Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why did Rabulla make his own Aramaic gospels?
#1
I agree with your conclusions that Rabulla made the OS, it is obvious with the beginning if Mt and ending of Jn. But why would he translate the Greek into Aramaic, in order to come up with "seperated Gospels"? Why not just use the Peshitta Gospels? Or why not just split the Diatessaron? Why Involve the greek at all? This has bugged me for some time, as I am doing much research on examples where the OS agrees with the Greek AGAINST the Peshitta, contrary to Dr. James trimm's claims. Why did Rabulla involve the Greek at all? For fame? To have his OWN version? To suck up to the greeks? Why has no source mentioned anything about his rejecting the Peshitta?
Reply
#2
shlomo byrnesey,

byrnesey Wrote:I agree with your conclusions that Rabulla made the OS, it is obvious with the beginning if Mt and ending of Jn. But why would he translate the Greek into Aramaic, in order to come up with "seperated Gospels"?

He was giving in to the will of Byzantine, Forced Hellenization.

byrnesey Wrote:Why not just use the Peshitta Gospels?

Because the Peshitta doesn't always agree with the Greek text.
I believe that he used the Peshitta, and modified the parts that didn't agree with the Greek, but once I finish my comperative analysis of the Peshitta, OS, and Greek I'll let you know what I find.

byrnesey Wrote:Or why not just split the Diatessaron? Why Involve the greek at all? This has bugged me for some time, as I am doing much research on examples where the OS agrees with the Greek AGAINST the Peshitta, contrary to Dr. James trimm's claims. Why did Rabulla involve the Greek at all? For fame? To have his OWN version? To suck up to the greeks? Why has no source mentioned anything about his rejecting the Peshitta?

The Diatessaron was a harmonization of the 4 gospels of the Peshitta.

As mentionned before forced Hellenization, which is just like the Arabs forcing Arabic on the people, they wanted to force Greek on everyone.

So he either felt forced to support the Greek, or acted just like some of our religious people now a day who see that the West is always the best, and we're wrong.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#3
So he wanted to kill 2 birds with one stone? Suppress Diatessaron AND gain the favour of the Greeks?
Reply
#4
byrnesey Wrote:So he wanted to kill 2 birds with one stone? Suppress Diatessaron AND gain the favour of the Greeks?

it seems like it ! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#5
I apologise for coming here and asking such a silly question. It was just pointed out to me that Rabulla was a madman and the normal rules of logic do not apply - plus, how are we expected to know the intentions of people so long ago? Furthermore, it is irrelivant. We KNOW that he created the OS from the Greek, a sort of Greek-Aramaic hybrid, and we KNOW that the Peshitta existed before then, before the split, and why the SOC ended up rejecting his OS nonsense.
Reply
#6
shlomo byrnesey,

byrnesey Wrote:I apologise for coming here and asking such a silly question. It was just pointed out to me that Rabulla was a madman and the normal rules of logic do not apply - plus, how are we expected to know the intentions of people so long ago? Furthermore, it is irrelivant. We KNOW that he created the OS from the Greek, a sort of Greek-Aramaic hybrid, and we KNOW that the Peshitta existed before then, before the split, and why the SOC ended up rejecting his OS nonsense.

No, it's not a silly question!

Actually the SOC claims that it wasn't aware of the OS existance, and that it didn't have any copy of it before the discovery of OS.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#7
Shlama Byrnesey,

Wow - you've got a great handle on this issue!

Why did Rabbula do it? I think if you read item #16 in the following article, you may be able to form your own opinions as to why theologians from the Monophysite tradition did not like the Peshitta:

http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol7No1/HV7...ompay.html

As you know, Philoxenus went on to create his own version from the Greek. I'm sure you can agree, the motivation for him to do so is quite clear. <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: -->

I'd like your thoughts on this.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
Quote:Why did Rabbula do it? I think if you read item #16 in the following article, you may be able to form your own opinions as to why theologians from the Monophysite tradition did not like the Peshitta:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol7No1/HV7N1VanRompay.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol7No1/HV ... ompay.html</a><!-- m -->

As you know, Philoxenus went on to create his own version from the Greek. I'm sure you can agree, the motivation for him to do so is quite clear.

I do not find it clear at all. That would explain why SOC and so forth used Peshitto rather than Peshitta. So the real question then becomes, why did Rabulla create a "new" set of Aramaic Gospels instead of using the PeshittO Gospels already used by the SOC? As I explained earlier, it is irrelivant as there is enough evidence for Peshitta originality over the Greek and the OS, but it still would be nice to know.[/code]
Reply
#9
shlomo,

byrnesey Wrote:I do not find it clear at all. That would explain why SOC and so forth used Peshitto rather than Peshitta. So the real question then becomes, why did Rabulla create a "new" set of Aramaic Gospels instead of using the PeshittO Gospels already used by the SOC? As I explained earlier, it is irrelivant as there is enough evidence for Peshitta originality over the Greek and the OS, but it still would be nice to know.

Origianlly the Peshitto and Peshitta were the same document, without the extra books or passages, but later after several failed attempts at creating a Greek translation into Syriac, they decided to just add the few passages and books to the Peshitto, but leave the original Peshitto text the same.

"why did Rabulla create a "new" set of Aramaic Gospels instead of using the PeshittO Gospels already used by the SOC?"

Because many revisionist considered that some of the Peshitto reading looked Nestorian.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#10
Shlama,

OK - I see your real question now.

Rabbula did not make a "fresh" translation right from the Greek.

The Peshitta and OS are 70-80% word-for-word the exact same. There is definitely a relationship there.

What Rabbula did do was to use the Peshitta as a base and wherever it disagreed with Bezae he translated the Greek and inserted it in to the Peshitta reading.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#11
Quote:wherever it disagreed with Bezae he translated the Greek and inserted it in to the Peshitta reading.

That's exactly the point. Why did he do this? Why did he make a Peshitta/Greek hybrid set of 4 Gospels to counter the harmonised Gospel, instead of just using the 4 pure Peshitta/o Gospels? If I were in his position, I could just say, hey let's kick D out and replace it with 4 seperated Gospels, might as well use the same 4 our Church has been using for centuries, whetehr Peshitta or Peshitto! The crux of the matter is what the Greek has to do with anything. If he was obsessed with fighting the single Gospel, why go to the Greek at all, when there were other options available, such as just using the seperate Gospels of the Peshitta and/or Peshitto.
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi,

Because the Peshitta didn't agree with his theology. He revised it according to a Greek manuscript that better agreed with his theology and called the result "Evangelion de Mapherreshe."

He also tossed out the Diatesseron because it was simply a compiled version of the 4 Peshitta gospel accounts.

Sound like someone we all know?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
Shlama Akhi,

I'm surprised you didn't find paragraph #16 clear?

The Monophysites did not like the Peshitta because it contained readings that they thought lended support to their theological opponents. Consequently, many of them (like Philoxenus and Thomas of Harkel) made their own versions after appealing to some Greek version or another.

I submit the same was true for Rabbula - who was a rabid Monophysite and maniac.

The PeshittO did not exist at the time of Rabbula. It was made later after the SOC rejected his OS garbage. By that time, they also adopted Thomas of Harkel's translation of the 5 disputed books and altered some other passages of the PeshittA - and, walla, you have the western textual transmission called PeshittO. But, again, that was after Rabbula was long gone.

Before Rabbula's, these versions existed:

(1) PeshittA
(2) Diatesseron (compiled Peshitta Gospels)
(3) All the various Greek versions and families

After Rabbula's time, these versions existed:

(1) PeshittA
(2) Diatesseron (compiled Peshitta Gospels)
(3) All the various Greek versions and families
(4) Old Scratch (Evangelion de Mapherreshe), his own hybrid PeshittA/Bezan Greek text

After Philoxenus and Thomas of Harkel, these versions existed:

(1) PeshittA
(2) Diatesseron (compiled Peshitta Gospels) - only in Persia because Rabbula and Theodoret destroyed all the copies in their areas
(3) All the various Greek versions and families
(4) Old Scratch (Evangelion de Mapherreshe), his own hybrid PeshittA/Bezan Greek text
(5) Harclean (Thomas of Harkel's text)
(6) Philoxenian (Philoxenus' revision of the Harclean)
(7) PeshittO - a revised PeshittA with the 5 disputed books added from the Harclean translation of the Greek

Rabbula did not have access to the PeshittO because it simply did not exist at his time.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
Okay then maybe this sounds okay for my study:

[insert EvDeMeph proof here]. So Rabulla created the OS. He either translated the Greek Gospels into Aramaic as ancient witnesses attest, or he simply revised the Peshitta/o with Greek changes that agreed with his theology (the latter explanation seems likley, given the high agreeance between the Peshitta and the OS). Not only is Rabulla likely to have created OS to combat the Diatessaron (which was impeding in his "turf"), but also to supply his diocese with a Bible version that would be influenced by his doctrines. Effectively then, it seems he tried to kill two birds with one stone.

Thanks for your help Paul and "abudar".
Reply
#15
No problem - but one more little revision to your article (see my post above.)

The PeshittO did not exist during Rabbula's time. He only had the PeshittA and the Diatesseron (compiled Peshitta Gospels) - both of which disagreed with his theology and gave his opponents (the CoE) fuel against him.

So he appealed to the Greek.....never mind that it wasn't the original - he didn't care about that, he only cared to defeat his theological opponents. He was, in fact, the chief persecutor of the CoE.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)