use of OS by ancient Aramaic-speaking Christians

[yuku]

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.