Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Re-Challenge in a new email.
#1
Dear Darrell,

You make certain claims about the Peshitta, Old Syriac and Aramaic Primacy in a book of yours.

Darrell Conder Wrote:The Original Aramaic


As previously mentioned most scholars agree that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic. This is a fact that has given rise to the claim that the earliest Gospels were therefore written in Aramaic.

Although this argument seems logical, the Gospels, as just noted, do not bear this fact out. The editors of The Complete Gospels, after first mentioning that most of the quotations or allusions to the Old Testament found in the New depend upon the Septuagint, explain that "The frequent word-for-word agreements between Matthew and Luke are impossible to account for if both were independently translating from Aramaic." (39) In other words, the New Testament used by the Christian Church was originally written in Greek.

However, there is a New Testament translation that has been promoted by many as the only reliable text because it is allegedly translated from the "original Aramaic writings" of Jesus' apostles. The translation is known as the Peshitta (reproduced in the Lamsa translation) and purports to have been copied, century after century, from the original Aramaic manuscripts???which are conveniently missing. As to that last assertion history tells us that the earliest version of what is called the Peshitta was known as the Old Syriac, which dates only from ca. 160 AD and survives only in quotes in other writings.

Later surviving manuscripts are the Curetonianus and Sinaiticus, but scholars point out that these translations are really of little value because they were made from an early Greek text with many "Western features." To throw a further "wrench into the works" the Greek text in question was itself revised "on the basis of an early form of the Koine, or Byzantine Greek Text; this revision, eventually called the Peshitta, emerged ca. 400 A.D. to become the standard New Testament of the Syriac Churches." (40) In other words the "original" manuscripts of the Peshitta dates only from the fifth century and was not from the "original Aramaic" of the first century apostles, but from fifth century Byzantine Greek texts.

To completely understand the composition of the Peshitta let's look a little closer at its pre-history, meaning the works that were an essential influence. They include a "harmony of the Gospels" called the Diatessaron. According to the church father Eusebius the compiler of the Diatessaron was a man named Tatian a native of Mesopotamia and a disciple of Justin Martyr, meaning that he received his Christian education and training via the Church of Rome. In fact, Tatian is said to have originally composed the Diatessaron in Latin. (41)

Biblical historians also tell us that this Tatian changed the text of the Gospels during his translation work to support his extreme hostility to sex. Still, it was widely accepted in the Eastern Christian Churches where it made a serious impact on Christian scholarship. (42)

In ca. 200 AD four different Gospels were translated into the Syriac New Testament. Two manuscripts of the 4th-5th century survive, which were mentioned above: The Sinai Palimpsest and Cureton's ms. of the early 5th century. We read the following in The Encyclopedia Britannica: "The mss. differ considerably in reading, and each has certainly been influenced by the Diatessaron [of Tatian], so that in Syriac-speaking lands about A.D. 400 the Gospel was extant as a Harmony and as 'separated Gospels,'. . . the single copies having many discordant readings, just as had been the case in Latin before Jerome. To remedy this, Rabbula, bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435, prepared a revised edition of the 'Separated Gospels,' freely correcting the text from Greek mss. such as were then current at Antioch: this edition he established by authority and suppressed the Diatessaron with such success that no Syriac copy of the Diatessaron survives, and of the unrevised version only Syr. S and C. Rabbula's revision is now used by both the great divisions of the Syriac-speaking Church: to distinguish it from the elaborate later revision of the (Jacobite) Old and New Testament it is usually called Peshitta, i.e. the simple version . . . The Peshitta has only the value of a post-Nicene revision." (43)

In summation the so-called Peshitta is nothing more than its sister translations and that is a book with a jumbled history produced by the wiles of self-seeking men. It is a history that doesn't lend itself to the "infallibility of the bible" argument!

If you stand by your statements regarding the Peshitta, then I would like to challenge you to a debate on my forum - just the two of us. I believe I can demonstrate otherwise, and can demonstrate that the statements you made are false.

The only term I have is that the debate be limited to the above topic. Anything else, I am not interested in.

Game?

Regards,
Paul Younan
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Delete this message as needed.

Conder wanted an email debate, you should first iron out the conditions etc...
Reply
#3
drmlanc Wrote:Delete this message as needed.

Conder wanted an email debate, you should first iron out the conditions etc...

He hasn't replied to me yet, but I absolutely do not want it by email.

The reason being that I want IP addresses recorded so it's does not become a question of future denial or that I made up stuff he didn't say, etc.

It has to be out here in the open....I'm not playing the "I never sent that email" game.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Darrell Conder Wrote:Good morning!

Yes, I stand by this. However, the central issue (for which this excerpt was written), is if the NT is God's word. I will gladly accept your challenge on the below issue, but if you demonstrate the superiority of the Peshitta, then are you willing to debate its divine inspiration, considering this question goes directly to the core reason for human existence?

To begin, I need to be instructed about using your forum. I also need a statement from you giving permission to copy the debate for use on my web page.

Regards,

DWC
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Dear Mr. Conder,

Good morning to you!

I understand that your central focus is not on which language the NT was originally penned in, nor subsequently whether or not the Greek NT is a translation of the Aramaic NT known today as the Peshitta.

As you probably know by now, our website and mission is limited in scope to this topic, for very good reasons too lengthy to list right now. Having said that, I do not wish to continue in debating other topics with you. There are many who are infinitely more capable than I who are already doing that type of thing. In fact, it may be beneficial for you to consider me an agnostic for the purposes of this debate. I am only interested in debating the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament, and not whether it is inspired - nor do I wish to debate the core reasons for human existence. In fact, during the debate I will use no theology whatsoever. It will be purely scientific linguistics and I will only use sound logic and reasoning.

I will be happy to instruct you on the use of the forum, if the above is acceptable to you. You may copy the debate for use in any way you wish, as long as the content is available in its entirety. If not - that at least a link is made back to the original debate where the entire thing will be available to anyone who wishes to reference it.

I thank you for your attention.

Have a great day!
Paul Younan
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
I can't believe that Conder takes that as you backing out of the debate, and then tells the whole world about it...
Reply
#7
drmlanc Wrote:I can't believe that Conder takes that as you backing out of the debate, and then tells the whole world about it...

Are you suggesting that Mr. Conder is telling the world something that is not true?

Paul Younan Wrote:I am only interested in debating the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament, and not whether it is inspired

Chris, if the Aramaic New Testament is not inspired, can you think of any valid reason to debate what language it was originally written in? Mr. Younan's refusal to debate the divine inspiration of the Aramaic pretty much sums things up doesn't it?
Reply
#8
An email received from Darrell W. Conder this morning, which he has authorized me to post here:

Good morning Laurel, Steve, Sharon, Lawrence, Sedeq and you too Chris.

Here's a new one: A Christian teacher who's not interested in the contents of his "holy book" (what Jesus allegedly said, or didn't say), but only in the original language ??? which, he admits on his page, he doesn't completely understand, and is subject to translation error! Speaking of his followers, this gives a new meaning to the Christian expression, "sheep."

If he had agreed to debate, I would have liked Paul Younan to have explained why Jesus, who supposedly is God, gave the world the wrong translation for the past 2,000 years, and then sat up in heaven on the right hand of his father watching all the wars, death and destruction in his name because of that wrong translation, and why he has just now raised up Paul Younan and company to bring the "truth" to a hand full of Internet faithful?

Paul, think of the billions of sincere Christians who've lived, trusted and died (read tortured on the rack, fed to the lions, etc.) in the wrong faith because Jesus waited until 2003 to raise up you and your supporters! But even now Jesus still seems to be confused. I say this Paul because he inspired you to write this:
Disclaimer: This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors. http://www.peshitta.org/initial/preface.html


Gee Paul, if we can't trust you, and, at least according to Chris Lancaster, we can't trust the other versions of the Peshitta (read Lamsa), then what are you asking of your followers? To whom do we turn? We can't turn to Jesus because he's still blessing those nasty Greek-inspired NT believers and their work, judging by their unfathomable wealth, worldwide publicity, and the nearly half billion converts.

I'll prepare a statement about Paul's refusal and send it to the group, along with a link to his page. As a personal comment, I will add that this is typical of what I've faced for the past 10 years: Christians who talk the talk, but who always find some excuse to walk away when it comes to defending the corruption found in the text of their "holy" bible ??? and that includes Paul's "holy" Peshitta. I would be pleased to take his translation, or Lamsa's or any other, and debate the issues thereof. But of course Paul says he???s not interested in what it says, only in how it was written.

dwc


PS: Paul, the next time you are working on your new inspired translation, how about giving this verse some consideration: I Thes 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Reply
#9
Anonymouse,

Please do not post on this partcicular thread any more. This forum is for the upcoming debate only, the term of which have not been accepted yet. I don't blame you for this one, since Conder asked you to post this.

But be aware that there was nothing in that post that had anything to do with the upcoming debate, and it definitely didn't follow the terms I insisted upon.

Your posts also have nothing to do with Aramaic primacy, so I ask you again - if you have nothing to say that is within topic, don't say it here on this website. My next option will be to remove your username and ban your IP address - something I've only done to two other persons in the years this website has been up. It's not something I like to do, but like I said - this website is not for posting any other topic but about Aramaic.

Thanks for your cooperation.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)