Peshitta Forum

Full Version: From before the foundations of the world...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Shlama Akhay,

As many of you already know, the Odes of Solomon is a first-century Aramaic-Hebraic Messianic Hymnal.

In Ode 16:15, we read the following (concerning the MessiahSmile

Quote:And He was known from before the foundations of the world...

It is this phrase, from before the foundations of the world, as found in the 1st-century hymnal that I would like to use for our argument here that the Peshitta (not the so-called "Old Syriac") was the text of the early, 1st-century believers.

In the Aramaic of the Odes, the Aramaic phrase is:

[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Mdq Nm[/font] (men qdam tarmeyteh de-aalma) ("From before the foundations of the world...")

You can find this phrase in the following passages of the Peshitta:
  • Yukhanan 17:24 - "...because You have loved Me [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Mdq Nm[/font]"
    Matthew 13:35 - "...I will open My mouth with parables and bring out secrets that were [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Mdq Nm[/font]"
    Matthew 25:34 - "...come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom which has been prepared for you [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Nm[/font]"
    Keepha 1:20 - "He Who was pre-ordained for this purpose [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Mdq Nm[/font]"
    Romans 1:20 - "For the invisible things of Him [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Nm[/font] are clearly seen...."
    Ephesians 1:4 - "For He has chosen us in Him [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9d htymrt Mdq Nm[/font] to be holy and blameless before Him...."

Unfortunately, the so-called "Old-Syriac" manuscripts survive only in their renditions of the Gospels. And, again unfortunately, the reading for Matthew 25:34 in the OS does not survive. Nevertheless, here is how they read for the first two examples above:
  • Yukhanan 17:24 (Curetonian reading, verse extant in Siniatic) - "...and that You have loved Me [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ml9 0whnd Mdq Nm[/font]" (men qdam de-nehweh aalma) ("from before the world came to be")

    Matthew 13:35 (Siniatic & Cureton reading)- "...I will open My mouth with parables and utter mysteries [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Mydq Nm[/font]" (men qadeem) ("from old")

As you can see, the readings above in the so-called "Old-Syriac" manuscripts are completely different from the phrase used by both the Peshitta and the Odist.

What does this evidence suggest?

(a) That the Peshitta was in the hands of the 1st-century Odist
(b) That the Peshitta predates the so-called "Old Syriac" manuscripts
© That Old Scratch can't stay consistent with Semitic idioms, and are exposed as 2nd-rate translations

Comments are welcome...... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Shlama Paul,

i think you're being humble -- aren't the ramifications of this HUGE for pushing Peshitta primacy? i was reading it with jaw hanging open...


for what it's worth, here's a snippet of wikipedia's thoughts, still on the liberal side, but surprisingly leaning support to your presentation:

No all-convincing proof of the original language of the Odes of Solomon has been produced. The three suggestions that continue to hold merit among scholars are that the Odes were composed in Greek, in Syriac or in a bilingual Greek-Syriac community. Their place of origin seems likely to have been the region of Syria, but whether it was west Syria (for example Antioch) or northern Mesopotamia (for example Edessa) is moot. As for date, the slight majority of scholarship places the Odes in the second century (with later in the century slightly favoured), but a date in the first (Charlesworth) and the third centuries (Drijvers) is still argued.


thanks for sharing this find!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
...or that the Odes of Solomon influenced the sources of the Peshitta.
Paul Younan Wrote:As you can see, the readings above in the so-called "Old-Syriac" manuscripts are completely different from the phrase used by both the Peshitta and the Odist.

What does this evidence suggest?

(a) That the Peshitta was in the hands of the 1st-century Odist
(b) That the Peshitta predates the so-called "Old Syriac" manuscripts
© That Old Scratch can't stay consistent with Semitic idioms, and are exposed as 2nd-rate translations

Comments are welcome...... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Greek primacy is finished...however one must take to heart the words of Max Planck.

???A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it???
???All great truths begin as blasphemy??? - George Bernard Shaw
Shlama Kara,

Kara Wrote:...or that the Odes of Solomon influenced the sources of the Peshitta.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you are suggesting the possibility that a biblical translation was influenced by a hymnal?
judge Wrote:???A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it???

Great quote! I can't think of another field of scientific study where those words ring more true.
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Kara,

Kara Wrote:...or that the Odes of Solomon influenced the sources of the Peshitta.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you are suggesting the possibility that a biblical translation was influenced by a hymnal?

Yes I am. It is also possible that "from before the foundations of the world" was a common idiom employed by both sources of the Peshitta and the writer(s) of the Odes. I am in no position to determine which case is more plausible. But given the fluidity of the New Testament before its final canonization, in my opinion, both are highly possible
Kara Wrote:Yes I am.

Wow. OK. So the translator that was responsible for making the Peshitta, used a phrase found in a hymnal to revise the "Old Syriac" text in 2 Gospels and 3 Epistles, correct?

Firstly, can you present any evidence to back this hypothesis? A manuscript, for instance, of the Peshitta that contains the prior reading?

Secondly, do you have any other examples where the Peshitta chose to follow the Odist? I mean, it can't just be this one simple phrase can it? If the author(s) of the Peshitta thought so highly of the Odes as to use them to correct the "Old Syriac", then it reasonably follows that there should be plenty of instances where we can find the Peshitta borrowing from the Odes. I'd love to see examples if you have them!

Kara Wrote:It is also possible that "from before the foundations of the world" was a common idiom employed by both sources of the Peshitta and the writer(s) of the Odes. I am in no position to determine which case is more plausible. But given the fluidity of the New Testament before its final canonization, in my opinion, both are highly possible

Anything is possible, I suppose, but some things are more likely than others. I know of no other case where a hymnal was used to revise scripture...not in one passage, but six across 5 different books.
Quote:Wow. OK. So the translator that was responsible for making the Peshitta, used a phrase found in a hymnal to revise the "Old Syriac" text in 2 Gospels and 3 Epistles, correct?

Firstly, can you present any evidence to back this hypothesis? A manuscript, for instance, of the Peshitta that contains the prior reading?

Secondly, do you have any other examples where the Peshitta chose to follow the Odist? I mean, it can't just be this one simple phrase can it? If the author(s) of the Peshitta thought so highly of the Odes as to use them to correct the "Old Syriac", then it reasonably follows that there should be plenty of instances where we can find the Peshitta borrowing from the Odes. I'd love to see examples if you have them!

I certainly have neither the proof nor expertise to back my statement. Thus, it's merely an assertion. My purpose was to expose alternative reasons why there are parallelisms between the two texts. However, for all it's worth, Mingana noted a parallelism between the Peshitta version of Psalm 88 and Ode 42; I cannot verify this. I personally think the suggestion that "from before the foundations of the world," being a common idiom captured by both the Peshitta and the Odes, has a higher degree of probability. But again, I cannot verify this.
Kara Wrote:I certainly have neither the proof nor expertise to back my statement. Thus, it's merely an assertion.

So then how exactly does that make your assertion any different from, say, what you were accusing Akhan Andrew of in this thread?

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2107

Here are some quotes from you:

Kara Wrote:What qualifies the author to confirm his hypothesis?
Kara Wrote:How much expertise does he have pertaining to the subject?
Kara Wrote:Most of your recent post employs the ad hominem fallacy
Kara Wrote:I deserve solid evidence before accepting your conclusion.
Kara Wrote:As for the second and third assumptions, they're possible, but unlikely, given the lack of unbiased, publicly verifiable evidence; thus, they are at best assertions.
Kara Wrote:Thus based on these shaky unstated ideas, I reject your argument.

Finally, you use a lot of "probable", "possible" and "likely" in your writings. I don't deal with probabilities or likelihoods. I use evidence and the scientific method.

If you've followed my style of communication over the past decade or so, you'll notice that I rarely let anyone get away with assertions that lack evidence or merit. If you insist on engaging intellectual giants like Andrew in a meaningful conversation, why not follow your own criteria above? It would at least give the appearance that you are trying.
Paul,

Andrew and I are playing two roles. He is the communicator. He wants me to accept a conclusion; for example (just one example in our dialogue), he says that "the Talmud quotes... unquestionably prove they are co-opting Gospel quotes." He has reasons why his conclusion is reasonable. Reasons + conclusion is, as you know, an argument. I play the critical listener. Before I accept his conclusion and change my beliefs, I need to know whether what he says is weak or strong, sound or unsound. If one of his reasons has ambiguous wording, I will not accept it until he clarifies. If one of his unstated ideas, called assumptions, differ from my own and he fails to convince me that his are superior for x reasons, then I hesitant to accept. If he strays from the advantages or disadvantages of the issue and instead uses informal logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, straw man, tu quoque, poisoning the well, red herring, and etc (as he has, particularly poisoning the well), then I cannot accept his reasons. If he appeals to authority, then I need to know if that authority has certain expertise, standards for research, and is as unbiased as possible; otherwise, his appeal to authority's weak. And if he comes to a conclusion about a certain event and I furnish a number of rival causes, as the communicator, he should convince me that his conclusion is the best one because of so-and-so reasons. If not, then I hesistant to accept.

I'm applying the same method here with you. I furnished a couple of rival causes as to why the Peshitta and the Odes share the same idiom. Since you are the communicator, it's your job to prove how your conclusion is the only viable cause. I find my methodology is especially helpful because you're biased towards Aramaic primacy with an agenda of spreading Aramaic primacy. It's no different than questioning the male prostrate statistics used to promote a vitamin company. Who exactly did they include in the statistics? How did they word the questions of the survey? How big was their sample? Etc. I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to accept.

Is this unreasonable or "nastiness?" Would you eat something--anything-- you were unsure about?


2) You said: "I don't deal with probabilities or likelihoods. I use evidence and the scientific method."

Unfortunately, you don't have an original of the Syriac Bible. You have copies, none of which are carbon dated near the first century. Thus we can only deal with "probabilities and likelihoods." You've shown how the Semitic rendition of certain NT verses are linguistically superior to various Greek renditions, establishing a decent probability that the Gospels, whoever the authors, originally either wrote them in Aramaic or in a lost Greek version littered with Aramaicisms.

The main elements of the scientific method are: 1) publicly verifiably data, 2) a control, and 3) precision in language

The majority of biblical scholars, outside your Church's tradition and with equal or greater relevant expertise than you, disagree with your conclusion. They, a group of highly qualified men and women with different perspectives, values, and needs, still conclude that the Peshitta is not the original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture that Syriac tradition propagates. Questioning thereabout (to be clear, whether or not there's an original, unaltered, God-breathed, Apostle-sanctioned scripture, some scholars conclude that

"the concern not to trouble simple minds with an uncertain or reworked text is no doubt a laudable one, but is it right to alter history? For what is implied to be the original text is in fact probably a text established in Egypt around the year AD 200, doubtless with some earlier readings but also some innovations..." (L. Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction To The New Testament Textual Criticism, 1986, op. cit., p. 167)

Others say:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history ( "Canon of the New Testament," the Catholic Encyclopedia)

and others:

For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.

Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century.(Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, p 72-73)


And others:

The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities. (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, volume 1, pp 41)


Finally, because your research is a single,independent study that isn't subjected to criticism within the family of Aramaic/Biblical research studies in and outside your tradition, you may come to misleading conclusions that anyone here is unable to correct (or unwilling). The research repeated by more than one researcher or a group of researchers is more important. Here, it's just you and like-minded people reaffirming each other; it's a room of one man's echoes. That's not science.

3) You said: "If you insist on engaging intellectual giants like Andrew in a meaningful conversation, why not follow your own criteria above? It would at least give the appearance that you are trying."

First, I'll follow my own criteria once I post something trying to convince you of my convictions. What do you mean "give the appearance that I am trying?" Trying to do what? Learn? I am trying to learn, but I will not soak whatever so-and-so says because they are so-and-so; I'm not a sponge. I'm the guy who puts his pan in the water, shaking for gold. But I guess testing gold with fire is nowadays "nastiness."

Finally, before you choose Andrew's side, could you judge whether or not I merited the "one warning rule," based on the forum rules? If you rule yes, then quote what I said and show me how it was "threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory" or "generally objectionable" In accordance to those same rules, shouldn't Andrew be judged for the "personal insults" at my expense?



Example:

"I guess I was wrong to assume you were literate enough of the research here that points in the direction of late first century NT formation."

Or is this about friendship and loyalty?
Kara Wrote:Andrew and I are playing two roles. He is the communicator.....(snip)

Yes, he is playing the communicator role. And he is more than qualified to do so. You, however have taken it upon yourself to play the role of forum debunker. We have over the years experienced this phenomenon quite often: some know-it-all (who doesn't) comes along, and employs some (or all) of the following classic trademarks:

#1) They never post anything original.
#2) They snipe at all credible posts.
#3) They find the most innocuous part of the post to attack and forget the rest.
#4) IMPORTANT: the following words must be used as frequently as feasible; "likely" and "possible".
#5) They demand credentials, although they don't have any.
#6) They never address the evidence, nor do they offer any of their own.
#7) If they have to respond to a fact or two, then they acknowledge them and move on to something else as quick as possible.
#8) They attack the person.
#9) They play the role of Devil's Advocate.
#10) Last but not least, they pretend they are really trying to seek the truth.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not YOU that Andrew or I may be addressing. It's not YOU that we may be trying to "convince." Many times we are bouncing ideas off of one another, or perhaps we are adding to our arsenal of evidence for future reference.

Playing the role of debunker is fine: as long as you are at least somewhat fluent in the subject matter at hand. The ability to present evidence to back up your objections may help your cause as well.

Kara Wrote:Or is this about friendship and loyalty?

I'm not going to grace that with an answer.
Paul,

Quote:We have over the years experienced this phenomenon quite often: some know-it-all (who doesn't) comes along, and employs some (or all) of the following classic trademarks:

I just told you that I wasn't arguing for/against, but merely trying to critically accept conclusions. Are you listening?


Quote:#2) They snipe at all credible posts.


What makes them credible? Is there a list of standards by which a post is evaluated, such as in a scientific study of tapeworms, or is "credible" something that adds to your agenda, the spread of Aramaic primacy? Is it bad to be dissenting here? Would you rather me praise you and your friends for whatever they discover, asking questions obsequiously, assuming they know what they're talking about? I think you would.


Quote:#3) They find the most innocuous part of the post to attack and forget the rest.

And what exactly have you done with my post?


Quote: #4) IMPORTANT: the following words must be used as frequently as feasible; "likely" and "possible".

The unstated idea is "inductive reasoning is outlawed because whatever Paul and his friends say is proof, thus one must reasoning deductively because they have established laws, not higher degrees of probability."

Quote:#5) They demand credentials, although they don't have any.

I would also demand credentials from a physician before prescribing an drug, although I don't possess his expertise. This doesn't make sense. Besides, who here REALLY has the appropriate credentials to spread Aramaic primacy? You're a computer programmer who speaks, writes, and reads Syriac fluently. But that doesn't make you an expert any more than me being an expert of Victorian poetry.

Quote:#6) They never address the evidence, nor do they offer any of their own.

You're assuming that it's dependable evidence in question and I'm too sniffnecked to acknowledge it. Where are you getting this? And I did address the evidence. Because my questions couldn't be answered, then I couldn't accept it as dependable.


Quote:#7) If they have to respond to a fact or two, then they acknowledge them and move on to something else as quick as possible.

I had entire posts and you attacked two or three lines in isolation.


Quote:#8) They attack the person.

Andrew, then, displays one of these characteristics.

Quote:#9) They play the role of Devil's Advocate.

As sometimes necessary before accepting a conclusion


Quote:#10) Last but not least, they pretend they are really trying to seek the truth.

Now you know the hearts of men? You KNOW that I'm pretending to "really seek the truth?" C'mon, Paul. You're clearly emotional right now. You're defending Andrew because he's of your faith and cause, inspite of your logic. It's incredible how biased you are. Have you ever explored anything other than what was taught to you? Ever had the courage to question your values and beliefs?

As for Andrew, he attacked me personally, saying I'm not "literate enough." I furnished the proof. Are you going to delete his posts or are the rules bended for a select few?
Kara,

It's always been the case that our readership comes to their own conclusions after weighing the evidence presented for/against an argument. There is always an open invitation to criticize ideas and question conclusions and how they are arrived at. What you're asking for is nothing new. What is objectionable is your approach.

Consider how this thread developed.

I presented an argument that the Peshitta was known to the Odist. I offered one piece of linguistic evidence, in the form of an idiom, and explained in detail why it better matches the Peshitta than the Old Syriac.

Rather than providing evidence to the contrary, you decided to present an alternative explanation for the affinity in idiom between these two texts. Anyone can offer somewhat viable alternatives if the person has a creative mind. When I called on you to provide evidence to back up your hypothesis, as I did, you readily admitted that this is not your field of expertise and you called your opinion an assertion.

In other words, you see your role on this forum as being that of a questioner, not an expert on the subject matter.

While I appreciate your honesty, with which you validated Andrew's opinion that you are not literate in the subject, I would much more appreciate if you took the time to think out your assertions and perhaps flesh them out with some detail. A one liner, like "But it could have also been...." doesn't really get me excited.

I would really like it for once if someone would come along and punch me in the mouth with a solid piece of evidence that would refute my theory. For instance, you could have dropped in a few examples of how the Odist makes use of the Diatesseron or Old Syriac, but you chime in with a one-liner. A hardly thought-out one at that.

There are ways to question a hypothesis that does not rub someone the wrong way. The fact that both Andrew and I got the same impression from your writings suggests that you should alter your approach.
Pages: 1 2 3