02-09-2013, 06:12 PM
mickoy Wrote:Burning one Wrote:Shlama,
It should probably be clarified here that when Chuck says Burkitt is WRONG, he's asserting something that is understood also amongst scholars of the Greek texts, such as Arthur Voobus, whose work utterly disproved Burkitt's proposals about the provenance of the Eastern Peshitta text. You can this info in books, online, and likely elsewhere on this site using the search option. This has all been discussed before on this very site. Just a suggestion for those who might want to save some time.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
i never said that Burkitt was right, i only asked Chuck what he is thinking about Burkitt and that is why i quoted him!
Kind regards
Michael
Shlama akhi,
and i never said that you said Burkitt was right - i offered further information collaborating the repuditation of Burkitt's assumptions concerning the Peshitta. for those interested, i suggested digging around on this site, as it has scattered discussions about the man's fallacious arguments.
to me, when both sides of an argument reject a person's proposal on the grounds of solid extant textul evidence, that individual's proposal becomes seen to be a waste of worthy time in a discussion that can be fruitful otherwise.
one thing i am curious about, tho: to what extent have you read the actual Peshitta in Aramaic? have you performed any depth of comparison textually to other versions? if so, how do you reconcile the vast amount of variant issues that plague other manuscripts, and yet disappear with surprising ease when one returns to the Peshitta's textual landscape, wherein they do not exist, or wherein they are explained as different definition possibilities of a single Aramaic word, or the fact that the Peshitta text is crowded with word-plays and puns and poetry that mirror astoundingly those found in the inspired Hebrew text of the Tanakh? what are your thoughts on all these "watermarks of authenticity" that point to the Peshitta as a source-document to some of the other Aramaic and many of the Greek manuscripts?
people's opinions vary, even in ancient times. but opinons are not worth all that much, as we all have them. but the text should prove or disprove anyone's theories about what came first, about what is inspired. i say, the opinions of so many church fathers are helpful at times, but the authority is not in their own words - the authority is in THE WORD. stop wasting so much time arguing over who said what and when they said it -- if you want answers that carry weight, look to the Spirit who wrote these Words, and look to the texts themselves and see which ones glow with the marks of divine inspiration.
that is just my opinion and advice. but nobody has to take my advice on here. i'm just one electronic voice amongst the myriad millions in cyberland!
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy