10-21-2003, 06:55 PM
Shlama, Akhi Paul,
Sorry, I've been busy with other stuff, and doing some other textual discussions elsewhere on the Net, such as in Usenet. I posted some material about the fallacies of Greek priority, and stirred up quite a storm... <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
I posted a long article where I argued that the whole Egyptian Greek text is nothing but a giant Delusion.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%25xmfb.17452%24tL.689882157%40news.nnrp.ca">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%2 ... ws.nnrp.ca</a><!-- m -->
And also, I've found some quotes from Dr. Bruce Metzger where the guy really blew it -- he misrepresented in a big way about the Aramaic textual tradition, and defamed Dr. Lamsa. This has stirred quite a storm, that's for sure... I'll post this here, too.
As far as our discussion about Mar Aphrahat and what sort of a text he was using, as I say, I really don't feel like trying to reinvent the wheel. All these things have been discussed by competent scholars for over a century, and a lot of studies have been done in the area.
If you want to challenge the consensus, the usual course of action open to you is get those older studies, and re-examine them. Perhaps you will find mistakes there, I don't know, although I doubt it...
I looked at some of the new examples you've given, but they didn't seem to me as all that impressive. For one thing, it will not surprise anyone if you find some examples where Aphrahat, the Peshitta, and the standard Greek all agree, and the OS reads something else (such as with your "Lazarus, come forth" quote). The real interesting cases would be those where Aphrahat and the Peshitta would agree _against_ the standard Greek, and the OS would read either with the Greek, or something entirely different.
Also, the very small agreements, such as missing the Waw Proclitic, for example, or little spelling variations would not impress many people either, I'm afraid.
"I and my Father are one", or "I and my Father we are one" -- there's no real change in meaning here (Jn 10:30).
But keep in mind that, in the above example, the Greek reads "I and _the_ Father are one". Now, this is already something more significant theologically, since the Aramaic implies a somewhat closer relationship between Yeshua and his Father. And this variant is also supported by various other MSS in a variety of languages. Here we see that the Peshitta, Aphrahat and the OS _all_ agree against the standard Greek.
Thus, again, my general advice is to focus more on the positive than on the negative. There are _thousands_ of readings like this, where the Peshitta and the OS both agree against the Greek. So then what need is there to talk down the OS, really? Don't you see that by condemning the OS you also implicitly condemn the Peshitta, since these are obviously very closely related textual traditions.
When you condemn the OS as "corrupt", I think that, more than anything, the outsiders will probably get an impression that the Aramaic texts _in general_ may be corrupt, and the whole thing is just too confusing and complicated.
So I think it's in the interests of the Peshitta supporters to stress the _overall unity_ of the Aramaic textual tradition, rather than to dwell on the disagreements within it
I think it remains a basic fact of life that, generally speaking, when compared to the OS, the Peshitta is a lot closer to the canonical Greek texts (both Byzantine and Egyptian) than the OS gospels. So it seems rather ironic to me that, on the one hand, you show so much anti-Greek feeling in your posts, while at the same time you harshly condemn the OS texts, that certainly seem far more distant from the Greek than the Peshitta is.
Shlama,
Yuri.
Sorry, I've been busy with other stuff, and doing some other textual discussions elsewhere on the Net, such as in Usenet. I posted some material about the fallacies of Greek priority, and stirred up quite a storm... <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->I posted a long article where I argued that the whole Egyptian Greek text is nothing but a giant Delusion.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%25xmfb.17452%24tL.689882157%40news.nnrp.ca">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%2 ... ws.nnrp.ca</a><!-- m -->
And also, I've found some quotes from Dr. Bruce Metzger where the guy really blew it -- he misrepresented in a big way about the Aramaic textual tradition, and defamed Dr. Lamsa. This has stirred quite a storm, that's for sure... I'll post this here, too.
As far as our discussion about Mar Aphrahat and what sort of a text he was using, as I say, I really don't feel like trying to reinvent the wheel. All these things have been discussed by competent scholars for over a century, and a lot of studies have been done in the area.
If you want to challenge the consensus, the usual course of action open to you is get those older studies, and re-examine them. Perhaps you will find mistakes there, I don't know, although I doubt it...
I looked at some of the new examples you've given, but they didn't seem to me as all that impressive. For one thing, it will not surprise anyone if you find some examples where Aphrahat, the Peshitta, and the standard Greek all agree, and the OS reads something else (such as with your "Lazarus, come forth" quote). The real interesting cases would be those where Aphrahat and the Peshitta would agree _against_ the standard Greek, and the OS would read either with the Greek, or something entirely different.
Also, the very small agreements, such as missing the Waw Proclitic, for example, or little spelling variations would not impress many people either, I'm afraid.
"I and my Father are one", or "I and my Father we are one" -- there's no real change in meaning here (Jn 10:30).
But keep in mind that, in the above example, the Greek reads "I and _the_ Father are one". Now, this is already something more significant theologically, since the Aramaic implies a somewhat closer relationship between Yeshua and his Father. And this variant is also supported by various other MSS in a variety of languages. Here we see that the Peshitta, Aphrahat and the OS _all_ agree against the standard Greek.
Thus, again, my general advice is to focus more on the positive than on the negative. There are _thousands_ of readings like this, where the Peshitta and the OS both agree against the Greek. So then what need is there to talk down the OS, really? Don't you see that by condemning the OS you also implicitly condemn the Peshitta, since these are obviously very closely related textual traditions.
When you condemn the OS as "corrupt", I think that, more than anything, the outsiders will probably get an impression that the Aramaic texts _in general_ may be corrupt, and the whole thing is just too confusing and complicated.
So I think it's in the interests of the Peshitta supporters to stress the _overall unity_ of the Aramaic textual tradition, rather than to dwell on the disagreements within it
I think it remains a basic fact of life that, generally speaking, when compared to the OS, the Peshitta is a lot closer to the canonical Greek texts (both Byzantine and Egyptian) than the OS gospels. So it seems rather ironic to me that, on the one hand, you show so much anti-Greek feeling in your posts, while at the same time you harshly condemn the OS texts, that certainly seem far more distant from the Greek than the Peshitta is.
Shlama,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)