Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear judge,

Please provide some basis for your claims. Normally, those who are making the incredible claims (such as that 350 manuscripts of the Peshitta are all identical) should have the burden of proof.

Appeals to your own authority won't do, I'm afraid...

As to Peshitta coming after the Old Syriac, this is really quite a simple matter, but we can deal with this later.

Yours,

Yuri.

judge

Dear judge,

Please provide some basis for your claims. Normally, those who are making the incredible claims (such as that 350 manuscripts of the Peshitta are all identical) should have the burden of proof.

Appeals to your own authority won't do, I'm afraid...

As to Peshitta coming after the Old Syriac, this is really quite a simple matter, but we can deal with this later.

Yours,

Yuri

Judge:
Hi yuri...I am endevouring to follow this up and will do my best...but it seems reasonable to me that if you claim there are variants then a demonstration would help a lot.

All the best.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Oh, come on, judge.

You gotta give us your source for this claim... I think it can be safely assumed that you, yourself, didn't go out there and examine all those 350 MSS of the Peshitta personally to come to this conclusion (this should have taken you many years!). So then what are you basing your claim on? Some fundy website?

I've already given you a valid quote from an expert, but this wasn't enough for you, apparently. So let's see who your "expert" is...

Cheers,

Yuri.

jdmins

[B]This is a topic I have studied since undergrad. My major was the GNT but also sudied Hebrew as a minor. I have studied a little Aramaic & Arabic and now looking into Farsi.

There is internal evidence in the GNT of semitisms. Some say it is Hebrew (the Jerusalem school) some say Aramaic (peshitta.org) I have found obvious Aramaisms myself. The Aramaisms could have been from an Aramaic speaking writer whose second language was Greek. (The language of commerce). This is much like everyone speaking english today as that is the money language.
However because of the many LXX quotes (even when you would expect a MT quote..e.g. Matthew) it seems the gospels may have been translated from an original source.

Papias did refer to Matthew having written in the dialect of the Hebrews and everyone else translated as their ability allowed.
Tatian's 2nd century diatesseron (diapente as Thomas perhaps included at first) was perhaps the earliest evidence for a Syriac version. However the Peshitta did not replace the diatesseron until the 5th century. It seems strange that no mss for Peshitta predate this event.

Some have said the mss were perhaps destroyed by the persecution of the early eastern Church and also easterners would not allow the mss to become tattered and thence would destroy them so as not to profane them. Since we do not have an extant text even of the diatesseron this may be valid. The diatesseron exists in Gr,Arabic & Farsi but not in Aramaic. This in and of itself seems strange since only a Syr. fragment of a commentary on it exists.

1. However, the Peshitta itself contains quotes and close similarities from the extant LXX where it varies from MT. This has not been satisfactorily explained.

2. In the caves at Qumran, a very strict sect, Greek mss were found along with Hebrew OT fragments and Aramaic mss. These people who withdrew from society in TRADE and SOCIALIZATION KNEW GREEK. How much more then would some commercial fishermen, TAX agents, physicians, etc?

3. Paul, a ROMAN citizen, interacted with people in Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, etc. Clearly GREEK cities. Why would he converse in Aramaic with them?

It seems better to understand the Gospels from Aramaic as this was the ipissima vox of Y'shua but from Acts through the Epistles to the Apocolypse we ought to lean on Greek.

We are blessed to have two major early traditions quoted by the Church fathers. It seems incumbent that we do not ignore either.

JD

Yuri Kuchinsky

Welcome aboard, JD!

It's good to hear from someone who's already studied these things (and perhaps may even be able to cite his sources).

Here are a few corrections, though.

Your last sentence isn't so clear. In general, I don't think that this issue: "citations from LXX vs. the citations from MT" can really tell us all that much. AFAIK, the Old Syriac gospels mostly quote from the MT, but it's quite a complex subject.

Quote:

Papias did refer to Matthew having written in the dialect of the Hebrews and everyone else translated as their ability allowed. Tatian's 2nd century diatesseron (diapente as Thomas perhaps included at first) was perhaps the earliest evidence for a Syriac version.

But it's far from clear if Tatian really wrote the Diatessaron. Also it's far from clear that Thomas was a source for the Diatessaron. Also it's not at all clear that the Diatessaron was the earliest Syriac version.

Quote:

However the Peshitta did not replace the diatesseron until the 5th century. It seems strange that no mss for Peshitta predate this event. Some have said the mss were perhaps destroyed by the persecution of the early eastern Church and also easterners would not allow the mss to become tattered and thence would destroy them so as not to profane them. Since we do not have an extant text even of the diatesseron this may be valid. The diatesseron exists in Gr,Arabic & Farsi but not in Aramaic. This in and of itself seems strange since only a Syr. fragment of a commentary on it exists.

No, the Diatessaron doesn't exist in Greek at this time. And also, substantial parts of the Diatessaron do exist in Syriac after all, since we now have Ephrem's commentary in Syriac (besides the Armenian version of it). And the Diatessaron also exists in a few other languages.

Quote:

1. However, the Peshitta itself contains quotes and close similarities from the extant LXX where it varies from MT. This has not been satisfactorily explained. 2. In the caves at Qumran, a very strict sect, Greek mss were found along with Hebrew OT fragments and Aramaic mss. These people who withdrew from society in TRADE and SOCIALIZATION KNEW GREEK. How much more then would some commercial fishermen, TAX agents, physicians, etc? 3. Paul, a ROMAN citizen, interacted with people in Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, etc. Clearly GREEK cities. Why would he converse in Aramaic with them? It seems better to understand the Gospels from Aramaic as this was the ipissima vox of Y'shua but from Acts through the Epistles to the Apocolypse we ought to lean on Greek. We are blessed to have two major early traditions quoted by the Church fathers. It seems incumbent that we do not ignore either. JD

So these were just a few comments.

Cheers,

Yuri.

jdmins

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Welcome aboard, JD!

Thanks

Your last sentence isn't so clear. In general, I don't think that this issue: "citations from LXX vs. the citations from MT" can really tell us all that much. AFAIK, the Old Syriac gospels mostly quote from the MT, but it's quite a complex subject.?

They can tell us volumes since the LXX source text predates the MT text (other than the DSS mss). That is to say what common document is both the PNT & GNT quoting when it varies from MT?




But it's far from clear if Tatian really wrote the Diatessaron. Also it's far from clear that Thomas was a source for the Diatessaron. Also it's not at all clear that the Diatessaron was the earliest Syriac version.

Well 1)He did come back from Rome with it, 2) He was Assyrian & 3) It was distinct from the OS, to quote the late Dr. F F Bruce "The New Testament Documents..Are they Reliable?"p24. I didn't claim it was the oldest Syriac but that it was the AV of the Assyrian church pre-Peshitta. Perhaps it was compiled from OS although it has distinction from OS and was quoted by the church fathers.
And my reference to Thomas as the fifth original was due to the popularity with some. Perhaps it was that of the Nazarenes or Hebrews.



No, the Diatessaron doesn't exist in Greek at this time.

Not completely, but per Dr Bruce a fragment @ Dura Europas on the Euphrates was found in GREEK in 1933, so a Greek version did exist at one time. .(Bruce, p.23)(Also Zondervan's BE supports this fact). Per the Zondervan Bible Encyclopedia, it's clear church fathers quote the diatesseron, more so than the OS. This is evidence that it was held in higher esteem. So then my claim is that this document, written originally in Syriac, doesn't even have a complete extant Syriac ms, NOT ONE. Yet it was quoted by the early fathers and an entire commentary was written about it. Yet it does not exist in its mother tongue.

My point is 1) if there is Greek evidence, and there is, 2) and there is little or no Aramaic evidence, and there are only fragments,(In fact per Zondervan's our greatest info on the diatesseron is from several Arabic texts and the commentary I mentioned previously and above (by Ephraem in Syriac CE 368) and 3) there is significant mention by the church fathers, then the purging theory has merit.


JD

judge

Hi again yuri!


Yuri:
Oh, come on, judge.

You gotta give us your source for this claim... I think it can be safely assumed that you, yourself, didn't go out there and examine all those 350 MSS of the Peshitta personally to come to this conclusion (this should have taken you many years!).

Judge:
Lol...yes you are right I did not check out all 350 mss. . I have heard many times that the variants exist, but no one is ever able to demonstrate them. This makes me think ore and more they do not exist. This does not seem unreasonable, why should I believe they are there if no one can show me the evidence?
I am talking here about variations between eastern peshitta.


Yuri:
So then what are you basing your claim on? Some fundy website?

Judge:
Ok here is a reference. And it is not from a fundy website..lol
I did get it from www.peshitta.org......I don't think they could be called fundy..although I am australian and to be honest I dont think I am sure what a fundy is.


4. The Syriac Peshitta. The word
“peshitta” has generally been understood
as
“simple” or “clear,” not unlike the
term “vulgate” applied to the
received
Latin translation. This version of the
New Testament is used by
both East
Syrians (Nestorians) and West Syrians (Jacobites)
and therefore certainly
predates the division of the Syriac
church along political, geographical, and

theological lines during the mid-5th century.
More precise dating of the

translation has provoked controversy. Some have
dated it as early as
the late
1st or early 2d century. Burkitt
(1901) argued that it was
from the early 5th
century and later suggested that it
was translated by Rabbula of
Edessa
(Burkitt 1904). This conclusion has been
contested by Vööbus (1951b), who

argued that it was much older
although slow to achieve dominance
in the
Syriac-speaking church.

[font color=red]The manuscript tradition is quite
uniform. There are remarkably few
variants
in the Peshitta as compared to
the Old Syriac or Greek
versions. Its textual
tradition is well documented by the
hundreds of manuscripts preserved, the

earliest manuscript (ca. 460–464) probably being
Paris Syriac 296.1 in the

Bibliotheque Nationale which contains Luke 6:49–21:37.[/font]
No adequate critical
edition of the entire NT in
the Peshitta version has been
published despite
the fact that the first printed
edition was done at Venice
as early as 1555.
The best text available, based on
earlier editions which were themselves
only
partial collations of the manuscript evidence,
is published by the Bible

Society as The New Testament in
Syriac. This printing has no
critical
apparatus. It also contains the Apocalypse
and General Epistles, which were

not part of the Peshitta translation,
but based on the Philoxenian
version.


Anchor Bible Dictionary


Yuri:
I've already given you a valid quote from an expert, but this wasn't enough for you, apparently. So let's see who your "expert" is...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Judge:
Your quote did not demonstrate variations between eastern peshitta necessarily, but only between eastern and western aramaic texts.
again, can you provide an actual example? We can easily find many many examples in the greek

All the best, and thanks again for your input and time.

Yuri Kuchinsky

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jdmins

Quote:

Yuri: Your last sentence isn't so clear. In general, I don't think that this issue: "citations from LXX vs. the citations from MT" can really tell us all that much. AFAIK, the Old Syriac gospels mostly quote from the MT, but it's quite a complex subject.? JD: They can tell us volumes since the LXX source text predates the MT text (other than the DSS mss).

Well, JD, that's quite a statement! But I'm sure quite a few folks will disagree with you, i.e. that "LXX source text predates the MT text". Although, I, myself will not have great objections to this...

Quote:

That is to say what common document is both the PNT & GNT quoting when it varies from MT?

Well, first it needs to be established that PNT (Peshitta NT) varies a lot from MT in its OT citations. Also, the Old Syriac gospels need to be compared with the Peshitta in this regard.

Myself, I'm not really all that interested in the Peshitta, so I don't have that info handy.

Quote:

Yuri: But it's far from clear if Tatian really wrote the Diatessaron. Also it's far from clear that Thomas was a source for the Diatessaron. Also it's not at all clear that the Diatessaron was the earliest Syriac version. JD: Well 1)He did come back from Rome with it, 2) He was Assyrian & 3) It was distinct from the OS, to quote the late Dr. F F Bruce "The New Testament Documents..Are they Reliable?"p24.

Please read my article "Tatian was the author?",
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/5832

This has quite a lot of evidence that Tatian didn't really write the Diatessaron.

Quote:

I didn't claim it was the oldest Syriac but that it was the AV of the Assyrian church pre-Peshitta. Perhaps it was compiled from OS although it has distinction from OS and was quoted by the church fathers. And my reference to Thomas as the fifth original was due to the popularity with some. Perhaps it was that of the Nazarenes or Hebrews.

Was there a "fifth gospel" that was the source of DT? I doubt it.

Let me tell you something, JD. I've been studying the Diatessaron for quite some time now, and I can summarise the results of my research very briefly as follows. Basically, *nothing is known for sure about the Diatessaron*. And even those few things on which there's some sort of a consensus among scholars are usually highly doubtful, when one investigates them carefully. This whole area is the veritable Black Hole of NT scholarship.

Quote:

Yuri: No, the Diatessaron doesn't exist in Greek at this time. JD: Not completely, but per Dr Bruce a fragment @ Dura Europas on the Euphrates was found in GREEK in 1933, so a Greek version did exist at one time. .(Bruce, p.23)(Also Zondervan's BE supports this fact).

But, then again, a few scholars think that the Dura fragment (of which I'm well aware) represents a separate harmonisation. Keep in mind that it's a very tiny fragment, in any case.

Quote:

Per the Zondervan Bible Encyclopedia, it's clear church fathers quote the diatesseron, more so than the OS. This is evidence that it was held in higher esteem. So then my claim is that this document, written originally in Syriac, doesn't even have a complete extant Syriac ms, NOT ONE. Yet it was quoted by the early fathers and an entire commentary was written about it. Yet it does not exist in its mother tongue. My point is 1) if there is Greek evidence, and there is, 2) and there is little or no Aramaic evidence, and there are only fragments,

But there's a lot more evidence for a Syriac DT than for the Greek DT. Which Greek father cites a Greek DT? Hardly anyone! (But of course there's Justin who cites a pre-DT, i.e. a Harmony of sorts, but only of 3 gospels.)

Quote:

(In fact per Zondervan's our greatest info on the diatesseron is from several Arabic texts and the commentary I mentioned previously and above (by Ephraem in Syriac CE 368) and 3) there is significant mention by the church fathers, then the purging theory has merit. JD

I'm not disputing the purging theory...

Most "standard reference books" in this area are out to lunch. The Arabic DT isn't a very pure text -- it's been heavily Vulgatized (i.e. harmonised with the later canonical gospels). There's currently no consensus among DT specialists (of which there are maybe 5 in the whole world) as to which surviving copy of DT is closest to the original. There are wide disagreements even in this area.

But of course, I have my own theory...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, judge, that's a start. At least we now have some refs from you...

But please note that none of your quotes really support what you were saying previously.

Obviously, you must have been asking the wrong folks!

Quote:

Yuri: So then what are you basing your claim on? Some fundy website? Judge: Ok here is a reference. And it is not from a fundy website..lol I did get it from www.peshitta.org I don't think they could be called fundy... although I am australian and to be honest I dont think I am sure what a fundy is.

A Christian Fundamentalist! So how do you call them in the land of Oz?

And I think it can be safely said that the www.peshitta.org people are some sort of Christian Fundamentalists, since most of them seem to be members of the Church of the East, for whom the Peshitta is the Holy Scripture -- the only "True Bible". This is NOT a secular academic website interested in "objective scholarship".

Quote:

The manuscript tradition is quite uniform. There are remarkably few variants in the Peshitta as compared to the Old Syriac or Greek versions.

So just how "few" is "remarkably few"?

Quote:

Its textual tradition is well documented by the hundreds of manuscripts preserved, the earliest manuscript (ca. 460–464) probably being Paris Syriac 296.1 in the Bibliotheque Nationale which contains Luke 6:49–21:37.

I think this is wrong. AFAIK, our earliest Peshitta MS of the gospels is dated in 411 CE. (Although I'm now checking on this to make sure this is correct.)

Quote:

No adequate critical edition of the entire NT in the Peshitta version has been published despite the fact that the first printed edition was done at Venice as early as 1555. The best text available, based on earlier editions which were themselves only partial collations of the manuscript evidence, is published by the Bible Society as The New Testament in Syriac. This printing has no critical apparatus.

So there's something that should have been a big hint for you already... Do you actually know what a "critical apparatus" is? A critical apparatus is a set of footnotes where the variants in various MSS are itemised. Thus, if the Peshitta needs a critical apparatus... roll the drums! ... this means that there are *noteworthy variants in various MSS* that *need to be itemised*!

Now, there's an old edition of the Peshitta that *does* have a critical apparatus (Pusey and Gwilliam's edition). So if you're checking on the variants in the Peshitta, this is where you'd need to go.

Basically, it seems like you've read something somewhere on this subject, and then misinterpreted it. That's why I insisted that you cite some sources for us -- since I suspected that this might be the case. Or else, that you were some sort of a Christian Fundamentalist, although now this doesn't seem to be the case..

All the best,

Yuri.

jdmins

[B]

Well, first it needs to be established that PNT (Peshitta NT) varies a lot from MT in its OT citations. Also, the Old Syriac gospels need to be compared with the Peshitta in this regard.

Why does it have to vary alot? If it follows the the LXX rather than the MT its a dead give away.

Myself, I'm not really all that interested in the Peshitta, so I don't have that info handy.

I have a Peshitta as it is very near and dear to me. Keep in mind the GNT itself does not always quote the LXX either.
There are reasons for that.

There are also Aramaisms in basic Greek passages like John. Although this may not result from translations of text but of linguistic syntax.

[B]

Please read my article "Tatian was the author?",
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/5832


Please email it to me. I went the the link and 6500 messages showed up. I appreciate your patience.

This has quite a lot of evidence that Tatian didn't really write the Diatessaron.

[B]

Was there a "fifth gospel" that was the source of DT? I doubt it.

Keep in mind DT was originally referred to in Greek as the "diapente". (Zondervan-A Standard Reference Guide) A few commentators I read did believe the 5th was the "GOT".

Let me tell you something, JD. I've been studying the Diatessaron for quite some time now, and I can summarise the results of my research very briefly as follows. Basically, *nothing is known for sure about the Diatessaron*.

In theology school we learned to weigh the evidence by what we DO know for sure. Why is there only a Greek fragment? Simple, Tatian was considered a heretic in the west, Greek speaking communities, it would seem all Greek copies would have been destroyed. Doesn't it give more evidence that he was the editor. That is to say, considered by the Western fathers as a heretic (this we know for sure) Tatian's DT was banned in the west (this we know for sure). If he didn't write it the Western fathers have egg on their face. You ask why didn't the Greek fathers quote the DT? They considered him to be a heretic later when he went to extreme asceticism. So to find a fragment of Greek and have merely fragments in the mother tongue of Tatian is all the more support for the purity of the mss.

Keep in mind the PNT varies from the OS. Some GNT variants are followed closely by the OS and others by PNT. Sometimes the PNT varies from all GNT variants and the OS. Keep in mind these are mostly only slight variants. The PNT varies little whereas the GNT varies more significantly. When you consider the corruption the Church has had to overcome it is undersdtandable.


And even those few things on which there's some sort of a consensus among scholars are usually highly doubtful, when one investigates them carefully. This whole area is the veritable Black Hole of NT scholarship.

That is why Christian doctrine cannot be based on the variances but the harmonies. The thread that runs from the Torah, through the Prophets and the writings continues to weave its way through-out the NT. Scripture itself states there must be two or more to bear witness. Faith is only the catalyst.

[B]

But, then again, a few scholars think that the Dura fragment (of which I'm well aware) represents a separate harmonisation. Keep in mind that it's a very tiny fragment, in any case.


Keep in mind HE was rejected by the West as a heretic.

[B]

But there's a lot more evidence for a Syriac DT than for the Greek DT. Which Greek father cites a Greek DT?

See above for the reason that no western father would cite HIM.


Hardly anyone! (But of course there's Justin who cites a pre-DT, i.e. a Harmony of sorts, but only of 3 gospels.)

He may have been the inspiration for such a project, huh?



I'm not disputing the purging theory...

Most "standard reference books" in this area are out to lunch. The Arabic DT isn't a very pure text -- it's been heavily Vulgatized (i.e. harmonised with the later canonical gospels).

So some citics say. I have seen copies of such fragments and the Arabic text pre-dates Qu'ran significantly.. The only way that cliam can be validated is by the Syrian Commentary varying significantly. I have never read anything by the late FF Bruce the previous foremost textual scholar, or Gordon Fee, the world's most prominent English textual scholar alive, showing that the Arabic text has been corrupted. PLease refer me to this evidence if you would please induldge me.

But of course, I have my own theory...

I would like to hear it, please.