09-23-2008, 08:01 PM
Shlama Akhi Runggold, or do you prefer Daniel?
I would also like to ask Andrew, are you certain that the text of MARI is the closest to any original on the face of the Earth?
AGR:
This is a difficult question for me to answer in advance of Mari being circulated. I am not gunnning for a sale here, only saying that I can't refer to things which folks cannot at this moment physically check and discuss.
In terms of the 22 books, the answer is yes. I am absolutely 100% sure of the Eastern text being perfect, certainly at a thought-concept level. Letter for letter divergences never affect meaning between mss and to talk about a perfect letter for letter text is disingenuous and impractical in my view. But I stand on the idea with the 22 that if an original NT author saw the Eastern Peshitta, they would recognize their work as authentically preserved from their pen.
The Western 5 are books that I believed in for more than a decade before my Peshitta studies kicked in. I still believe it them as canon, but I also know the historical chain of custody is not as strong and I admit such. Nevertheless, within the Aramaic of the Western 5 there is also evidence of original vs. later readings, and these I document in Mari. I can't list that stuff here. It will take too long.
Next:
Why are you going to have the Western 5 in Mari if you believe they are not part of the original Eastern canon?
AGR:
Because if I didn't, most Christians and Messianics would not view it as an authoritative collection, and they would only ask me for translations for the Western 5 anyway, as they have continuously for a decade now. Mari is meant to answer THEIR NEEDS.
But I do beleive in the Western 5 as canon. The difference is, as I have said many times, that there is a gap between what I believe and what I can prove textually and historically. In saying that, I just want to be honest about it. If I don't admit that, then Mari itself is prone to attack from people who will rightly complain at I did not have a grasp of the textual issues. These things must be admitted UP FRONT and explained as fully as is humanly possible.
Finally, I have sometimes considered a COE only style edition of just the 22 at some point in the future, so it is not that I have not thought about it. It just isn't where I am right now.
Next:
If you are going to promote the Eastern text as much as you do, it makes no sense why you would insert these books, but leave out the Canannite woman scenario in John.
AGR:
I don't know what you are talking about Daniel. You have NOT seen my text, so you don't know what I have included and what I have not. The "canaanite woman" is in the Synoptics. I can only assume you mean the Pericopa Adultera in John 7:53-8:11. I would ask that you simply reserve judgment until you have a chance to see how I have dealt with divergences between the Peshitta and the Greek. I will only say that I have done everything I can think of to report and annotate major text variants so that the reader can decide from themselves what is and is not relevant.
I think you make too much about what I believe and not enough about how I am trying to speak to folks of multiple beliefs. Please don't judge what you have not seen.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
I would also like to ask Andrew, are you certain that the text of MARI is the closest to any original on the face of the Earth?
AGR:
This is a difficult question for me to answer in advance of Mari being circulated. I am not gunnning for a sale here, only saying that I can't refer to things which folks cannot at this moment physically check and discuss.
In terms of the 22 books, the answer is yes. I am absolutely 100% sure of the Eastern text being perfect, certainly at a thought-concept level. Letter for letter divergences never affect meaning between mss and to talk about a perfect letter for letter text is disingenuous and impractical in my view. But I stand on the idea with the 22 that if an original NT author saw the Eastern Peshitta, they would recognize their work as authentically preserved from their pen.
The Western 5 are books that I believed in for more than a decade before my Peshitta studies kicked in. I still believe it them as canon, but I also know the historical chain of custody is not as strong and I admit such. Nevertheless, within the Aramaic of the Western 5 there is also evidence of original vs. later readings, and these I document in Mari. I can't list that stuff here. It will take too long.
Next:
Why are you going to have the Western 5 in Mari if you believe they are not part of the original Eastern canon?
AGR:
Because if I didn't, most Christians and Messianics would not view it as an authoritative collection, and they would only ask me for translations for the Western 5 anyway, as they have continuously for a decade now. Mari is meant to answer THEIR NEEDS.
But I do beleive in the Western 5 as canon. The difference is, as I have said many times, that there is a gap between what I believe and what I can prove textually and historically. In saying that, I just want to be honest about it. If I don't admit that, then Mari itself is prone to attack from people who will rightly complain at I did not have a grasp of the textual issues. These things must be admitted UP FRONT and explained as fully as is humanly possible.
Finally, I have sometimes considered a COE only style edition of just the 22 at some point in the future, so it is not that I have not thought about it. It just isn't where I am right now.
Next:
If you are going to promote the Eastern text as much as you do, it makes no sense why you would insert these books, but leave out the Canannite woman scenario in John.
AGR:
I don't know what you are talking about Daniel. You have NOT seen my text, so you don't know what I have included and what I have not. The "canaanite woman" is in the Synoptics. I can only assume you mean the Pericopa Adultera in John 7:53-8:11. I would ask that you simply reserve judgment until you have a chance to see how I have dealt with divergences between the Peshitta and the Greek. I will only say that I have done everything I can think of to report and annotate major text variants so that the reader can decide from themselves what is and is not relevant.
I think you make too much about what I believe and not enough about how I am trying to speak to folks of multiple beliefs. Please don't judge what you have not seen.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth