11-25-2013, 03:37 AM
Now that you've simply brushed a very real counter-example to your argument off and have retreated to dogmatic assertions, my confidence that this can be a productive dialog from this point onwards has evaporated. Still I will try again...
The whole of the field of Syriac Studies and the greater field of Aramaic Studies does not find merit in the claims of those "Five [sic] Scholars on the Peshitta " (although I count four) as their statements do not weigh against the bulk of the evidence. They are statements of faith.
The crux of the issue with Josephus is that he wouldn't have written in 11th-12th century Syriac (which is a huge, unbridgeable gap).
The crux of the issue with the Peshitta is that Jesus did not speak 4th-5th century Classical Syriac (which is a much smaller, albeit still very significant gap), and the fact that we have Old Syriac and Post-Old-Syriac-Pre-Peshitta texts (that carry readings from before the Peshitta's standardization)... well you can make the appropriate conclusions yourself. :-)
The crux of the issue of separating Syriac (in the academic sense) from "Syriac" (in the equivocal sense) is that different languages called themselves different names from what other languages called them. See if you can follow this example: To an English speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Galilean Aramaic." To a Galilean Aramaic speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Suriston" ("Syriac"; this is attested). To an English academic, the language of the Peshitta is "Classical Syriac Aramaic." In the language of the Peshitta, Aramaic words are referred to as "Evarith" ("Hebrew") and in one case it calls them "Armaith" ("Aramaic"). However, in Galilean, "Armaith" only means "Pagan" or "Gentile" (again, attested) and in English "Hebrew" never refers to any Aramaic language. Because of all of these interconnections, one cannot pick and choose which is convenient. Those titles must be taken in context. As such, what an ancient speaker of Koine Greek calls "Suristi" ("Syriac") is categorically different what a Modern English-speaking person calls "Syriac." We cannot conflate the old meanings with modern meanings without appropriate, demonstrable context.
Speaking of demonstrable context, may I ask you to demonstrate that I have intentions to misguide anyone?
The whole of the field of Syriac Studies and the greater field of Aramaic Studies does not find merit in the claims of those "Five [sic] Scholars on the Peshitta " (although I count four) as their statements do not weigh against the bulk of the evidence. They are statements of faith.
The crux of the issue with Josephus is that he wouldn't have written in 11th-12th century Syriac (which is a huge, unbridgeable gap).
The crux of the issue with the Peshitta is that Jesus did not speak 4th-5th century Classical Syriac (which is a much smaller, albeit still very significant gap), and the fact that we have Old Syriac and Post-Old-Syriac-Pre-Peshitta texts (that carry readings from before the Peshitta's standardization)... well you can make the appropriate conclusions yourself. :-)
The crux of the issue of separating Syriac (in the academic sense) from "Syriac" (in the equivocal sense) is that different languages called themselves different names from what other languages called them. See if you can follow this example: To an English speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Galilean Aramaic." To a Galilean Aramaic speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Suriston" ("Syriac"; this is attested). To an English academic, the language of the Peshitta is "Classical Syriac Aramaic." In the language of the Peshitta, Aramaic words are referred to as "Evarith" ("Hebrew") and in one case it calls them "Armaith" ("Aramaic"). However, in Galilean, "Armaith" only means "Pagan" or "Gentile" (again, attested) and in English "Hebrew" never refers to any Aramaic language. Because of all of these interconnections, one cannot pick and choose which is convenient. Those titles must be taken in context. As such, what an ancient speaker of Koine Greek calls "Suristi" ("Syriac") is categorically different what a Modern English-speaking person calls "Syriac." We cannot conflate the old meanings with modern meanings without appropriate, demonstrable context.
Speaking of demonstrable context, may I ask you to demonstrate that I have intentions to misguide anyone?