Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

I find this same thing happening when write a song and record it...sometimes it just flows out and works well...and is really rewarding...sometimes not so much..and there may be long periods of no interest in making more songs at all...but then something clicks and it all pours out right and there is a sense of accomplishment.

And I find if I force it when its not time...its just a waste of time...but when it flows out freely, I can't stop it...and don't want to really.

I'll hope and pray that it flows out freely for you someday.

Thirdwoe Wrote:I checked the Diatessoran of Tatian for the 6 places in the Aramaic Peshitta Gospels, which do not have the Greek clarifications for these verses:

Matthew 27:46
Mark 5:41
Mark 7:11
Mark 7:34
John 1:38
John 1:41
John 9:7

AND...the Diatessaron DOES NOT HAVE THEM EITHER!.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

This proves that Tatian did not use the Greek text...but the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text...which is the only NT text that does not have these 6 clarifications.

What this means is, that The Diatessaron's readings proves that The Peshitta we have today was certainly around at the time Tatian used it to weave the Four Gospels into One book. This was about the year 160 A.D.


Chuck, that is a great insight.
delete, double post
Paul Younan Wrote:Which is OK, I suppose, but it's not accurate to call it the's based mostly on the Peshitta, but not the Peshitta.

Do you think it would be more correct to call it a 'critical' Peshitta just as the critical Greek is not pure one source?

The reason I ask, is that I have the opinion, that if you consider the few differences of teh Eastern and Western texts or even the Greek texts, which were translated from earlier texts than the current oldest peshitta (obviously), that the scribes were not infallable.
When it is very clear a verse should be there because it was (accidentely) deleted, I would insert it.
e.g. Acts 8:37.
If that is what it is...does Mr. Lamsa say that? The Version I have says on the cover "Holy Bible from the ancient Eastern text."
That is misleading I would say, as he adds in many western text readings as well. And there are hardly any notes anywere to indicate his decisions.

Acts 8:38 is not found in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephream, NOR is it found in the Greek Majority text, the Coptic texts (Northern or Southern) the Latin Vulgate...nor the Peshitta text. What is the reason for this?

I found it qouted in Irenaeus, Cyprian, Pontius, and in the Old Latin text since 157 A.D. So it was around before the oldest Greek Manuscripts that exist today. But, is it original, or an addition in the Old Latin text...a text which St. Jerome corrected, based on the oldest Greek copies that he had in the late 300s. Which would be much older than the oldest Greek texts that exist today.


Just to alert those who may care...I've updated this list, with the readings I find in the Syriac Sinaitic Palipsest (Old Scratch), which I compared with the Eastern Peshitta and Western Peshitto texts. What do you think this says about "Old Scratch" ???

Iv'e got The Curetonian version with English translation coming in the mail in a few days, so I'll add its readings to the list here as well.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)