Peshitta Forum
use of OS by ancient Aramaic-speaking Christians - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (
+-- Forum: New Testament (
+--- Forum: General (
+--- Thread: use of OS by ancient Aramaic-speaking Christians (/showthread.php?tid=860)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

- Dave - 05-14-2004

Discrimination. I'm not sure how you Paul, managed to read discrimination out of Yuri's post, but that is not the content implied. In fact let me talk a little about this so-called topic of discrimination.

My first wife was black, my youngest brother married one of her sisters and had kids. My families are midwestern white. Now you guys put 2 and 2 together and picture what was the onslaught out of those families who had to deal with the changes my brother and I imposed upon them.

Over the years I have noticed people use discrimination as a weapon, really the guilt of it involved. I had it happen a few times and because I had dealt with it and seen my fair share of discrimination, those folks who were assuming they had another weakminded individual in front of them that they could control, got a big surprise. Things have erupted into fistfights at times, I wasn't the sympathetic individual they were expecting to take control of. All this was on a strict confrontational level, very personal, not something that some generations before me supposedly went through, now I'm trying to utilize that as my "angle" before people. Don't try the discriminational thing with me fellas, when it isn't there, Dave ain't buying, so sell it to someone else who has thin skin, and a weakmind.

I read through Yuri's post many times, and it has no element of it. And believe me, if it did, I would be all over him or whoever it was, on here. It is not subtle, nor is it implied. Period.

Shoot, let's talk about this so-called tradition and faith. What does tradition have in common with textual criticism? Does faith shape any amount of it? Your answers should be nothing and no, that is if your unbiased.

Ahhh that word,...bias. Now does tradition and faith have a hand in being biased? Heh, don't let the reverb through the halls of the resounding yes knock you down off your stool.

Anyways, I think I will follow something shown to me here. If any of you really think that you have it all figured out and that your "sacred text" is the end all be all of everything,....then by all means continue in your path and just ignore any sort of differing element. By all means fellas, have at it. Just give your lectures, write your books, do your thing on message boards or whatever it is that you are accountable for in the end.

The reason I say this, is because you have no effect on the scholarly world, especially you Mister Roth. You folks and the scholarly world are in 2 different rooms, and neither of you are talking. And you know what, maybe that is for the better. The scholarly world will not believe you guys for thinking that everything outside of the eastern arena is false, and you guys refuse to accept anything of "western" origin. Again, maybe that is for the better, because the scholarly world may get more done that way.

So I implore you, continue on your path and ignore the scholarly world.

Although Mister Trimm may have his areas that are questionable, is he not a servant of The Almighty? A couple times I got a check inside about my wrong thoughts over him, especially from this forum. GOD always uses the unwise and weak to put to shame those who fancy themselves as greater, no? Let's all nods our heads together with Dave.

We truley are unable to envision what GOD has for His people. Although Mister Trimms false ideals center around this eutopia of messianic purportions, it's his critical text of the manuscripts that he brings to the masses, those that have remained untranslated for years, that are the hidden gems others are not paying attention to. Whether he truley realizes it or not, he provides a unique aspect that others have refused to do, for whatever reasons. They just refuse to do that sort of work, and desire to promote themselves when they are suppose to deny themselves.

Rather than belch out the same old observances that others have or continue to do, he is looking for new things, and translating them for the masses so that they can make judgements for themselves rather than listen to opinions and assumptions from those who belittle. I gotta admire that.

Where are the rest who do such work for the masses, who bring texts out into the open for others to see? Or those who can correct any mistakes that the originator may have made? Shall there be others who collate texts and critique them? Does a word borrowed from a greek text mean anything whatsoever to one who plans to do comparison work amongst these texts, and others? Nope. Maybe amongst purists/text biased individuals, yes then it would.

Some people really have a small idea of what GOD is doing at times, but many truley have no idea of the extent He is willing to go for those who seek Him with all their heart.

Sacred text. I like that one Mister Roth, that was a pretty good one.

- Dave - 05-14-2004

Sacred text huh? That was quite audacious Mister Roth.

Quote:Let's be clear here: The western scholars and their ilk are saying that they do NOT trust the word of the Church of the East, that the Church of the East cannot tell the difference between the real Peshitta manuscripts and Old Syriac that they claim to have never used, that the Church of the East deliberately obscured or otherwise ripped from their annals "proof" that the Peshitta is revised from Old Syriac. This, the west says, the COE did, EVEN THOUGH THEIR OWN BYLAWS, ANNALS AND RECORDS SCREAM THE REVERSE.

Interesting. So in your eyes, no one would ever change, revise, or alter an aramaic text, at least one from the east. Hmmmm, let's see here.

Let's take an example, say,....that arabic diatesseron that is being talked about here lately. Let's just use reason and common sense here and see what we find.

Of course Paul has stated earlier that this was annotated as being a copy from the diatesseron of Tatian, by a monk of substantial background. The text is arabic, and matches the Peshitta almost word for word. Where it doesn't can easily be attributed to translational errors in the other language from aramaic. Ok, now what evidence do we have of the Diatesseron of Tatian? Well, not much. Ephrems syriac and armenian commentaries, a greek fragment, and possible quotes from apostolic fathers that may have been in contact with it.

Ok then. Does the text match up to the evidence and support it's claim in the inscription? No. For someone to believe that this was the actual text of Tatian's, one would have to believe in every place that Ephrem and others quoted the Diatesseron, where it agreed with the OS, that it was mere coincedence, that they just happen to paraphrase all those areas and it closely resembled the OS by accident alone, complete coincidence. Also, that the aforementioned greek fragment is of something else, since it doesn't agree either with this text.

What about other harmonies? No, it doesn't agree with them, but they don't claim to be a copy of Tatians Diatesseron either. Their text is a copy from something else, with definete roots in Old Latin, and possible roots in syriac

But wait Dave, stop the presses, you can't use western evidences against it! Oh really? Who made that rule, and thinks that I'm gonna adhere to it? That is quite limiting to the overall scope here, and would do no justice to what evidence there actually is on Tatian's work. What? Just throw out the evidence and go on faith alone here? Ok Pal.

So what is the conclusion? It's a copy of the Peshitta, since it doesn't agree with the evidence supplied, not even in a remote way. It would be rediculous to accept this as Tatian's Diatesseron, or completely biased.

So what/who lied here? Both, the text and the inscriber.

On top of this, if we are to also accept the Peshitta as original, then we the general public, would have to accept that every apostle that came down throughout the ages, who wrote memoirs for us to meditate on, wrote only in aramaic throughout their stay here. No other languages were ever used. Remember this is suppose to be from an original source, from the hands of the apostles themselves. This is also the same as believing that the text only came down in greek, either way, it's a language bias to support a personal belief or faith if you want.

So why would someone take a peshitta harmony and label it as Tatian's Diatesseron? To lie and fool people into believing something else, or even to support a racial bias, as bad as that sounds.

Is this different than the recensions that were happening in the Greek? Yes, because it is sneaky. There are multiple copies that acutally show the recensional work in progress throughout the greek, there is no denying it, the proof is up front. This is hidden to the unsuspecting.

So no one would ever change a text huh Mister Roth? That was a total common sense approach there, and a basic reasonable look at this. To believe different than what was just shown would be untrue to oneself, and to The Lord. But there are those who would desire to be blind and untrue, huh?

Go buy the books yourself. Do your own homework, I did, and try to remain unbiased.

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Shlama Akhi Dave,

I never called it discrimination. If I were black, white, korean, eskimo or even cherokee Yuri would be forced to address my evidence without charging "pride" and "tradition."

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say. It's the Truth.

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Akhi Dave,

For the sake of argument, let's just agree that St. Ephraem (of Edessa in Byzantium) used some western harmony exclusively. OK - for the sake of argument, I'm willing to just give you that.

Who cares? Because one person used it, that means that it predates the Peshitta? Or is more original than the Peshitta?

I have shown a dozen examples on the 101 forum of St. Aphrahat (of Beth-Nuhadra in Mesopotamia), who lived and wrote before Ephraem mind you, where he quotes the Peshitta exclusively against Old Scratch and whatever harmony you want to talk about.

When will either you or Yuri acknowledge that evidence? Don't call it "bias" and "pride", either. Address the evidence, please.

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Akhi Dave,

What's this god-status you give to the "scholarly world?" Why should I trust them and not the evidence in the text themselves, my own history and culture?

You mean to tell me that if I lived back when Burkitt, the fool's, theories reigned supreme - that I should have listened to him and accepted that Rabbula of Edessa made the Peshitta? Everyone else followed him at the time - you would have, too, because you would have bought his books and have been impressed - just like you do with today's "Burkitts."

What do I care about the "scholarly world?" I'm not rushing out and subscribing to their "life happened by chance" bull, nor do I care if they don't believe in a God. Should I? Maybe I should, huh? They are, after all, the "scholary world."

I guess it's all about who you trust and what history you trust. You seem to want to trust anything that comes out of the western church history and western "scholarship", and that's of course your choice.

I don't trust a thing about them. I see what they've done in the manuscript tradition of theirs. That's their mess to clean up, yours to apologize for if you'll have it. Not me - I'll have none of it, thank you.

If a well-renowned secretary to the Patriarch of the Church of the East said that he translated Tatian's original Aramaic Diatesseron into Arabic, then I believe him. I have no reason not to, with the track record and with the respectibility of the manuscript tradition of the Church of the East.

They've never given me a reason to doubt their word. Why should I? Do they have any manuscripts where the scribe himself complained about revisions and "not leaving the old reading alone?"


Again - you don't have to believe the Arabic Diatesseron. You can go right ahead and believe the modern-day Burkitts of the world. Just don't expect the rest of us to blindly follow along.

None of us here are "scholars", and thank God for that. Neither was Mar Aphrahat - and I'd much rather be like him any day of the week than like the people who currently sit on the chairs of universities.

You see this gentleman here, do you? He never held any degree from western "universities" nor did he ever care what Burkitt, Voobus or Metzger said. But I'll tell you what - when he was a mere 12 years old he could put the whole gang of them to flight with his knowledge.

[Image: priest.jpg]

His only fault was, of course, that he was dark-skinned - an Assyrian, just like Tatian whom you claim used "western" texts. The irony is that if you ever read Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" (found in the "articles" section), you would realize how much love that particular Assyrian individual had for anything "Western."

Nevertheless, if this gentleman was alive today, Yuri would say he could not be trusted in scientific methodology because he has "pride" and "tradition"...and you would say that he is "bias." All because he belongs to a certain church and a certain tradition. Both are charges which, of course, you guys are immune to. We have bias - you guys are objective. You don't belong to any "tradition" or have any "pride" or "bias." Right.

This website, this whole endeavor, is a grass-roots effort for people who like to think for themselves. People who are not satisfied with the mess that the Western church and scholarship has created out of Chrisitianity and our Holy Texts.

We're not impressed with quotes from "scholars" - we are impressed by evidence. If you're impressed by evidence, then you should answer my posts.

For the sake of convenience, I will list them again so it will be very easy for any of you to try and convince me that Aphrahat (another Assyrian, ca. 280-341) used anything BUT the Peshitta. Here they are - all you have to do is click on the links and answer the post:

I can come up with 50 more examples, if you'd like. You know I can, too. But why don't we start off with these? Why are you guys silent about these examples?

Don't you believe me? Do you think I'm like the Greeks and made these readings up? Is this my "pride", "bias" and "tradition", talking again, and not my "scientific" self?

These examples are not "science" to you? They don't follow "scientific methodology?"

Well, then answer them. Why has it been EIGHT months, Yuri? Have you nothing to say?

- Dave - 05-14-2004

No Paul, your right, you didn't, but you jumped on the bandwagon when Mister Dana mentioned it, and was in total agreement with him. Yuri said what he said in a very mature, elquoent manner so as not to offend anyone, and all 3 of you jumped at the possibility of it being discrimination.

Quote:For the sake of argument, let's just agree that St. Ephraem (of Edessa in Byzantium) used some western harmony exclusively. OK - for the sake of argument, I'm willing to just give you that.

Why Paul, your so kind! Thanks for trying to make me believe something else outside of what things really are.

Uhhh Paul? Why are there some word for word Peshitta readings in Ephrems commentary and not strickly western text readings????

Interesting huh?

You are gonna actually try to tell me, actually lie to me, and tell me that the evidence that can be attributed to Tatian's Diatesseron doesn't show tampering on the part of someone out of the east in this arabic manuscript??

Oh, Oh, Oh,,.....also the known word for word Peshitta readings in it were strickly coincedence also just like the OS ones??

Since we have a definete case here of someone taking an "eastern" manuscript and doctoring it to prove priority of the Peshitta text, what else was doctored?? How about Ol' Mar Arphrahat? They already have instances where historical references were standardized to the received text in the greek, why not the peshitta?

Oh, and I won't buy the bit about an eastern person not doing this for fear of his bowels being cut out and roasted now, in light of these new events.

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Akhi Dave,

Again - the Arabic Diatesseron reads just like the Peshitta.

It may very well have been somebody in the West who altered Ephraem's readings, too.

Do you see how useless this discussion is?

How can you prove that Ephraem's commentary wasn't messed with by the western church?

How can I prove that Aphrahat's demonstrations weren't messed with by the eastern church?

We can't.

So there you have it. We must rely only on the texts themselves, and see which has the perfect grammar, which has mistranslation and which one is the more original reading.

We cannot trust what church "patristics" quote - since, like you said, they could have been tampered with.

And, you see, that's Yuri's (and Trimm's, and Metzger's) whole life you're about to throw away.

- Dave - 05-14-2004

dont try to sidetrack and swamp ol Dave with a mega amount of information, stick to the subject.

Here we have tampering on the part of someone out of the east, to conform a text to the Peshitta and dilerately denoting it as being tatian's, when the evidence proves different.

Are we gonna just blow this one off as being western somehow also?

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Dave, read my previous post.

- Dave - 05-14-2004

This is not just Ephrems commentary alone we are dealing with here Paul. The evidence is there. The text in this case doesn't stand.

- Dave - 05-14-2004

If we do go by originality of the Peshiita Paul, then age will become an issue also, and since nothing is earlier than around the 5th century of a text,.......

- yuku - 05-14-2004

judge Wrote:Thanks Yuri.

I think that your original words may be improved upon. I don't think it is really accurate to say....."I've presented the whole phrases from Aphrahat that agree with the Diatessaron and/or the Old Syriac word for word."

What we seem to have is whole phrases that do not agree word for word but are however closer in some points than the peshitta.

It is difficult to see how this could be evidence in a scientific sense.
This evidence does not compare to quotes from Aphrahat which actually do read word for word the same as the peshitta.

What do you think?

Shlama, Judge,

I don't quite understand what you're saying.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?t=204</a><!-- l -->

Below, we can confirm that the central part of Aphrahat's citation indeed reads exactly
the same as the OS Mk.

haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay
(Mk 10:20 SyS)
haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay

But Aphrahat reads very differently from the Peshitta Mark,

haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay
(Peshitta Mk 10:20)
haleyn kolahyn nitrat anyn, myn tlywty

Here are the English translations again,

"These -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child."
(Peshitta Mk 10:20)
"all these have I kept from my childhood."

The same phrase, word for word. And there are more in the same passage.



- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Akhi Dave,

There is a lot of evidence on the western side of the use of a western-style text. Ephraem is not the only one. A bunch of Greeks and Latins used western-style texts before he was even born. Ephraem was a Westerner - a Syrian.

There is a lot of evidence of the eastern side of the use of a eastern-style text. Aphrahat, the Arabic Diatesseron, and a whole bunch of them exist. Aphrahat and Tatian were both Easterners - Assyrians.

Trust what you like. Base your decision not only on your "bias", "tradition" and "pride" (like I have) - but also on the evidence provided by the manuscripts themselves. We have a whole bunch of examples on this forum.

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004


They are waiting for you...EIGHT MONTHS, Yuri....

- Paul Younan - 05-14-2004

Akhi Dave,

Dave Wrote:This is not just Ephrems commentary alone we are dealing with here Paul. The evidence is there. The text in this case doesn't stand.

Is that all it is to you? Is that the big problem?

Do you mean to tell me that if a 1st-century discovery in Israel unearths Aramaic manuscripts that read identically to the Peshitta, then all your problems with it will be solved?

In other words, is this the main issue with you?

What you would do if, tomorrow, this discovery is made?