Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
use of OS by ancient Aramaic-speaking Christians
#46
Oh, I see how that works, Dave.

If Yuri finds 1 example slightly resembling a western-type reading in Aphrahat, then that's evidence that Aphrahat used Old Scratch.

If I find 11 examples where Aphrahat's reading matches the Peshitta reading against Old Scratch, then that's evidence of eastern tampering.

I love it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#47
Western or not, saying an eastern translated text was Tatian's Diatesseron when the evidence overwhelming proves that there was no way that this peshitta harmony could have ever Tatian's Diatesseron is unreasonable and biased, Paul.

Looks like Yuri was doing some diggin up on Arphrahat. Seems like he has some OS quotes mixed in also, just like Ephrem.

No matter what, this particular text is no "safe zone" like the peshitta may be, the evidence is too blatant Paul, and that evidence would not be discounted by anyone with a level head, scholar or not. It's common sense.
Reply
#48
A 1st century find would be interesting. Any bets that it will happen?
Reply
#49
The thing with Aphrahat that you use frequently as a witness to the peshitta, is that he should be strickly using the peshitta so as not to confuse anyone,...is that what he always uses?
Reply
#50
Akhi Dave,

What text did Aphrahat use?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=400
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=297
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=277
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=273
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=225
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=224
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=223
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194

Go into each one and let's deal with each of them, one by one. You'll find the answer you are looking for.

Remember, Aphrahat predates Ephraem.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#51
It's even easier than that Paul. It's just a simple question, did Aphrahat quote only the Peshitta in all the records that are attributed to him? Every single one, was it only the Peshitta?
Reply
#52
Dave Wrote:Western or not, saying an eastern translated text was Tatian's Diatesseron when the evidence overwhelming proves that there was no way that this peshitta harmony could have ever Tatian's Diatesseron is unreasonable and biased, Paul.

What evidence? Ephraem's commentary could have easily been vulgarized to agree with the western text.

The fact of the matter is that we no longer have Tatian, the Assyrian's, Diatesseron.

We only have witnesses. The one DIRECT translation of it, that says so RIGHT ON THE MANUSCRIPT ITSELF, reads like a harmony of the Peshitta Gospels.

Which is exactly what Tatian's Diatesseron was.

What evidence are you talking about? Armenian and Latin harmonies?

I'm talking about an ARABIC translation directly from an ARAMAIC source. It even has grammatical errors in the Arabic that point to an Aramaic source.

This is a no-win situation for the Old Scratch, Akhi. Total scientific evidence and no "bias".
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#53
Dave Wrote:It's even easier than that Paul. It's just a simple question, did Aphrahat quote only the Peshitta in all the records that are attributed to him? Every single one, was it only the Peshitta?

Aphrahat expounded on Peshitta readings from memory, called Targums. A large percentage of the time, as my examples show, it happends to be a word-for-word match (against Old Scratch.)

Other times, they match nothing at all. This is where Aphrahat is paraphrasing.

I thought I've stated this before a million times, but there it is again.

Now, can we go through each example one by one? Please?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#54
Dave Wrote:A 1st century find would be interesting. Any bets that it will happen?

Whether or not it will happen is besides my original point.

Is the age of the manuscripts themselves the big stumbling block to you?

100 years ago, the earliest Hebrew manuscript of the OT was the 1000 A.D. Aleppo Codex.

Would that have been a problem to you, too?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#55
Quote:We only have witnesses. The one DIRECT translation of it, that says so RIGHT ON THE MANUSCRIPT ITSELF, reads like a harmony of the Peshitta Gospels.

And,....

What evidence shows that this was not a tampering? I'm suppose to believe this cause someone signed it and said so? ok.

The greek fragment, doesn't prove the Peshitta was tatians. Both languages of Ephrems commentary prove differently, that Tatians has western text origin. Would I be so blind and just write this off as vulgarized commentary?

Church fathers have OS quotes mixed in with Peshitta renderings, just like Ephrems commentary. I'm not blind Paul.
Reply
#56
Akhi Dave,

I'm not blind, either, Dave. I can see the manuscript below very easily, without my glasses on. That's scientific proof of tampering.

[Image: vaticanus.jpg]
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#57
Quote:Aphrahat expounded on Peshitta readings from memory, called Targums. A large percentage of the time, as my examples show, it happends to be a word-for-word match (against Old Scratch.)

Other times, they match nothing at all. This is where Aphrahat is paraphrasing.

But he is ok and Ephrem is not? He is doing exactly the same thing as Ephrem is, yet Ephrem is a westener, so he can't be a difinitive source.

Since Aphrahat is doing the same thing as Ephrem, I will still submit that Ephrems commentary is valid, the greek fragment is genuine, and stick by it as proof against inscription by some wayword monk on a peshitta harmony.

End of story.
Reply
#58
Well, I think it's important to clarify some of these old issues here, although I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion with Akhi Paul at this time.

When groundless personal accusations are directed at you over and over again, and when you're described as a "snake", I think it's pretty obvious that this sort of a discussion has left the bounds of normal scholarly exchange, and moved into something else entirely... Sorry, I'm not interested, unless I receive a personal apology from Akhi Paul for these unkind things that he's been saying about me.

I wish people would argue with what I said, rather than with what I didn't say. I never used the word "pride", for example, and yet this is quoted over and over again as if I said it.

I'm only interested in scientific discussion here. Anything outside of that, I'm not interested, sorry.

I've been asking people to clarify their position on the question of faith vs. science, but apparently this subject is too sensitive? I don't know why should this be so.

Paul Younan Wrote:Why else would he [Yuri] not have answered this post?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228

Or this one?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=273

How about this little cutie?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=400

Or this mother of all examples?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

Or this father of all examples?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=224

OK, let us examine these cases.

Mar Aphrahat and Mattai 5:16
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228">viewtopic.php?t=228</a><!-- l -->

Paul Younan Wrote:Mar Aphrahat here agrees 100% with the Peshitta,

And with the Greek!

Paul Younan Wrote:but here are the problems with Old Scratch:

(1) Sinaiticus has a Lamad Proclitic before "qdam" - and Mar Aphrahat does not.

Well, since such minor divergencies are found in many Peshitta MSS, according to Akhi Paul, himself, they seem to be unimportant...

Paul Younan Wrote:(2) Both Sinaiticus and Cureton have "Shapir" (beautiful) before "works", whereas Mar Aphrahat and the Peshitta agree against them with "Tawa" - "good".

And the Greek also has /kala/ = good. So maybe the OS preserves an earlier text here?

Paul Younan Wrote:(3) Finally, both Old Scratch (s) and © have "Bnay Anasha" (men) as distinct words - whereas Mar Aphrahat and the Peshitta have them combined.

Again, such minor divergencies don't seem very important, since they are also found in many Peshitta MSS...

Now, what was this example supposed to prove? I don't quite understand.

========

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 10:30
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=273">viewtopic.php?t=273</a><!-- l -->

There's no change in meaning here. I've addressed this passage before.

========

Mar Aphrahat and 1Corinthians 2:9
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=400">viewtopic.php?t=400</a><!-- l -->

This has nothing to do with the OS.

========

Mar Aphrahat and Luqa 15:8
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231">viewtopic.php?t=231</a><!-- l -->

Two minor spelling divergencies, and one word different in SyC (but not in SyS).

========

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 13:34
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=224">viewtopic.php?t=224</a><!-- l -->

The point of this is not clear to me. Nobody ever denied that Aphrahat often paraphrases.

As I wrote here,

[quote]

Patristic Quotes & the OS
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=319">viewtopic.php?t=319</a><!-- l -->

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.

[unquote]

In sum, I don't really understand what is the point of these examples. Are they supposed to prove something?

If some citations of Aphrahat agree with the Peshitta (and also with the Greek), this can be explained in a variety of ways. One can even grant that Aphrahat did sometimes use the Peshitta (although this isn't the only explanation possible).

But even if we were to grant that Aphrahat did use the Peshitta, how would this contradict his use of the Old Syriac, as well?

My main argument here is that Aphrahat made use of the Old Syriac. But his hypothetical use of the Peshitta does not necessarily contradict this.

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
#59
See image above for who is OK to trust and who isn't.

That's MY end of story. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Love you, man.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#60
It comes down to evidence, not some signature and belief that it must be right cause someone said so on the paper. Common sense approach.

To alienate Ephrem out of the picture, then you gotta throw out Aphrahat also, since he is doing exactly the same thing,....common sense,...westener or not.

How can you say Ephrem doesn't count when his counterpart in the east is doing the same exact thing?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)