The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.

[Kara]

Questions:


1) You say: "the Peshitta did not emerge in the fourth century, that it emerged from the hands of the Apostles themselves." Can you support this tradition with the testimony of outside sources (i.e. scholars, Western Church Fathers, etc)? For one, the majority of biblical scholars agree that the Gospels have unknown authors, writing and rewriting under pseudonyms (i.e. Odes of Solomon, Book of Enoch, Book of Adam and Eve) until their final canonization. Let's assume that scholars have only examined the Greek tradition, even Syriac speaking communities other than in Persia, and unfairly included your neck of the woods into the mix. What proof does it offer that effectively counters these scholars' research? For instance, do you have different samples of Apostolic signatures? DNA samples extracted from hair? In other words, do you have something---anything---dating back to the 1st century that is irrefutably from the Apostles? Does the COE even possess knowledge of the Apostles' burial sites?

2) How does the internal/external evidence suggest that the Peshitta, as we know it today, is the direct descendant of the prototypal New Testament when its first copy and copies of copies are lost (and possibly altered), (2) eastern Church Fathers (or whomever), in Persia, failed to preserve its fragments through quotations, and (3) no one bothered to memorize it? Do we have something earlier than the Diatessaron to compare it to? Perhaps a Syriac Gospel carbon-dated between the mid and late 1st century? How about early 2nd century (100-125 CE)?

I can accept your belief derives from Church tradition, but I want to know if it has historical merit. And I say this with all due respect.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Kevin,

Can you support this tradition with the testimony of outside sources (i.e. scholars, Western Church Fathers, etc)?

No. But think about that question for a moment. Imagine tomorrow morning, we wake up....make some coffee...fire up the laptop....go to our favorite news page and read in the headlines that an old manuscript has been found that listed the names of the Jewish scribes in Corinth and the work they did to translate Paul's Epistles for the benefit of the non-Jews in their congregation.

Of course, they wouldn't have called it the "Peshitta" - since the collection had not yet been named. But they included enough information like direct quotes, that it was readily apparent the text type of the Aramaic was most like the Peshitta, albeit perhaps in a script more common among the Jews at the time.

Think about that for a moment.

What would change? The evidence, textually, is still the same. You still have the same text. The same "forensic" evidence that we strive to find here.

Is that all it would take to convince you? Is it really a matter that that type of direct evidence is more powerful in your eyes, than the evidence of a forensic nature that we find in every book of the scripture?

If we were to have DNA samples on the manuscripts themselves, would that convince you? Would we even be here talking about this?

Akhi Kevin, you ask questions that are obviously going to be impossible to answer. They're called loaded questions. If only it were that simple, that a Greek or Aramaic manuscript were found with Paul's signature right on it....carbon dated to 60AD. That would settle the question nicely, wouldn't it?

Brushing aside the impossible (or rather, improbable)...all we have to go on is a rational examination of the evidence in the scientific manner. Forensic Linguistics, if you will. That's what we do here.

I can only support my hypothesis that the collection we now call Peshitta came from the Apostles, with Forensic Linguistics. That's all I've got. That's all Metzger had. It's up to you to decide as an individual which is more persuasive. No need to appeal to emotion, pride or hope. The evidence on both sides can lead one to a rational conclusion.

PS - it's really not that prominent a tradition in my church. Actually, none of our Patristic writers ever cared to mention it. I've never heard a sermon about it. The church really doesn't make it a priority. They'd rather feed the poor and minister to the sick, go figure! I'm really the only one who makes a big deal about it. And some of them think I'm crazy for placing so much emphasis on it.

I know you keep hanging on this church belief/tradition thing. Did you hear anything about Aramaic when I was translating for you at the service you and I attended together in L.A., with our brother Dean Dana? Really? Not one word was mentioned about Aramaic? Wow. That's every Sunday for me. So trust me when I tell you this really, really is not a church tradition.

It used to be a priority for Mar Eshai, of blessed memory. But he's long in the arms of our Saviour. I haven't heard anything since. The mission of the Church is not Aramaic Primacy. It would rather that you read the KJV, and believe, than read the Peshitta and be a non-believer like Metzger.

[Kara]

No. But think about that question for a moment. Imagine tomorrow morning, we wake up....make some coffee...fire up the laptop....go to our favorite news page and read in the headlines that an old manuscript has been found that listed the names of the Jewish scribes in Corinth and the work they did to translate Paul's Epistles for the benefit of the non-Jews in their congregation.

Of course, they wouldn't have called it the "Peshitta" - since the collection had not yet been named. But they included enough information like direct quotes, that it was readily apparent the text type of the Aramaic was most like the Peshitta, albeit perhaps in a script more common among the Jews at the time.

Think about that for a moment.

What would change? The evidence, textually, is still the same. You still have the same text. The same "forensic" evidence that we strive to find here.

Is that all it would take to convince you? Is it really a matter that that type of direct evidence is more powerful in your eyes, than the evidence of a forensic nature that we find in every book of the scripture?

I see your point. But the advantage gained in this scenario is that the two texts can be compared and contrasted. On another note, like you, I don't like to settle for "probably." If the argument must be inductive, then it must be strong before I can accept it; I prefer deductive.

If we were to have DNA samples on the manuscripts themselves, would that convince you? Would we even be here talking about this?

Akhi Kevin, you ask questions that are obviously going to be impossible to answer. They're called loaded questions. If only it were that simple, that a Greek or Aramaic manuscript were found with Paul's signature right on it....carbon dated to 60AD. That would settle the question nicely, wouldn't it?

Brushing aside the impossible (or rather, improbable)...all we have to go on is a rational examination of the evidence in the scientific manner. Forensic Linguistics, if you will. That's what we do here.

I can only support my hypothesis that the collection we now call Peshitta came from the Apostles, with Forensic Linguistics. That's all I've got. That's all Metzger had. It's up to you to decide as an individual which is more persuasive. No need to appeal to emotion, pride or hope. The evidence on both sides can lead one to a rational conclusion.

Agreed

PS - it's really not that prominent a tradition in my church. Actually, none of our Patristic writers ever cared to mention it. I've never heard a sermon about it. The church really doesn't make it a priority. They'd rather feed the poor and minister to the sick, go figure! I'm really the only one who makes a big deal about it. And some of them think I'm crazy for placing so much emphasis on it.

This clears away a huge misconception in my head.

I know you keep hanging on this church belief/tradition thing. Did you hear anything about Aramaic when I was translating for you at the service you and I attended together in L.A., with our brother Dean Dana? Really? Not one word was mentioned about Aramaic? Wow. That's every Sunday for me. So trust me when I tell you this really, really is not a church tradition.

Good times. Remember the lady in front of us who kept eyeballing you for translating the bishop's sermon? Were you really that loud? LMAO

[Paul Younan]

Remember the lady in front of us who kept eyeballing you for translating the bishop's sermon? Were you really that loud? LMAO

She apparently had no appreciation of a Meturgeman.

[BrotherLarry]

Shlama Akhay Kevin & Paul,

Akhan Paul said..."It used to be a priority for Mar Eshai, of blessed memory. But he's long in the arms of our Saviour. I haven't heard anything since."

Don't forget about someone who is in total agreement with him over 1,500 years ago....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1463

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhay Kevin & Paul,

Akhan Paul said..."It used to be a priority for Mar Eshai, of blessed memory. But he's long in the arms of our Saviour. I haven't heard anything since."

Don't forget about someone who is in total agreement with him over 1,500 years ago....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1463

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

I forgot about Mar Ibas! You're right!

[Christina]

Shlama all,

I was wondering if anyone here knows of a weblink for an English translation of Mar Ephriam's Diatessaron commentary in electronic format? I'm asking on behalf of a friend who wants to join the forum (akhi Paul, check your email/PM inbox about this).

Toddah!