Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

What are the chances of just happening to find a word in aramaic that covers the greek variants evry time?

Give the variants of the Old Syriac indicated in the reference above, and the late Peshitta attempts to harmonize them, only about 100%.

Some, it seem, blindly worship the promise of Aramaic and the dead walking the earth. . . .

--J.D.

judge · 03-08-2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Give the variants of the Old Syriac indicated in the reference above, and the late Peshitta attempts to harmonize them, only about 100%.

Some, it seem, blindly worship the promise of Aramaic and the dead walking the earth. . . .

--J.D.

Are you saying that the old syriac agrees with the peshitta each time these variants are there?

Or are you just presenting another vague argument?

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 01:30 PM

This:

Quote:

The various Syriac versions are well-known, as well as their variants, and are used in textual criticism. It is a myth perpetuated that the texts were written in Aramaic. It was the assumption over a century ago, that evidence overturned.

Quote:

Probably the earliest Syriac version was the Diatessaron--to whose very mention a whole host of unsettled problems is attached. Even if one assumes that the Syriac Diatessaron represented Tatian's work (and not a Gospel harmony by someone else), there is no certainty over the language in which it was first composed. . . . If Greek was the original language, [Of the Diatessaron, listed as the majority opinion, see reference to Metzger below.--Ed.] however, then the Syriac translation could have been made by someone else at an unknown later date. Because the Diatessaro does not survive in Syriac, our exact knowledge of its Syriac form depends entirely on quotations in early Syriac writters, . . .

Probably, though not certainly, subsequent to the Diatessaron come the Old Syriac Gospels, represeted in two somewhat different forms in the two surviving witnesses, the Curetonianus (C) and the Sinaiticus (S) [Not Codex Sinaiticus.--Ed.] both of the fifth century.

. . . it is likely that C and S have independently undergone some revision of the basis of the Greek text (itself developing), . . .

In the course of the fifth century the Old Syriac ad Diatessaron were replaced by the Peshitta, a further (and surprisingly inconsistent ) revision of the Old Syriac. So effectively was this particular revision circulated that it succeeded in quickly becoming the standard (and remarkably stable) text of all the Syriac churches.

Thus, you have a consistent collection of an inconsistent revision of late witnesses.

I have challenged Judge to submit his opinions to the peer-reviewed literature. Answer came there none.

appeared rather clear.

--J.D.

References:

Brock SP, "The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism," The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research

Metzger BM. The Early Versions of the New Testament. [/B][/QUOTE]

judge · 03-08-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
This:

Thus, you have a consistent collection of an inconsistent revision of late witnesses.

I have challenged Judge to submit his opinions to the peer-reviewed literature. Answer came there none.

appeared rather clear.

--J.D.

References:

Brock SP, "The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism," The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research

Metzger BM. The Early Versions of the New Testament. [/QUOTE] [/B][/QUOTE]
\
Boy Dr X , you sure like the word "probably"

Do you really think the peshitta relaced these other texts in the 5th century?

Care to be a little more specific about how this might have occurred?

Lets have alook at what Metzger had to say.

The question who it was that produced the Peshitta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus's researches. . .In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD 431. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon, 1977), p. 36).

Just where and when do you think the peshitta originated?
Specifics please

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 02:08 PM

I await the paper.

Put up or shut up.

--J.D.

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 02:11 PM

Said paper should, of course, address the rebuttal of Spin and not ignore it like the posts have.

--J.D.

judge · 03-08-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I await the paper.

Put up or shut up.

--J.D.

Hey Dr X,
how do you think your argument that because the greek copy of Pauls letter to the romans contains a greek word Paul must have written in in greek, would go before peer review?

That is what you argue here.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=61612

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 02:21 PM

I gather he just cannot get that paper together.

--J.D.

judge · 03-08-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I gather he just cannot get that paper together.

--J.D.

Hi again Dr X.
You stated in an earlier post here.
"The various Syriac versions are well-known, as well as their variants, and are used in textual criticism. It is a myth perpetuated that the texts were written in Aramaic. It was the assumption over a century ago, that evidence overturned."

So lets have a look at the evidence then.

If you trully believe the evidence supports this then you must know what evidence was used to overturn it.

Can you please provide the evidence that was used to overturn it?
If you do not know what the evidence is then why do you beleive it?
And why are you trying to convince others to believe it?

Gooch's dad · 03-08-2004, 02:52 PM

I have to agree with Vork on the >spank< here!

Even as a complete amateur to biblical scholarship, it's rather obvious to me that a Greek text that includes the "eloi eloi" bit and other Aramaic expressions, wasn't translated from an Aramaic original.

And I seem to recall another thread a few weeks ago where the Latin references to the supposed "gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language" was shown beyond any doubt to be a reference to another early Christian document, not gMt.

Well done, spin!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2004, 02:08 PM	#55
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I await the paper. Put up or shut up. --J.D.

03-08-2004, 02:11 PM	#56
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Said paper should, of course, address the rebuttal of Spin and not ignore it like the posts have. --J.D.

03-08-2004, 02:21 PM	#58
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I gather he just cannot get that paper together. --J.D.

03-08-2004, 02:52 PM	#60
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	I have to agree with Vork on the >spank< here! Even as a complete amateur to biblical scholarship, it's rather obvious to me that a Greek text that includes the "eloi eloi" bit and other Aramaic expressions, wasn't translated from an Aramaic original. And I seem to recall another thread a few weeks ago where the Latin references to the supposed "gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language" was shown beyond any doubt to be a reference to another early Christian document, not gMt. Well done, spin!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.