10-24-2013, 02:30 AM
Thirdwoe Wrote:Steve,
Could you be wrong about the origin's of the Eastern Peshitta text? Yes or no? Please answer.
I won't make absolute truth statements in such a manner as I do not believe that they are helpful. What I will say, though, is that given what is known about the Peshitta, and the cumulative effort of thousands of scholars over many, many years, I believe that it is very unlikely that the conventional understanding of the origins of the Peshitta are far off the mark.
Quote:Also, if one were to take your position, then do we have the text as it was, when The Apostles wrote it in the 1st century, in any language text? If not the Greek versions (and if so, which one), then what Aramaic text can be considered true to form, as it was in the 1st century? Has no one preserved the text as it was?
It seems to me, based on what I have heard you say so far, is that The New Testament of the 1st century Church 30-100 A.D., has not survived down through the centuries, as it was worded then.
If you believe the Greek is the original form, then which Greek text?, if you believe it was a lost "Galilean text", then how would you be able to reconstruct it?
In order to answer your question, I must first break it down into its constituent parts to give appropriate context:
1) It is conventionally understood that the New Testament, as a unit or decided upon volume of canon, did not exist in the period of 30-100 A.D.. Where many of the individual works did exist, the present understanding is that 1) the individual writers didn't think they were writing scripture, 2) some of them were not exactly as we have them today or are in turn smaller compilations of multiple works, themselves, and 3) that *set* of the canon was decided upon after that period (we can even see this in the tradition of the Peshitta, this wasn't settled until *much* later). So if I were to refer to the New Testament as "the text" as if it is a singular work, it would be disingenuous. Even in Jesus' day, what we call the Tanakh *today* wasn't fully settled upon. This was a major source of friction between the Saducees and the Pharisees, for example.
2) To ask whether something is "true to form" or "the original form" is a bit nebulous and isn't truly the heart of the issue. As it stands there are no surviving documents about Jesus in the actual language he spoke (old Galilean Aramaic) as if the choice here is between Greek or Syriac, there would have to be some translation somewhere as Jesus and his earliest Disciples from Galilee spoke neither (although one is much closer than the other).
Obtaining or finding the "original," in this sense, is chasing a rainbow.
To wax theological for a moment, think of of 2 Cor 3:6. Whether or not we get it down to the exact "original wording" is inconsequential. If we harp upon one version over another as some infallible holy grail, we cannot help but be off the mark *every single time.* The exact word-for-word, punctuation-mark-for-punctuation-mark "original" can never be obtained as much as we cannot obtain the "original" Peshitta as if you're after the *original* it doesn't matter how small the differences: All one can do if they're after the *original* is argue "acceptable" thresholds of difference.
The devil is certainly in those details (or rather arguing over them), and that is how entire theologies -- and denominations -- can split over minutia.
Quote:I too believe that the Eastern Peshitta, is the most accurate text available of the NT for us to study, as it existed in the 1st century. Exact, word for word, letter for letter? I don't know for sure, but, it is a far better text than what I see in the Greek versions.
I'm not sure I could call it the "most accurate" rather than call it "a good witness." It is an old document with a (mostly) solid textual transmission, and it is written in a language that is closer to the Aramaic Jesus spoke than Greek by several orders of magnitude. When working on my own reconstructions, I do consult the Peshitta as one of my three major Aramaic sources to get a first-glance idea of what to look for -- those being the Peshitta, the Old Syriac, and the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Lectionary. Dialect-wise, portions of the CPA Lectionary are about as old as the Peshitta, and the language is closer to the dialect that Jesus spoke than Syriac (the vocabulary and grammar are both very distinctly Western); however, it is fragmented and unstandardized and has been heavily influenced by Syriac in several regards in a manner that old Galilean would not have been. This leaves no optimal *one* source.
In the end when a holographic approach is needed, no *one* tool or witness is perfect or "the best," nor should *one* tool be relied upon exclusively as an authority. When you consult *many* sources and tools that help broaden your context while narrowing your solutions, you can more readily arrive at an informed and contextualized picture.