judge

Good grief, who on earth told you this. Why are you hiding your source?

1.Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word. Aphrahat never quotes the OS word for word.

2. Aphrahat is long before Rabbula.

3. the peshitta is around before rabbula.

You do realise that apahrahat who was wrting around 330 a d. quotes pauls epistles?
Do you also realise that there is no OS version of pauls epistles?

In his 22nd demonstration for example aphrahat quotes romans 5;14

Here he quotes the peshitta word for word.


Your source is crap!

want more evidence...there is plenty


That the peshitta was the work of Rabbula was the idea of Burkitt, but as indicated above this idea was refuted.

On Aphrahats canon

added in Edit:

Well I can certainly refute the nonsense you came out with here. It's not often you open yourself up like this Spin.

I actually really like your contributions here at infidels and have learnt a lot from you (thank you)

But one needs to be careful of the tripe being bandied about even by scholars in this area.

spin

Hiding? Your aspersions are merely desperation.

One of the sources I referred to was Hope Broome Downs in a JBL article (1944) called "The Peshitto as a Revision: Its Background in Syriac and the Texts of Mark"

Now just give me the same passage in Vetus Syra to show that it is different, for the contention is that the Peshitta was partially based on the Vetus Syra, so it would only be natural that you will find word for word passages lifted from the Vetus Syra in the Peshitta.

(And please try using something a bit more serious than this incoherent representation of a text. It is unreadable for someone who knows something about the languages. There are modern standards of transliteration. Please stick to them.)

All you are doing is avoiding your responsibilities (and don't waste your futile insults).

Voobus's argument, when you read it, is like saying that Jerome didn't translate the Vulgata because in some of his writings he uses another Latin translation. It is a non-argument.

A refutation is a little premature. One has to deal with the fact that a follower reported that he had done a translation of his own. There is no conclusive evidence that the Peshitta existed before he manifested signs of it.

One important fact which comes out of Voobus's work is that there was a lot of interest in Greek fathers among the Syrian fathers and they translated a lot of their material, bringing that Byzantine influence into the Syrian tradition.

Umm, Gwinne is pre Burkitt.

You're ever too busy looking at the trees to see the forest, judge. You haven't done a thing yet. Your meagre pastiche of citations only belies your lack of materials.

When you stop bandying it the subject might be dealt in a little more scholarly manner.


spin

judge

Good grief! Go back and read my post there is no OS (vetus Syra) version of pauls epistles.

Here is what I wrote.

There is no vetus syra version of pauls epistles.







Not in the east. Not in the COE. only in the SOC.

You do reaslise these two groups were antagonistic toward each other. It was the SOC that was under Byzantine influence not the COE.

Aphrahat was COE not SOC. you cannot just pretend that both communities were united in some way. Your sources are leading you astray.

Your sources are inventing a group called the "Syrain fathers" and misrepresenting them as a united group.

Roger Pearse

I believe not. (OS=Old Syriac)

I think there is confusion here, although I am not sure how it bears on the question.

Firstly the Syriac fathers were united until after 433 AD (Council of Ephesus) at which Nestorius was condemned. What is today referred to as the Church of the East used to be called Nestorians.

East Syriac libraries do indeed contain translations of Greek texts; not least the Bazaar of Heracleides by Nestorius himself, together with works by other writers such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was regarded by the Cyrillians as the father of Nestorianism. Indeed the library of the Chaldean (Nestorian Uniate) bishops at Seert in 1914 contained as manuscript 88 the only copy in the world of Theodore of Mopsuestia, De incarnatione; which was never published and was destroyed with the rest of the library and the Archbishop himself in 1915 by the Moslems.

In 451 the council of Chalcedon condemned the extreme followers of Cyril of Alexandria, who had engineered the condemnation of Nestorius, while upholding the latter. Over the succeeding century these people -- the monophysites -- organised themselves. What is today called the Syrian Orthodox Church is the monophysite party in the Syriac-speaking world, and these form the West Syriac tradition. As a result of these two councils most of the Syriac world was out of communion with the west (Greek and Latin), although there were Melkite groups loyal to the emperor's line.

The existence of the political boundary between the Roman and Persian empires was exploited by the Nestorians, who thenceforth tended to be strongest in the East. The monophysites also had an eastern presence, centred on Tikrit in Iraq, but were strongest in the West and also had a monastery in Egypt in the Nitrian desert (Deir el Suryani = St. Mary Deipara), since they were in agreement with the monophysite Copts.

Both groups preserved Syriac translations of Greek works. Indeed both arranged for the translation of all the works of Aristotle, so it was done twice. Each preserved works that do not remain in Greek, belonging to the specific theological emphasis of their group. There was also some translation from middle Persian, although not much, by both groups in the 6th century. The (monophysite) scholar-bishop Severus Sebokht translated a summary of Aristotle by Paul the Persian into Syriac, for instance.

Aphrahat precedes all of this, being 4th century, and belongs to the period of the united church, as does Ephraim Syrus. Indeed there was influence the other way also, some of Ephraim's works being translated into Greek and Latin. Later ascetic works from the east were also translated into Greek.

I hope this helps clarify what is going on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judge

What then do you imagine the Vetas Syra is?
It is another name for the Old Syriac

from here, point 4.

Spin has Spun[ again it seems.





You are peddling the Roman Catholic spin on things. The RCC wants to beleive it is the true Chuech so it needs to put this spin on things. \

added in edit:

If the so called syrian church was united until 433 then why do we find the COe declaring thier independence from the west prior to this?

From here

(end of edting)

The COE exclusively used the peshitta. No COE monk ever quotes anything else. they had different liturgy, they were a seperate community.

The Roman Catholic Church made out that there was some united Syrian church and that their heroic efforts at their Council forced the wicked heretics to split.
It is just religious propaganda.

Nestorius was not COE though He was from Constantinople. The problem was that his Christology was infuenced by Aramaic perminoloy and linguistics.
Because of this he could never agree that mary was the Mother of God.

Again this is the Roman Catholic propaganda. Nestorius was not part of the COE. The COE were branded Nestorians because they refused to condemn Nestorius who was dead by the time they were asked to condemn him. they refused to condemn a man who could not defend himself, and so what was their punishment?

Name calling. OOhh those wicked Nestorians they refuse to abide by our councils and we are the true church.

Despite the fact that prior to this they had asserted thier independence in their own councils.

Roger Pearse

Indeed. But not everyone reading necessarily knew this, since you wrote 'OS'.

This is a useful article, actually.

I am unclear as to what statement of fact you are disputing.

We do not -- this is merely about politics and indicates no doctrinal disagreement. I suspect that perhaps you have confused the Christian churches physically located within Persia with the Church of the East? The Church of the East never coincided with the former.

In view of the confusion above, I am unsure how to understand this remark.

I really think that you have your terminology in a twist here, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sven

Did judge take the courses "evasion" and "back-pedalling" from our expert, lee merrill?

jgibson000

I suspect, rather, from Y. Kuchinsky.

JG

judge

Apologies i may have misunderstood your brief reply.



I am not disputing any facts. I am disputing your assertion that

1.There ever was any united group we could call "Syrian fathers". That there was is an invetion of the RCC to propmote thier own view of history.

spin

There is no Syrus Sinaiticus of Paul's letters. The rest is an argument from silence.

Your imagination is running away with you. Who talked about 'a group called the "Syrian fathers"'? That's just you trying to be polemic. I talked of the Syrian fathers, which a reasonable understanding should lead to those christian writers writing in Syrian.

Now hopefully you might respond to the fact that Syrian fathers were translating a lot of material into Syriac Aramaic from Greek, which of course will explain the Greek influence on their work. How will you chart the direction of the content in the Syriac vs Greek texts? Why do Syriac forms of texts tend to follow Byzantine rather than Alexandrian flavours of the new testament, if Alexandrian texts are generally older than Byzantine? Or inversely, if Aramaic were the original language of the texts, how do you explain the oldest Greek not supporting your claim?


spin