Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "O" argument
#34
Dawid Wrote:We would need evidence of other versions in order to prove it, you are correct. But in order to suggest it as an alternative to an equally unproven, and unprovable, explanation of the continuity of the Peshitta and (minor variants aside) Peshitto versions extant?


I think that the way you use "provable" here is inaapropriate though. "Proof" in that sense is for maths.
The proof your theory lacks is evidence of an alternate text. It is possible this could be provided.
The "proof" you ask for WRT to the peshitta is to prove a negative, that negative being that no such text ever existed.

The theory that the peshitta did not become the "standardised" text, out or several (or even two) competing versions is falsifiable. We can falsify it but providing evidence of the other text/s.
The theory that a few competing texts existed is not falsifiable, as one can alwys say that they might have existed but we just haven't found them yet.
In this way they are not equally unproven.
At least that is how I see it.


Quote:I don't think we need evidence to suggest an alternative to a theory that also has no evidence other than the silence of the manuscript tradition.

Well it seems quite wrong to say here that the peshitta "has no evidence other than the silence of the manuscript tradition"..however ambiguous that phrase may be.
Again the [peshotta argument is based on evidence. What else can we do? We look and see only the peshitta, then, propose a theory based directly on that evidence. That theory is that the peshitta existed and was used, and that we have no evidence of other versions used by that community.
What else can we do, but make a theory based on the evidence?

On the other hand you have said..."I don't think we need evidence to suggest an alternative to a theory..."

Well that may be true, but I dont think we can expect theories with no evidence to win support in the long run.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-25-2009, 01:58 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-26-2009, 06:59 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-27-2009, 12:44 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Nimrod Warda - 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-28-2009, 12:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-29-2009, 03:19 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:28 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-17-2009, 06:32 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:09 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:12 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 04:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 05:02 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 09-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-22-2009, 09:32 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)