Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
use of OS by ancient Aramaic-speaking Christians
#1
Shlama, akhay,

Now I would like to present some evidence that the Old Syriac gospels were used by the Syriac Fathers of the Church, and especially by the monks, well into the 7th century and later.

It seems to me that those who really respect the history of the ancient Aramaic speaking Christians should also show some respect for these Old Syriac gospels.

All this material comes from the webpage of Steven Ring, who is a very fine Aramaic scholar in England. I've adapted his presentation a bit for this summary.

In this article, I've stopped at 604 AD. There is a lot more such material for the later centuries as well. Ring's references are at,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_refs.html">http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_refs.html</a><!-- m -->

(According to Ring, it seems like the Syrian monks preferred the OS, whereas the secular clergy preferred the Peshitta.)

________________

USE OF THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS BY ANCIENT ARAMAIC-SPEAKING CHRISTIANS.

History of Syriac texts and Syrian Christianity - Table 6
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab6.html">http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab6.html</a><!-- m -->

449 AD Second Council of Ephesus

The acts of this synod are preserved in Syriac. This Syriac text contains many gospel quotations which cannot be explained from the Greek original text and can only be explained from the Old Syriac gospel witnesses. Therefore, we have an official Monophysite church document which shows that an Old Syriac gospel text was the officially sanctioned gospel text in AD 449.

460 AD
Shem`on Estonaya, (Simon Stylites) a Monophysite aesthetic of Qal'at-Sem'an cites his gospel quotations from an Old Syriac manuscript.

485 AD
Philoxenus... his gospel quotations show that the separate gospel codex he was using was an Old Syriac codex with some accommodations to the Peshitta, but certainly not the Peshitta itself.

520 AD
Was written the Syriac, 'History of Paul the bishop' in Edessa. The gospels are quoted in this history from the Old Syriac Evangelion daMepharreshe.

544 AD
A synod was held presided over by Catholicos Mar Abha. The acts of this synod contain a few gospel quotations taken from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript.

Also, one of Mar Abha's disciples, a priest called Ishai, used an Old Syriac gospel manuscript in his work.

550 AD
Johannan of Dalyatha (or John Sabha) an East (?) Syrian anchorite monk, gathered some monks together and erected the monastery of Dalyatha at Qardu. He wrote a treatise on the monastic life and a collection of epistles. According to [38 = Voobus] these works contain much gospel text quoted from an Old Syriac text, though some have been vulgarized in transmission.

This was part of a reaction by the monks to the severe harm done by the East Syrian clergy towards them over the preceding 70 years or so. In general, the reaction of the monks was largely to go their own way.

554 AD
An East Syrian synod was held under Catholicos Jauseph. The persecution of the monks by the clergy resulted in a permanent rift between the two sides. From a gospel text point of view, the monks continued to use the Old Syriac texts they preferred, whereas from this time onwards the East Syrian clergy slowly migrated towards the Peshitta.

566 AD
Yohannan (John) of Ephesus wrote his 'History of Oriental Saints'... some Old Syriac influences.

576 AD
A synod was held presided over by Catholicos Mar Hazqiel. The acts of this synod contain eight gospel quotations. Of these eight, seven are taken from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript.

585 AD
A synod was held presided over by the East Syrian catholicos Isho`yabh I of Arzon. The acts of this synod contain sixteen gospel quotations. Of these, a quarter reflect the tenacity of the Old Syriac text type.

588 AD
Died Abraham of Kashkar, an East Syrian monastic reformer who created a new monastic centre based on the mount Izla monastery (also called the Great Convent). Again, the Izla movement was a reaction to the suppression of the monks by the East Syrian clergy.

His successor, Dadisho` of Beth Qatraya, composed a number of treatises, which reflect Old Syriac gospel readings. Official use of Old Syriac at the Mount Izla monastery demonstrates that the Old Syriac gospels were preferred by the East Syrian monks and anchorites.

593 AD
Died Simon Stylites the Younger. Simon corresponded with the famous East Syrian writer Isaac of Nineveh. Isaac was a monk of the convent of Mar Matthew in Mosul, then an anchorite who roamed the mountains of Susiana and later he was bishop of Mosul or Nineveh. However, he soon resigned his see and went to the desert of Scete in NW Egypt where he wrote his aesthetic works. These are very rich in gospel quotations taken from an Old Syriac manuscript.

596 AD
Lived Hnana or Henana of Hedhaiyabhe (i.e. of Adiabene) a theologian and the director of the East Syrian School of Nisibis... As can be seen from his surviving theological treatise, Hnana used an Old Syriac manuscript of the gospels.

600 AD
Lived Abraham Nethperaya and anchorite monk from Nethpar near Arbela... Abraham quotes from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript.

600 AD
Lived Barhadbeshabba who was an Eastern Syriac author and Head Doctor of the school at Nisibis. He wrote, 'The cause of the foundation of the schools'... The gospel text used was originally Old Syriac.

604 AD
Died Dadh-isho` the director of the Izla monastic movement. Dadisho` was succeeded as director by Babai the Great or 'the Archimandrite' or 'the Elder' (he lived AD 569-629). Babai wrote 'The Book of Union' a major statement of East Syrian theology. There are many gospel quotations in this book which he quoted from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript

[Stop here. There's a lot more such material further on.]

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 -->
Reply
#2
yuku Wrote:Shlama, akhay,



596 AD
Lived Hnana or Henana of Hedhaiyabhe (i.e. of Adiabene) a theologian and the director of the East Syrian School of Nisibis... As can be seen from his surviving theological treatise, Hnana used an Old Syriac manuscript of the gospels.

600 AD
Lived Abraham Nethperaya and anchorite monk from Nethpar near Arbela... Abraham quotes from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript.

600 AD
Lived Barhadbeshabba who was an Eastern Syriac author and Head Doctor of the school at Nisibis. He wrote, 'The cause of the foundation of the schools'... The gospel text used was originally Old Syriac.

604 AD
Died Dadh-isho` the director of the Izla monastic movement. Dadisho` was succeeded as director by Babai the Great or 'the Archimandrite' or 'the Elder' (he lived AD 569-629). Babai wrote 'The Book of Union' a major statement of East Syrian theology. There are many gospel quotations in this book which he quoted from an Old Syriac gospel manuscript

[Stop here. There's a lot more such material further on.]

Shlama,

Yuri.

Hi Yuri, can we look at an actual example where one of these men quoted the Old Syriac against the peshitta?
Reply
#3
Akhi Michael,

Notice the carefully worded points by Steven Ring. Whenever a Monophysite document is mentioned, the words "The Old Syriac Manuscripts" is used.

Whenever it is the Church of the East, Steven Ring uses the wording "an Old Syriac gospel manuscript"

What he means by this, of course, is that the readings are not direct quotes from either the Peshitta or any other version. So there is this mysterious "Old Syriac manuscript", which of course we don't have access to to verify his assumption.

These are the little tricks that these guys like Trimm, Ring and Yuri play.

O.K. Yuri, like I proved your "variants" among eastern Peshitta manuscripts wrong, I'll prove Mr. Ring wrong too .... show me a reading from Mar Khazqiel (or any of the other CoE sources above) that is from "THE" Old Scratch, not from a mysteriously missing "A" Old Scratch - because to me unless it is actually written in a text, it might just as well be paraphrasing. (like I've proven Mar Aphrahat does.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Very interesting Yuri!

Wish there was a book that compiled the quotations to compare with the known sources at hand.


Quote:As the eminent scholar Arthur V????bus states in his 'Researches on the circulation of the Peshitta in the fifth century', Publ.: Baltic University, Pinneberg 1948, p. 57:

Some very valuable clues are to be found in the specific Palestinian Aramaic terms, idioms and grammatical forms preserved by Old Syriac gospels. These are unknown in pure classical Syriac and constitute an alien element. Certainly Tatian has not made use of them, but these linguistic anomalies together with other remarkable idiosyncrasies and relics of Palestinian provenance tend to prove the existence of an archaic and heterogeneous layer in the Old Syriac gospels. It seems to be the fact, that in a more careful analysis of these elements lies the best hope to go forward here.

Interesting quote from Voobus
Reply
#5
Shlomo ahay,

Here's the official postion of the SOC in regards to Old Syriac:

Unlike the Diatessaron, the Old Syriac version was unknown to scholarship, not to mention the Syriac Church itself, until the discovery of two manuscripts. The Curetonianus manuscript was acquired, among others, by the British Museum and reached its new home on the first day of March 1843. Some further pages arrived in England and Berlin in the form of fly-leaves to strengthen the bindings of other manuscripts. The original home of the manuscript is Deir as-Surian, 'Monastery of the Syrians,' in Egypt. William Cureton, then assistant keeper of the manuscripts at the British Museum, discovered that the volume contains pre-Peshitto readings and concluded that he had discovered "the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed,"???an exaggeration. The most interesting characteristic of the Curetonianus manuscript is the unusual order of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, with Luke following John on the same page.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#6
Heheheh.

Akhan Yuri - give us some examples of quotes by CoE fathers from "AN Old Scratch manuscript" and let's examine the evidence for ourselves. I hope it's not like the "Peshitta Variants" fiasco. <!-- 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
#7
Paul Younan Wrote:Heheheh.

Akhan Yuri - give us some examples of quotes by CoE fathers from "AN Old Scratch manuscript" and let's examine the evidence for ourselves. I hope it's not like the "Peshitta Variants" fiasco. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama, Paul,

I just found this info on the Web, and having dialogued with S. Ring for a while, I have confidence that he treats his sources accurately. As you've probably noticed, he provides full references for all his claims, in reputable scholarly studies.

So, by all means, if you think that all those scholars are wrong, then you should be able to prove them wrong by following up these refs.

I think we have one basic issue here that needs to be clarified. To what extent do you consider yourself as an objective scholar, and to what extent does one choose to follow the basic scientific methodology?

A true scientist follows the evidence, while an issue-driven scientist generally tends to shape the evidence to suit his or her beliefs. If one puts one's beliefs or faith above everything else, then the evidence can certainly never alter these beliefs.

So it's the question of methodology that should be the starting question. Sometimes, in the discussions here, I get the impression that some people here do not really consider themselves as objective scientists, and perhaps even have a dislike for science, itself. Which is fine, as long as we honestly state that this is what our beliefs are...

OTOH if one states outright that science doesn't matter, and the scientific method doesn't matter, then there's not really much point in trying to engage in a scientific discussion, is there?

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 -->
Reply
#8
Akhi Yuri,

"Scientific evidence" is exactly what I gave you when I broke down every example of a "variant" that your buddy Juckel came up with.

You want scientific evidence? Since you have been dialoging with him for years, ask Mr. Ring for ONE single quote from Mar Khazqiel, or any other CoE source, that seems to him or anyone to be coming from "A mysterious long-lost Old Syriac Manuscript."

Then I will show you the "scientific evidence" just like I did for your so-called "eastern variants."

You guys are really good about making generalized "statements" and observations. But when we ask YOU for the evidence, the truth always comes out. Why do you guys always get nervous when we ask you for specifics, examples to back up your carefully worded claims?

References are all fine and dandy. Why not give us an example so we can see for ourselves? Quotes from "scholarly works" don't mean anything to me. You couldn't even read Juckel's "variants" to make up your own mind - if you could, then you would have known what you were looking at were not "variants" at all.

You see those direct quotes from the Peshitta against Old Scratch I have listed from Mar Aphrahat, who predates the western Mar Ephraem? That's what we call science, son. I always back up my claims with examples, concrete scientific evidence.

We are all about science here. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

You made this claim, you started this thread - like you did the so-called "variants". Now the burden is on YOU to back it up. Where are your examples? Or, does practicing science to you mean taking your word for it? We want examples, Yuri! Give us the evidence.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
yuku Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Heheheh.

Akhan Yuri - give us some examples of quotes by CoE fathers from "AN Old Scratch manuscript" and let's examine the evidence for ourselves. I hope it's not like the "Peshitta Variants" fiasco. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama, Paul,

I just found this info on the Web, and having dialogued with S. Ring for a while, I have confidence that he treats his sources accurately. As you've probably noticed, he provides full references for all his claims, in reputable scholarly studies.

So, by all means, if you think that all those scholars are wrong, then you should be able to prove them wrong by following up these refs.


Shlama,

Yuri.

Hi again Yuri,
Does either you or steven Ring claim that COE people at any time ever, quote THE old syriac against the peshitta.
If this does occur can you pinpoint the place or places where this occurs.
From a "scientific" point of view this seems a reasonable request.
Let's scrutinise the evidence.
Reply
#10
Shlama, Akhi Paul,

I'm sorry, but a claim that all palimpsests should be disregarded is not a scientific claim. There's not even one scientific researcher that I know of who would agree with you on this one...

There are great many Greek NT manuscripts (dozens of them, at least) that are palimpsests. All of them are respected and studied diligently by textual scholars.

For example,

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04084a.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04084a.htm</a><!-- m -->

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

(Symbol C).

The last in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible, received its name from the treatises of St. Ephraem the Syrian (translated into Greek) which were written over the original text. This took place in the twelfth century, the ink of the Scriptural text having become partially effaced through fading or rubbing. Several Biblical codices are palimpsests (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE), of which Codex Ephraemi is the most important.

[end quote]

So is there anyone who shows disrespect towards Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus because it is a palimpsest?

IMHO it is a duty of every historian to treat our ancient historical sources with respect.

As to that evidence that Old Syriac gospels were used by many Syriac Fathers of the Church and Syriac monastic leaders, I would like to clarify now that, personally, I'm not making any claims about this. In regard to this evidence, I'm merely a reporter.

I've found this info on the Web, and I've presented it here because it seems relevant to the subject matter of this forum.

So all I'm saying is that this evidence exists in published sources. There are further scholarly references that can be followed up to investigate this matter in more detail -- for those who are interested.

People can choose to believe or disbelieve such evidence as they wish. I have no real personal stake in this matter.

From past experience, such as re: the discussion whether or not Mar Aphrahat used the Diatessaron, I've learned that engaging in such discussions here can be an uphill struggle.

I've presented the whole phrases from Aphrahat that agree with the Diatessaron and/or the Old Syriac word for word -- the phrases that are not in the Peshitta. But that was not seen as persuasive...

Sure, Aphrahat did a lot of paraphrasing, but why did his paraphrases happen to agree with the Diatessaron and/or the Old Syriac word for word -- against the Peshitta?

At the same time, I'm happy to accept that, in some cases, Aphrahat's citations may also agree with the Peshitta against the Diatessaron/OS. But, for a number of reasons, this will not necessarily contradict his use of the Diatessaron/OS.

Once again, I'm not here to try to change people's minds about which gospel text and/or manuscripts should be believed or disbelieved -- or which Aramaic text is the best.

In general, I prefer never to argue about beliefs, because such arguments are rarely very productive. Historical and textual evidence OTOH is a completely different matter -- especially if all parties agree to follow basic scientific methodology.

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 -->
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Let me get this straight: you're trying to get me to change my mind about Palimpsets because there are Greek Palimpsets? Did I understand your reasoning correctly?

Besides, are we comparing apples and oranges. You do realize, don't you, that although Old Scratch is a Palimpset....it's the text that is erased, right?

Finally, Akhi, you can stick 10 "scholars" in the same room with the same evidence and come up with 9 different opinions on that evidence. Again, I don't care what scholars "think" - I want to know what the evidence is.

It's of no use to me or you for Steven Ring to have listed references. Why doesn't he (or, you) actually list examples, like we do here on this forum?

Is that the limit to your scientific methodology - "lookie, this scholar says this." Okay, fine and dandy. Let's discuss specifics, shall we?

You were the one who talked about "science" and "objectivity" - were you not?

If you were a chemist or physicist and you wanted to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal, I would sincerely hope that you would write about more specifics than "he said this, and the other one said that."

Specifics, Yuri. And don't think for one minute that any of us here believe that you have no personal stake in this. Aside from dwelling incessantly on this topic while here on the forum, you have written plenty about the subject - and all this is very visible to anyone interested on the web.

You have a big personal stake in this, as you don't want an official text of any church to be authoritative. It would generate unnecessary feelings of conflict inside you. Besides, what would anyone need you for, then?

The likes of Trimm need to "explore" and "find" and "discover", and be praised for it, of course. There's no glory in settling with accepted texts and going from there. You guys want the attention.

There's no way us darkies would have got it right and you wouldn't have known about it. It's just too much for you to accept. We needed you to come around in the 21st-century and tell us what we did wrong.

Sprare me the "I have no personal stake in this" - and come up with something more substantial than "well, he said so!" Then we can practice that "science" you so earnestly yearned for earlier. Like we did for the "eastern variants."
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
yuku Wrote:I've presented the whole phrases from Aphrahat that agree with the Diatessaron and/or the Old Syriac word for word -- the phrases that are not in the Peshitta. But that was not seen as persuasive...



Shlama,

Yuri.

Hi again Yuri,

How many "whole phrases" have you presented from Aphrahat that occur identically in the Old Syriact that are not in the peshitta?

Can we have a look at the evidence here?

Thank you.

Added in edit...I searched back through some old posts and found this...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65&highlight=">viewtopic.php?t=65&highlight=</a><!-- l -->

but it does not appear you have shown Aphrahat quotes the old syriac here.
Did you have something else in mind?
Reply
#13
Paul, ran across this when I was looking stuff up.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab7.html">http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab7.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhi Dave,

(1) Read the 645 A.D. entry - "an Old Syriac gospel manuscript." There's the careful wording again!
(2) Read the 647 A.D. entry. The Khudra, a huge 3-volume set which I own, contains 100% Peshitta readings. Does Steven Ring mention that fact, no!
(3) Read the 649 A.D. entry - "It is highly likely that the monks taught from their Old Syriac gospel texts in many of these schools." There's the careful wording again!
(4) Read the 653 or 654 A.D. entry - Gabriel was Monophysite. Irrelevant.
(5) Read the 657 or 658 A.D. entry - "an Old Syriac gospel" - wow, how many carefully worded statements can we find?

Akhi - we have manuscripts of the Peshitta dating to WAY before the mid-7th century.

Why does Steven Ring always use the ambiguous "An Old Syriac manuscript", instead of "The Old Syriac version?"

I'll tell you why: in the Church of the East, as opposed to the western Churches, they rarely quoted anything directly. There is a good reason for this. The Semitic (Jewish) tradition of Targum was kept alive and well in the Church of the East, but it died out elsewhere.

This means that the preferred method of exegesis in the Semitic Church of the East was "targumming", or "paraphrasing." When you "Targum", you tend to *expand* a reading, not *contract* it.

Of course sometimes these would bear some resemblance to the text of the Old Scratch, being that it is a Western text full of interpolations!

If you're at all interested in what Mr. Steven Ring thinks of the date of the Peshitta, you should see this page of his under the date 411 A.D. and then wonder about "AN Old Syriac manuscript."

http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab4.html

Steven Ring Wrote:A manuscript from Edessa dated 411 AD (the earliest dated manuscript in Syriac) was written. It contains the Syriac version of Eusebius' history of the Church, the Clementine Recognitiones and a work by Titus of Bostra. According to [38] the 'Recognitiones' contains scripture readings in marked agreement with the Peshitta, (unlike the underlying Greek text which the translator used which has readings more akin to the Old Syriac). This dated manuscript is itself a copy of an earlier Syriac manuscript .This demonstrates that the Peshitta had been in existence for some time by the time our manuscript was copied in AD 411. This manuscript provides us with the earliest evidence for the use of the Peshitta.

This manuscript, Akhi, DATED to 411 AD right on the manuscript itself, contains pure Peshitta readings AGAINST Old Scratch readings. It is, itself, a COPY of an earlier manuscript.

Now, what you're talking about is the original manuscript going back into the 300s, if not the 200s. And it contained PESHITTA readings, against Old Scratch.

And it predates the supposed "AN Old Syriac manuscript" quotes by at least 400 years.

That's science, Yuri. Manuscripts are hard evidence. Not Mr. Rings "probably"s and "an"s and "maybe."s
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#15
Quote:Of course sometimes these would bear some resemblance to the text of the Old Scratch, being that it is a Western text full of interpolations!

Hmmmm, you do make some interesting points Paul!

Of course the OS is a copy of another text of sorts, and very, very bad copy, as you have attested. Calling men females in the same sentence and such, is very bad translational methods. Burkitt and others noted it.

I thought about your theory of the "targum expansion" and decided to look at some examples. This didn't work in the Bezae text of acts, as most of the so-called "interpolations" actually fit too closely in the context of the sentence. In other words, the sections that were additions made sense throughout most of the context of the text. In fact, it is hard to call them interpolations.

I looked at the 2 OS examples we have. Again, this did not explain the unique semetic style that makes up the majority of the OS, Leige Dutch manuscript, Ephrems syriac commentary, and others. Now, within the OS, there are interpolations, these are easy to tell in places as they confuse the context at times.

Ephrem does do the expansional quotational thing throughout his treatise, but there are too many close resemblences to either the Diatesseron or the OS type he used. Again, he does not rely completely on either one, and even quotes the Greek as a comparison at times in sections, which is interesting. His insights are expansions upon truths that were found through his studies in the word. He spent time in the word till he reached into the multidimensional "living" word, past the letter form. Thus, the insights from him that others tended to miss. What's interesting, is if he tells his audience "from the Greek,..." then I could rightfully assume he would state such if he was using a paraphrased aramaic text.

Now, if we are to believe that the OS was some sort of copy of a "targum" expansion, then this so-called targum treatise made it half-way around the world, in multiple languages, and had more acceptance throughout the first few centuries!!!! Odd indeed. Yet this OS semetic style has remained alive throughout all of Satan's destructive attempts through mankind. Very much alive as more texts are looked at and compared.

I'm gonna re-quote Voobus here:

Quote:Some very valuable clues are to be found in the specific Palestinian Aramaic terms, idioms and grammatical forms preserved by Old Syriac gospels. These are unknown in pure classical Syriac and constitute an alien element. Certainly Tatian has not made use of them, but these linguistic anomalies together with other remarkable idiosyncrasies and relics of Palestinian provenance tend to prove the existence of an archaic and heterogeneous layer in the Old Syriac gospels. It seems to be the fact, that in a more careful analysis of these elements lies the best hope to go forward here.

What lies behind the western text is unique. It is "a semetic form" that is majestic in quality. And behind the Bezae, the OS, the Harclean translation, the Old Latin, the Old Armenian, and many other Greek manuscripts, lies this semetic form, that is distinctly different than the Peshitta. Hopefully more texts will surface and clues to the history will explain where this semetic form came from.

Scholars are instictively interested in this OS style more than any of other text at the moment, from what I'm seeing. The Greek has been hashed and rehashed beyond belief for too many years. To believe that it was the original language is to make oneself dumb by his/her very own beliefs. We are to seek the truth from above first and continue to do that, but when we head out on a course of our own decisions and insight from mankind, we loose any truth we understood before that was given. It's just the way it is. Our inspiration is The Almighty. His Son is the truth, the way, and the life. When we stop asking for the truth in such matters from HIM and our big brother Jesus, we loose out in the truth and just how simple things really are. Our confirmation is from above in all matters, not from mankind,....if you really do want to know the truth, only The Almighty knows.

Most of the biblical scholars are on their own course in such matters. Is it any wonder Satan trips them up so easily? He is allowed to. They stop seeking GOD for the truth, or never asked in the first place.

Anyways, it's easy to see the Greek loosing it's pre-eminence here lately. There is a new batch of renegade scholars who would throw out the rulebooks rather than adhere to the same old principles that lead down dead ends. I think there will be a new age of discovery here, especially in semetic studies. I don't wanna hide from it, I wanna experience it and hopefully be a part in it some how.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)