JG

judge

Jeffery what are you afraid of?

Do you have some evidence or not?

If so then present the evidence.


Unfortunately this is not what I claimed..you can verify this by just reading the posts.

Here is what I said two or three posts ago


:devil1: :wave:

judge

I haven't read Brocks paper but brock seems to have some trouble with aramaic linguistics, especially for a Proffessor.

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewto...3b3860bcd9f906

jgibson000

I wrote:


Avoiding my question, "Judge" replied:

My reply:

You asked me to prove you wrong when you claimed that there was no scholar who had dealt with the "evidence" of "polysemy" that Peshitta primacists appeal to in support of their claims. I named names of those who had.

So the evidence that you asked for -- names of scholars who have dealt with the "evidence" of polysemy -- has been provided. Why are you once again shifting the goal post?

And why haven't you answered my questions. Were you aware of Brock's and Clements' works, yes or no? Have you read them, yes or no?

I also wrote:

to which "judge" replied:

My reply:

But if you'll note, I was not talking about what you wrote 2 or three posts ago. I was talking about original claim -- which was:

Note the import of your expression "the evidence". Since there were no qualifications placed upon it, its import is "all of what has been appealed to by advocates of Peshitta primacy in support of their claims" , not just one part of it, let alone the reputed "evidence" of polysemy.

And whatever the case may be regarding whether this is or isn't what you claimed, I note that nothing you've said here disputes or even draws into question the validity of my claims that the conclusion you reached in your syllogism is bogus, that the "logic" you used to reach it is entirely flawed and shows an extreme lack of acquaintance with what constitutes a valid and sound deductive argument, and that your major premise assumes what needs to be proven.

Now perhaps you'd like to tell us, given your avoidance of my questions on (a) how you know what you claim to know about what the scholars I have referred you to have or haven't said and (b) whether you've read the work of Brock, Clemmens, and Metzger that I mentioned, what you are afraid of.

JG

jgibson000

Then how do you know what he said?


How are you in any way competent to judge whether he is or isn't?

In any case, even if Brock is wrong on the matter under discussion at the page the above URL links to (and it looks like he's being selectively quoted and misrepresented to "show" that he is), this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely, your claim that no scholar has reviewed the claims of Peshitta primacists that polysemy "proves" their case.

It's understandable that you would be confused.

But now that you are coming clean, have you also not read Metzger? What about Voobus on the Peshitta or Burkitt? What about Clemmens??

JG

spin

The indication on the Peshitta is that it is a later Syriac text, ie citations of it don't appear before Rabbula, and he has a translation attributed to him by the report of a follower. It evinces some Byzantine traits, which would indicate the importance given to the Byzantine tradition, which is generally later than the Alexandrian/Sinaitic, in the formation of the Peshitta text.

As to the question of Semitic underlying the Greek text, the consensus seems to be that one should expect non-standard Greek forms, especially when the writers may not have been primarily Greek speakers and when dealing with sources from a non-Greek context.

On the subject of polysemy, it assumes a particular state of a particular dialect of Aramaic at a particular time to enable any claim of polysemy. As there is not enough evidence from a datable Aramaic, arguments using undated occurrences of polysemy cannot be shown to have significance with the literature being dealt with.

You didn't answer my question, What on earth do you think you can debate??


spin