On the prominence of the Veta Syra I

[Kara]

So the quotes in diodore and Theodore's writings....please provide examples where old Syriac quotes were used.

We had three Greeks yes, centuries after they died.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

So the quotes in diodore and Theodore's writings....please provide examples where old Syriac quotes were used.

We had three Greeks yes, centuries after they died.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

Peace and Blessings,

Paul, with all due respect, I need you to stop switching points. First you want me to face the "fact" that only monophysites would consult the Greek Fathers, now you've switched to demanding proof for Veta Syra quotes in the translations of the two above writings. Going from A to B, when A is still in discussion, is a typical case of the red herring fallacy.

Perhaps your strategy is to exhaust me by remaining elusive.

The point here is that although "Nestorians" and "monophysites" disagreed about the nature of Jesus, they engaged in many of the same activities, such as translating every Greek in sight:

A large portion of extant Syrian literature consists of translations of Greek Christian writings???almost all important Christian authors and documents written in Greek were translated by Syrians. This mass of Greco-Syrian translated literature is an essential source for works of Greek Christian literature that have not survived in their original language. Many secular works also were translated into Syriac, including most of the works of Aristotle and other ancient Greek philosophers, as well as the writings of the chief medical and scientific authors of ancient Greece. These translations were critical to the rise of Islamic civilization, since most Greek works were translated from Syriac into Arabic rather than directly from Greek. For instance, to take the works of Galen alone, 130 were translated into Arabic from Syriac but only 9 directly from Greek originals. It was through the medium of Syriac that many works of Greek learning exerted their influence on the Islamic world.

After all, most of the Islamic philosophical activity would not be possible without the help of the School of Nisibis, which was well-acquainted with the works of Aristotle and the like.

But you know this.

The question that interests you most is whether your side of the Syriac-speaking church ever employed the Old Syriac. But before the fifth century, there was no side; the Church was united. So the burden is on you to show that in a united Church, "the Assyrians" alone possessed and regularly used the Peshitta while "everybody else" used the Diatessaron and Old Syriac.

Anyway, we know that this same united church evangelized the Armenian and Georgian nations before the Great Split and provided them scriptures before it; in doing so, they chose the Old Syriac (alongside fresh Greek codices). Moreover, the Diatessaron was also widely used in this united Church and as we expect, there is an Armenian translation thereof. If the CoE, since the beginning, possessed and regarded the Peshitta as the original, God-breathed, Apostle-given text, then we would (1) expect a continuous, strong resistance to the Old Syriac and Diatessaron from clergyman (which would probably be large enough to cause an early "Great text-schism") and (2) expect multiple translations of the Peshitta into other languages, especially into those of nations that the CoE evangelized. But we do not find either.

As a sidenote, we must consider what is in the margins of the Harklean version. Therein, Thomas of Harkel writes that he adopted words that are not in "that old Syriac." We must assume that "that old Syriac" was highly regarded and widely used since his readers understood this (now) vague expression. Here, he is referring to Matt 27:35, 28:8, Mark 8:17, and Luke 20:34. If the Peshitta was "that old Syriac," then in all cases, it would be in disagreement with Harkel's readings. But Luke 20:34 reads the same in both versions. Therefore, the Peshitta cannot be "that old Syriac." However, the Old Syriac manscripts (sin) fulfills this requirement. Interestingly enough, this is the same manuscript that was heavily employed for in the Armenian Bible, unlike the Peshitta.

I know that you're tempted to focus only on Thomas of Harqel's theological position. The point of the sidenote is to strengthen the argument that the Old Syriac was, at least, highly regarded enough to be referred to in Syriac literature. Other than Aphraates and Ephrem' pre-peshitta readings, which many scholars theorized to be archaic readings stemming from the original Old Syriac mss, you are hard pressed to find a single reference to the Peshitta before the fifth century.

For the "Nestorian" Church to have supposedly received the Peshitta from the Apostles themselves, does this not strike you as odd?

Bibliography

"Syriac literature." Encyclop??dia Britannica. 2010. Encyclop??dia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578980/Syriac-literature>.

H.P. Hatch, William. "To What Syriac Version or Versions of the Gospels Did Thomas of Harqel Refer in His Margin?." Journal of Biblical Literature, 65.4 (1946): 31 Mar 2010.