Peshitta Forum

Full Version: The "O" argument
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
judge Wrote:Ok, but there is a lot more than just place names. We have many many other words.
"Many" is a relative term. I would say we have "a few" other words. Mostly we have names of one kind or another.


Quote:How do we know no one cared? Being a foreigner was big issue in those times (even if only a Galilean foriegner). The fact that Galilean Hebrew accents upset people so much is evidcne of that.
Now this is an argument from silence: We have a good idea that nobody cared because nobody said anything about it. The only context that accents are mentioned in outside of the New Testament text is in the context of mispronouncing Lashon HaQodesh.
Yes, it is an argument from silence, but it is a very strong one. Why is it never mentioned in any other context, with the exception of this one ambiguous mention in the Gospels?
It is not evidence of them having an issue with someone being an outsider. The reason Galilean Hebrew was an issue was because of religious stricture, wanting to be sure that the Torah was read properly.
True, Galileans were considered second-class citizens in general, but I do not think that was the issue here. If nothing else, it was not the stated issue.
judge Wrote:An argument that the peshitta is the result of a unification process (if this is what you are arguing), without any evidence would seem to be an argument from silence.
I am merely showing you why the fact that there are no significant extant variants does not mean that there have never been any. You take the fact that there are no variants and so assume a unified tradition. I take it and simply assume that there are no variants. Unification is another possible explanation for this fact.


Quote:This may be a strawman though. As I understand it the argument is we have no textual variants, there fore we have no evidence for textual variants.
We can't know there were none, but we just dont have any evidence of any.
The way it was explained to me is that this is evidence that there were never any, and thus we know that we have a modern version that is consistent with the original.

Quote:
Quote: All I've done here is to point out that that proves nothing. There is another simple, logical explanation.
.

But isn't this still an argument from silence?
The peshitta is the text used by the COE. All our earliest COE sources use the peshitta, including Aphrahat and the COE liturgy. We dont have any evidence of that tradition using anything else.
By saying that these other versions existed, but not providing any evidence they did, one cannot argue from evidence but must argue from silence.
Look at the statement of mine that I have left. I do not intend to suggest that this is what actually happened. I mean to suggest that there is no proof that it didn't.

Yes, it would have to have been adopted as standard at a very early date in order for all variants to have fallen out of use and completely disappeared. For this theory to work we would be talking about standardization beginning in probably the fourth century at the very latest. And the Peshitta as we know it would have to have been the common text from the very beginning of the existence of a Syriac text.
Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Likewise, the unification of the Peshitta tradition can be explained. It was used by only two communities, essentially isolated from outside influence. Because old versions are regularly burned or buried, we would eventually expect to naturally find no more variants, even where there were variants originally.

I believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" policy where this is concerned. In order to even consider the possibility whether the CoE did standardize the Aramaic NT mss, one first needs to find an example of them altering any of the readings in their mss collection, and there's nothing. It's the SOC who did alterations not the CoE, and western scholars often don't differenciate between the 2 textual traditions, either out of ignorance or convenience, always be aware of this. The fact is there are no grounds to accuse the CoE of standardizing or altering the Peshitta.
Yes, but in order to prove that there were never variants one needs to have seen a much broader range of ancient Peshitta mss.
And I never said "alter." That was your word. I also do not intend to suggest that the modern Peshitta is any kind of critical text. Rather, that it is possible that it was one out of several competing texts, and this one came out on top as the standard one. So I'm not really talking about standardization of the text so much as standardization of usage.
We would need evidence of other versions in order to prove it, you are correct. But in order to suggest it as an alternative to an equally unproven, and unprovable, explanation of the continuity of the Peshitta and (minor variants aside) Peshitto versions extant? I don't think we need evidence to suggest an alternative to a theory that also has no evidence other than the silence of the manuscript tradition.
Dawid Wrote:We would need evidence of other versions in order to prove it, you are correct. But in order to suggest it as an alternative to an equally unproven, and unprovable, explanation of the continuity of the Peshitta and (minor variants aside) Peshitto versions extant?


I think that the way you use "provable" here is inaapropriate though. "Proof" in that sense is for maths.
The proof your theory lacks is evidence of an alternate text. It is possible this could be provided.
The "proof" you ask for WRT to the peshitta is to prove a negative, that negative being that no such text ever existed.

The theory that the peshitta did not become the "standardised" text, out or several (or even two) competing versions is falsifiable. We can falsify it but providing evidence of the other text/s.
The theory that a few competing texts existed is not falsifiable, as one can alwys say that they might have existed but we just haven't found them yet.
In this way they are not equally unproven.
At least that is how I see it.


Quote:I don't think we need evidence to suggest an alternative to a theory that also has no evidence other than the silence of the manuscript tradition.

Well it seems quite wrong to say here that the peshitta "has no evidence other than the silence of the manuscript tradition"..however ambiguous that phrase may be.
Again the [peshotta argument is based on evidence. What else can we do? We look and see only the peshitta, then, propose a theory based directly on that evidence. That theory is that the peshitta existed and was used, and that we have no evidence of other versions used by that community.
What else can we do, but make a theory based on the evidence?

On the other hand you have said..."I don't think we need evidence to suggest an alternative to a theory..."

Well that may be true, but I dont think we can expect theories with no evidence to win support in the long run.
Pages: 1 2 3