Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Round 1 - First Blood
#1
Dear Darrell,

In your writing you cited the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which you quote:

Encylopedia Brittanica Wrote: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 . . .

First thing I would like to point out to you is that the Encyclopedia Britannica is very dated in regards to Syriac~Aramaic studies.

I would like to give you a little historical background on the historic division of the Syriac~Aramaic speaking churches, which is a topic I am well-versed in since I belong to one of those two major traditions.

In 431 A.D., the coucil of Ephesus was held in the Roman empire to address a theological dispute which arose concerning the title given to Mary, "Mother of God." This council condemned a man by the name of Nestorius, who was a Greek and the Patriarch of Constantinople, for refusing to use that title and referring to Mary as the "Mother of Christ" instead. ( for a detailed treatment, see the minutes from Pro Oriente at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pro-oriente.at/">http://www.pro-oriente.at/</a><!-- m --> )

The decisions of this council reached the Church in the Persian Empire (a.k.a, the "Church of the East") shortly thereafter and they categorically rejected the decrees this council made.

This isolated the Church of the Persian empire theologically from it's sister Aramaic-speaking churches in the Roman empire for the first time in history. The Aramaic church within the boundaries of the Romans was later nicknamed "Monophysite", and the Church of the East in Persian was later nicknamed "Nestorian", even though they had nothing to do with Nestorius.

This caused a major break in relations and the churches from that point.
Rabbula, who was bishop in Edessa during 411-435, sided with the Monophysites. In and around Edessa the theological strife raged hotly. He was hated by the "Nestorians" because he persecuted them relentlessly, so much so that he earned the nickname "The Tyrant of Edessa." (c.f., Han J. W. Drijvers in Journal of Early Christian Studies 4.2 (1996) pp 235-248 , Johns Hopkins University Press.)

Needless to say, even till today these two communities (the "Syriac Orthodox Church, Monophysite" and the "Church of the East, Nestorian") are hostile to one another.

At the turn of the 20th century, a textual scholar by the name of F. C. Burkitt , a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, revised the early date of the Peshitta and theorized that it was the work of Rabbula. (see Journal of Theological Studies 36(1935), 225-254, 337-346.) This soon became the standard position adopted by most textual scholars. It is, in fact, Burkitt's very own hypothesis that the Encyclopedia Britannica is citing in the quote you provided.

Since then, the hypothesis of Burkitt has been thoroughly answered and disproved by Arthur Voobus of the Lutheran School of Theology and the University of Chicago.

In a series of special studies (1947‑54), Voobus argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but that he did not even use it. (c.f., lnvestigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa, Pinneberg, 1947. Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitto in the Middle of the Fifth Century, Pinneberg, 1948. Neue Angeben Ueber, die Textgeschicht-Zustande in Edessa in den Jahren ca. 326-340, Stockholm, 1951. Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm, 1954.)

Concerning Burkitt's hypothesis, Voobus writes:

Arthur Voobus Wrote:"This kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it" (Early Versions of the New Testament, Estonian Theological Society, 1954, see pp. 90-97)

To this reseach by Voobus, Dr. Bruce Metzger adds:

Bruce Metzger Wrote:The question who it was that produced the Peshitta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus's researches. . .In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD 431. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon, 1977), p. 36).

Both sides claim the Peshitta as Holy Scripture and their official version, even till today. Such unanimous acceptance is unthinkable if the leader of one side (the Monophysite "Tyrant of Edessa") had created it. Since this division took place in Rabbula's time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these two sects, how could his opponents (the "Church of the East") have adopted his creation?

Regarding the universal adoption of the Peshitta as the official version of both branches of Aramaic Christendom, Edward Hills writes:

Edward Hills Wrote:It is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his (Rabbula's) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text. (The King James Version Defended, 1956; Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174p.174).

It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Aramaic Church continued to be loyal to it - regardless of the factions into which they came to be bitterly divided after 431 A.D. - precisely during the episcopate of Rabbula.

I therefore respectfully submit that you do not quote the dated material in question from the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Peshitta was not the creation of Rabbula.

I eagerly await your answer.

Peace,
Paul Younan
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
No response as of yet from Conder - hmmm, I think he's pretty embarrased caught blatantly using out-dated material just because it conveniently fit his agenda... <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
You made a wise choice in bypassing his confusiong of teh debate, by "forcing one upon him". I doubt he will even reply. Either way, you have already one <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#4
hehe I love it <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#5
Has Conder replied? I think he maybe tried to come and debate you here on the forum, as there was a new "Darrel W Conder" moniker here while you were gone, but it might just be one of his anonymice.
Reply
#6
No, he hasn't replied yet - but that was him that registered.

I don't know - should we let him in here, or should the debate just be via email to prevent crazy things from happening?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
with any sort of debate going on, I would refrain from a sideshow, it would be a distraction. If your truely attempting to correct him and his views he has posted.

His friends that came here gave some hint as to how all of them conduct business.

my 2 cents
Reply
#8
Good points - agreed.

I sent him an email stating that I would prefer to keep the debate email-based.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Good choice. And be careful, he, without permission, likes to post all our discussions on his site.
Reply
#10
Heheh.... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Darrell W. Conder Wrote:Hello Paul. My intention is not to post on your forum, but to read your articles and research to help answer your points. Hopefully this is not a problem.

Regards,

Darrell

Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Darrell,

But giving away my ammunition before you even answer the first email I sent to you seems kind of self-destructive to me, don't you think?

I would be very interested in receiving a reply to the email in which I believe that I scientifically and logically demonstrated that you used dated material in your attempt to portray the Peshitta as a post-Nicene version.

Besides, I supplied ample references to distinguished peer-reviewed journals and books from leading authors in the field. These should suffice as reference for you to either contest my position or to accept it and revise yours.

If you are a reasonable person, and I have every reason to believe that you are, then you should publicly retract your original statement for the sake of the truth you so often speak of.

Regards,
Paul

This guy thinks he's playing with an amateur....
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
Man, the shortest debate of all time... Boo-yeah! Ah well, my December debate should last a long time <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#12
heh, Hmmm I don't know the answer to that,....let's look up on Pauls site and find it.

Isn't that cheating? lol

It's been a while since I've been in school (I'm 39), don't know if they have some form of approved cheating now. heh
Reply
#13
Akhi Dave,

I hope you are OK over there in S.D.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
yea doing fine Paul, the fires were away from the area where I am. Lots of ash everywhere though. No worries here, GOD has a close eye on me.
Reply
#15
Latest Conder email....

Quote:Paul, my research, to which you have unlimited access, is there for the world to see. But you are saying that your research, which you proudly boast is "the truth", is off limits except to your faithful sheep. What I suspect is that you don't want me to see the anti-Conder posts now littering your forum.

I will answer you e-mail stating your objections to my writings, but if I can't have access to your web site, then it will be the last exchange. I have no time for Christian games, whether they are conducted in Aramaic or Greek.

Regards,
Darrell


Like I care if he sees the "Anti-Conder" posts here! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)