Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Judge,

What I said is based on the results of many years of published scholarship (supported, as well, by my own research). See, for example,

Baarda, Tjitze. APHRAHAT'S TEXT OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Vol. 1 of THE GOSPEL QUOTATIONS OF APHRAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1975.

I know that some people at Peshitta.org make it a habit to put down all academic scholarship (when it doesn't agree with them), but I don't think that such a strategy would be very successful here.

As far the history of various theological disputes and splits among the Syrian churches, the situation there is really quite complicated. I may have been somewhat imprecise in what I said before.

Monophysitism (belief in one nature of Christ) is a Christian heresy that goes way back.

Monophysitism. The Columbia Encyclopedia
http://www.bartleby.com/65/mo/Monophys.html

(This is a generally secular source.)

Some Churches at this time do see themselves as monophysite. But the Syrian Orthodox Church (SOC) officially denies this designation. So it's not really fair to accuse them of monophysitism, if they themselves deny following this doctrine.

Here's a brief summary of some of these historical and theological developments, as I see them.

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
Some East Syrians did not accept the decisions of this council, which condemned Nestorius, Patriarch of Alexandria. So this became the Nestorian Church.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)
This Council also condemned the teachings of Nestorius. But there was also another "heresy" that became common at the time, Eutychianism (which is usually considered as a form of monophysitism). So this was also condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. But the western Syrians favoured Eutychianism, and they rejected the decisions of this Council.

And so, from this time onwards, both the eastern and the western Syrians were condemned by the Catholic Church, although they were also divided among themselves as Nestorians vs. Eutychians.

Monophysitism can be seen as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Catholic Chalcedonian position OTOH can be seen as an attempted compromise between the Nestorianism and the Monophysitism.

The following simple scheme may clarify (?) things a bit more,

NESTORIANS: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
CATHOLICS: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
MONOPHYSITES: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

While, currently, the Syrian Orthodox Church does deny the designation "Monophysite", instead, it prefers to describe itself as Miaphysite.

The citations of Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20 that you gave may indeed have something to do with monophysitism, and yet it certainly cannot be proven that whoever accepts these passages automatically becomes a monophysite.

Regards,

Yuri.

judge

Thanks Yuri,
I previously claimed above that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word.
You contradicted this, so I clarified that he does in fact quote the peshitta word for word although not all the time.
Can you please confirm that Aphrahat does in fact qhote the peshitta word for word.

In contradicting me here you may be giving the impression I was giving misleading information, when as you know I was not.

Thanks

judge

Yuri, it appears that Aphrahat does in fact quote the peshitta word for word. Here is an example from Matthew 5:16

Mar Aphrahat in his demonstartions on faith writes.

And again he said to his Apostles: Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works"


The peshitta reads:
"Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works"

However both the old syriac Cureton and sinaiticus read:"Let your light shine before (with Lamadh Proclitic) men, that they may see your beautiful works"

Now can you provide just one example where Aphrahat quotes the old syriac precisely. That is not where Aphrahat agrees in part with the old syriac and disagrees in part (in the same breath)

All I am asking for is one example, where the full quote from aphrahat agrees with the old syriac.

Surely if he quotes the old syriac there must be one example where he does so precisely?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Judge, what you originally posted was misleading, because you said that the "western scholars have never dealt with the fact that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word".

But actually western scholars have fully dealt with this matter.

Yes, in some cases, Aphrahat's citations do follow the Peshitta (and the canonical Greek text), and this is a well known fact. The scholars usually explain this by the phenomenon of "Vulgatization".

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is a case where Aphrahat has this _one_ word in common with the Peshitta, as well as with the Greek text.

He quotes the Diatessaron, as most (all?) scholars believe.

I already gave you a whole passage (the Rich Young Man) where Aphrahat seems to be quoting from the Old Syriac via the Diatessaron. (This was presented in Peshitta.org. I can provide the ref if anyone is interested.)

There are *many words* there in common with the Old Syriac.

One of the people in Peshitta.org had objected, and said that, since no Old Syriac Diatessaron has survived therefore it can never be proven that Aphrahat quoted from it.

I leave that without comment, because the fallacy here should be obvious to all.

Best,

Yuri

judge

Yuri, I said as far as I am aware western scholars have never dealt with the matter.


Just a few posts ago you said....Well, that's perhaps because Aphrahat doesn't in fact quote the peshitta word for word..

It is a little confusing.

judge

Yes Yuri but there are also words that disagree with the Old Syriac.
In the quote I provided (and as you know there are others) no words disagree with the peshitta.

Yes Yuri, but Aphrahat also quotes the letters of Paul. When he does so he agrees with the peshitta! ( some times at the very least).

In Romans 5:14 Aphrahat qhotes Romans 5:14 word for word.
Death ruled from Adam unto Moses

There is no letter to the Romans in the diatessaron or the old syriac.
He seems to be quoting the peshitta.

judge

Yes quite.

Probably a good place to start would be Jerome, in his writing on the life of Paul Although it seems a little unclear in part.

The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salvation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul. Some read one also to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by everyone

Vorkosigan

Judge, what Jerome said is an extremely weak argument. I'd like to see a strong argument that focuses on word use and manuscripts. Remember, you have to overturn the modern critical consensus, which requires far more powerful arguments than offhand claims made centuries later.

Vorkosigan

judge

Maybe but it is infinitely stronger than no argument at all. Can you find something similar suggesting Paul or the author of Hebrews wrote in greek?

The age of the oldest mss seems pretty much irrelevant. Prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest HB were in greek!

Can you explain the arguments used in modern critical consensus that point to either Paul or the author of Hebrews writing in greek.

I don't think there really is anything of substance. It is a myth perpetrated by protestant "fundamentalist" Christians. After they rejected the authority of the Roman Church they insisted that the scriptures were the only authority.

Not much point doing this unless you have the inerrant copies
. So they decided that it would be an article of faith that the NT was penned in greek.
Do you really believe there is some evidence to support this article of faith?
If you know of any I would be interested in examining it.

Meanwhile I will come back with something on word use at some stage. I have had a preliminary look but it might take alittle longer.

All the best :notworthy