aikido7

"The Q Gospel is a strong argument in support that Jesus and earliest Christianity were also Greek speaking. It was written in Greek in Galilee sometime in the 50's C.E. The fact that Matthew and Luke often display nearly verbatim agreement (Q3:7b-9; 10:13-15; 11:24-26; 11:31-32; 13:2-21) indicates that they were following a written document and that it was written in Greek.

"But could Q have orignally been in Aramaic and then translated into Greek before Matthew and Luke used it?

"Here again the evidence is overwhelming that Q was orignally in Greek. 'Q's Greek, as measured with several indices,....is notably different from the profile of Septuagint books that are known to have been translated from Hebrew and Aramic.' (see Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel p. 78; full details pp. 72-80).

"The Q Gospel originated no later than the 50's in Galilee, a region associated with Jesus. Its Greek text indicates that from a very early period the Jesus group in Galilee was bilungual. Was Jesus, then, able to use Greek? It would certainly seem so."

Bernard Scott, The Fourth R

Alas, the quote from Guenther is a resume and the original would have to be traced down to back issues of Semeia.

judge

Hi again Aikido7.
Are you saying that the ONLY evidence for Q is that some passages in Matthew and Luke display nearly verbatim agreement, and that some greek quotations vary from the LXX?


thanks.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Judge,

For basic textual matters, I recommend,

Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/

Robert B. Waltz, the author of this, is quite good in summarising basic textual issues as they are currently seen by TC scholars. While, personally, I'd have many disagreements with him, still, this is the consensus.

In particular, check out this,

Versions of the New Testament
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html

Quote:

I do admit there is little evidence of what language Paul wrote in. But if I can suggest something slightly provocative ...there is nothing to suggest he necesarily wrote in greek. Perhaps you know something we could discuss? I'm sure you must be aware of the so called mistranslation of romans 5:7. What do you make of this?

Well, I haven't dealt with the textual issues in Pauline literature for many years now. Basically, I think the whole thing is mostly a fraud, because Paul didn't really write a lot of this stuff. The authenticity of Pauline literature is highly questionable in my view.

So I will only stay with the gospels for now, because this is the area that I know well.

But, to make the long story short, "Paul's letters" are in Greek, and nobody of the ancients had ever said that they were written in anything but Greek. (One exception is the pseudo-Pauline "Epistle to the Hebrews".) So I'm not really interested in pursuing this line of enquiry at this time. I don't see it as very promising.

Quote:

Yuri: AFAIK, there's no evidence that there's less variation in the Peshitta MS tradition, compared to the Greek MS tradition. But please note, _even_ if I was proven to be wrong on this, still, this would not be a valid argument for the Peshitta text being more "original". Rather, IMHO, this would be an argument for the Greek text being more original (since most scholars agree that the earliest gospel texts featured more variability). Judge: I am fairly certain there is no variation in peshitta texts. if there is it is extremely little.

There's certainly variation. _Every_ ancient textual tradition shows variation. The only question is how much.

Quote:

On the second point, why do scholars agree that earliest texts show more variation.

This is just one of these things that are accepted widely. It's a commonplace in the literature. I can supply many citations. But to discuss this now will take us very far away from the present subject.

I recommend you read Bart D. Ehrman, THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: THE EFFECT OF EARLY CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. London: Oxford University Press, 1993. He covers this issue there.

Quote:

How was the peshitta text abndoned? It is still used today in the liturgy of the COE.

Sorry, I was imprecise in what I said. You're right that the Peshitta text was not abandoned by the COE (Church of the East). Rather, it seems to have been abandoned by the Catholic circles in Syria, hence the two later versions that are a lot closer to the standard Catholic Greek texts.

The COE split from the Catholics, and later there was the Muslim conquest, and the Catholic Church lost all direct influence in these areas. Hence the Peshitta remained in use by the COE.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Aikido,

Far be it from me to be disrespectful to Kloppenborg, seeing that he's here in Toronto, and has been my good acquaintance for years, but still I must say that Q's star seems to be declining now... A lot of mainstream NT scholars are abandoning Q!

Thus, if there was no Q, then your argument will not be very persuasive.

But it's a very big and convoluted argument in its own right.

Cheers,

Yuri.

judge

Hi Yuri,
Thanks for the links. I will check them out and very probably return to you.

In the meantime (and we can limit this to the gospels), you have said.

There's certainly variation. _Every_ ancient textual tradition shows variation. The only question is how much.

I still think that whilst there may be variation between the peshitta and texts in other languages there are no variations between texts of the peshitta.

Do you know of any variations between ancient (fist mill) texts of the peshitta. I am aware there are two deliberate changes to the text of the peshitto, but none between peshitta and peshitta.

thanks again.

aikido7

I would hazard an ejaculation that if that is the ONLY evidence, it is flimsy indeed. I'll bet that Kloppenborg is your man to study. And maybe Burton Mack. And I'll also bet there are plenty who disagree with him you could study as well. Hell, you could even read a dose or two of Josh McDowell. I am sure he has valid reasons and arguments for his points, too. That's what makes this stuff interesting as well as maddening.

As for me, I haven't been trained in first-century textual criticism or paleography. I remain a dwarf standing on the shoulders of others.

Your obese servant,

aikido7

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear judge,

As someone who's been working with various ancient MSS for quite some time, I can once again assure you that every ancient textual tradition shows variation. The scribes are only human, and they always make mistakes. Not to speak about deliberate alterations, both stylistic and theological.

Here's some evidence for you.

Review of Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol02/Kiraz1997rev.html

[quote]

The novice may be misled by the representation of the Peshitta [in Kiraz' edition] by a single line of text when, in fact, its tradition is represented by many manuscripts, with many important variant readings.

[unquote]

So, as you can see, Petersen, the author of this review, says that there are "many important variant readings" in the Peshitta MSS.

All the best,

Yuri.

PS. By the way, this website, http://rosetta.reltech.org is generally a good source of info about TC.

judge

Hi yuri,
Thanks for those links once again!


Yuri:
Dear judge,

As someone who's been working with various ancient MSS for quite some time, I can once again assure you that every ancient textual tradition shows variation. The scribes are only human, and they always make mistakes. Not to speak about deliberate alterations, both stylistic and theological.

Here's some evidence for you.

Review of Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol02/Kiraz1997rev.html

[quote]

The novice may be misled by the representation of the Peshitta [in Kiraz' edition] by a single line of text when, in fact, its tradition is represented by many manuscripts, with many important variant readings.

[unquote]

Judge:
Yuri I still suspect quite strongly that the variants here are between the peshitta (eastern manuscripts) and the peshitto(western manuscripts).

This quote from encyclopaedia brittanica may help.
"Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be superior..."

Kiraz used the peshitto in his work, but the ancient peshitta mss don't vary (I am pretty sure).

Judge

Yuri Kuchinsky

You're welcome, judge.

Quote:

Judge: Yuri I still suspect quite strongly that the variants here are between the peshitta (eastern manuscripts) and the peshitto(western manuscripts). This quote from encyclopaedia brittanica may help. "Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be superior..." Kiraz used the peshitto in his work, but the ancient peshitta mss don't vary (I am pretty sure). Judge

So why are you so sure? What is the basis of your theory? Is it unique to yourself?

BTW, Peshitta and Peshitto is actually the same word in written Syriac. It's only the regional pronunciation of this word that's different. The actual differences between Peshitta and Peshitto MSS are really quite small. Too small for me to worry about, since it's quite obvious that both Peshitta and Peshitto are rather late texts, compared to the Old Syriac.

Cheers,

Yuri.

judge

Hi again Yuri and thanks for your time...

Yuri:
So why are you so sure? What is the basis of your theory? Is it unique to yourself?

Judge:
I have only ever heard that the 350 or so eastern peshitta texts are identical. I have never before heard anyone suggest that there are the kind of variants that exist between greek copies.

I could be wrong quite easily but it seems strange that I have not ever seen this point challenged.
One difficulty in acertainig this is that compared to the greek mss the peshitta has not been much studied by english speaking Christians.
Can you point to any variants at all? I suspect you will have trouble but i could be wrong.

Yuri:

BTW, Peshitta and Peshitto is actually the same word in written Syriac.

Judge:
Yes but a distiction seems to be made between the eastern peshitta and the western peshitto.

Yuri:
It's only the regional pronunciation of this word that's different. The actual differences between Peshitta and Peshitto MSS are really quite small.

Judge:
Yes there are dialectical differences but these are small. There are also a couple of verses which seem to have been changed to reflect different Christology. Acts 20 church of God vs church of Christ...and I think Hebrews 2:9.
I think I can find some detailed info on this if you like.

yuri:
Too small for me to worry about, since it's quite obvious that both Peshitta and Peshitto are rather late texts, compared to the Old Syriac.

Judge:
Can you give me an example of why the peshitta is a late text. This is of great interest to me

All the best