Peshitta Forum

So I've posted the latest revision of the first chapter my work over on AramaicNT.org here:

http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/

I know that most of you prefer the Peshitta, the whole Peshitta, and nothing but the Peshitta ( <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ), but I'm sure you still might find the alignment apparatus interesting as it compares the Peshitta, Old Syriac, Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) Lectionary, and early CPA NT Fragments in similar fashion to Kiraz's Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels.

Peace,
-Steve

:

.... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Yes, I prefer The "Peshitta" i.e. The Straight and The True Aramaic text of the New Testament, over the corrupted versions of its pure text, as we have in the Greek, the Latin, and the later Aramaic versions.

I'll look at your work, Steve...with eyes wide open...and I hope you aren't trying to undermine and cast doubts on The Peshitta's faithful text.

Are you?

Based on your comments and the general direction of your statements on the forum over the last number of months, it has seemed to me you want to do just that, if you can, hoping to get more people to think like you do about it. I really hope I'm wrong about that though. I want to think the best of your intentions, but, I don't know, Steve.

.

Thirdwoe Wrote:Based on your comments and the general direction of your statements on the forum over the last number of months, it has seemed to me you want to do just that, if you can, hoping to get more people to think like you do about it. I really hope I'm wrong about that though. I want to think the best of your intentions, but, I don't know, Steve.

Is is no secret or hidden knowledge that I am a former Peshitta Primacist (and that Paul tolerates my presence here because he and I have history, mutual respect, and I do my best to be polite). It's also no secret that I ascribe (and contribute) to conventional scholarship. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

It's furthermore important to note that I don't to pursue or seek after people to "convert them away" from Peshitta Primacy. I occasionally point out and articulate my problems with the position (and I indeed have a page on AramaicNT.org dedicated to some of those problems) but Episcopalians simply do not plot theological coups. Those problems are far from the focus of my work. They're the incidental, bycatch of my efforts.

I shared this out of the wish to share common interests in the Aramaic language vis a vis the New Testament. There has been discussion in the past week about manuscript alignment and I had mentioned what I've been working on, so this was only a natural update.

So, don't think of me as this --> <!-- sly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="ly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sly: --> simply because I do not afford the same status that you do to the Peshitta. I'm here because I enjoy to be here ( <!-- satisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="atisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- satisfied: --> <--- like this ).

.

I don't dislike you as a person, Steve...I hope you aren't thinking that way...I like that you are here too, so we can discuss these things out in the open...but, I'm leery of your motives nonetheless.

And it seems like you have chosen to avoid answering many of my questions to you in past discussions, which get down to the real issues of the texts themselves. I would like to think that you just didn't notice them, or didn't have the time to get into the details, rather than you just ignored them...but, again...I don't know.

You said:

Quote:I ascribe (and contribute) to conventional scholarship

Yes, the kind of thing that has brought to light the terrible condition of the Greek text, to the Muslim and the Atheist apologists delight, in its many varied forms and its 400,000 or so variants among it's manuscripts.

Steve, which Greek Manuscript do you say is the one I should consider to be the faithful witness of the original Greek NT, as was given to Christians in the 1st century? Seriously, can you answer that question? I can't, as I look and see witness after witness for all the Greek families variant readings, going back to the 2nd century. So, which one do I trust?

The Eastern Peshitta text shows some of all of them in its text, and lacks those with the biggest doubt as to their being in the original Greek form of the Greek text.

I got real tried after many years trying to determine which Greek textual family (among the 3 or 4 and maybe more) were the more original, and which Greek Manuscript best preserved the original form of the 1st century Greek NT. The more I looked into it, Steve, the more tangled the web became.

Thank God I am free of it.

I think you know what I mean...and it seems to me, that even though you have now lost faith in an Aramaic original NT, you are trying to find the most original form of what you think might have existed of its text in the 1st century,...Which is more interesting to you, I'm sure, than to try to find the original Greek form, which is entirely hopeless.

But, even this work you are doing, still amounts to what the Greek textual critic does all day, which you seem to be of like mind with, while you hypothesize a more original pre-Peshitta Aramaic NT...while endlessly speculating as to what you assume may have been its original form or not, and assume it was from some Greek text, that no longer exists in the form it may or may not have been in...it's futile to the extreme, if you are trying to answer the big questions.

I want answers, not endless speculations.

Steve, based on the evidence that I have seen, it seems to me that we have the answers in The Eastern Peshitta text, and so far, I have seen no real proof/evidence from you, or any Greek primacist, that I have had discussions with over the years, that the Aramaic couldn't be the original NT, or the Eastern Peshitta couldn't be the original form of the Aramaic NT.

What I have seen though, is the many evidences which point in the direction to it being the original form.


P.S. I have something else to discuss with you, but, will send you a privet message on that subject.


Shlama,
Charley

.

Thirdwoe Wrote:I don't dislike you as a person, Steve...I hope you aren't thinking that way...I like that you are here too, so we can discuss these things out in the open...but, I'm leery of your motives nonetheless.

That *seems* like a contradiction of terms. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

If that's how you're looking at me, I'm certain it will seem that way the more I speak my mind.

Quote:And it seems like you have chosen to avoid answering many of my questions to you in past discussions, which get down to the real issues of the texts themselves. I would like to think that you just didn't notice them, or didn't have the time to get into the details, rather than you just ignored them...but, again...I don't know.

Sometimes I miss things as threads grow larger than I can follow. Other times I simply do not have time to respond to every iota. Other times I simply don't want to as I've had the same arguments dozens of times since my youth and I have no interest in going in circles again.

Quote:You said:

Quote:I ascribe (and contribute) to conventional scholarship

Yes, the kind of thing that has brought to light the terrible condition of the Greek text, to the Muslim and the Atheist apologists delight, in its many varied forms and its 400,000 or so variants among it's manuscripts.

Is that counting punctuation and spaces? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

More seriously, the vast majority of those "400,000" are gone if you eliminate orthographical and juxtapositional variants. (But I'm not going to discuss that. You've made up your mind. I don't want to change it. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> )

Quote:Steve, which Greek Manuscript do you say is the one I should consider to be the faithful witness of the original Greek NT, as was given to Christians in the 1st century? Seriously, can you answer that question? I can't, as I look and see witness after witness for all the Greek families variant readings, going back to the 2nd century. So, which one do I trust?

Which Peshitta manuscript do you say is the "most faithful" of the lot? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Every manuscript has variants (including Peshitta manuscripts). It's the nature of hand-copied text.

I feel that your challenge has nothing to do with manuscripts, but everything to do with your decision about acceptable thresholds of differences. (Specifically your own thresholds.)

If we were to compile a list of all Peshitta manuscripts from -- say -- the 5th-12th centuries (sorry, specifically "Eastern Peshitta" manuscripts, we "know" the "Western Peshitta" is "corrupt"... and discount all "Eastern Peshitta" manuscripts that contain too many variants as outliers, because they're not "really" Eastern Peshitta manuscripts) we'd have a *tiny* list compared to the Greek manuscripts on record from that period. There are some Greek manuscript enclaves larger than that number of manuscripts that have similar variant ratios (you can look these up yourself; I do not have the time).

However, since there are more Greek manuscripts as a whole and more enclaves within textual traditions, there are more variants as a whole.

A single church's textual tradition will always be more consistent than the greater body of Christendom.

So your challenge is a game of moving the goalposts and questioning kilts (no true scotsman). I simply will not partake. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Quote:you are trying to find the most original form of what you think might have existed of its text in the 1st century,..

Yes, I am trying to reconstruct and glean insight into the words Jesus and his early followers would have used in the language that he and his followers spoke since their childhood. That is what is important to me.

I am not interested in a literal, carved-in-stone these are "The Very Words" that Jesus spoke, or these were "The Original Words" of the New Testament.

By all metrics, we simply do not have those.

Even if we did, it would be of very little use, as then we'd be arguing over interpretation even harder.

Quote:...it's futile to the extreme, if you are trying to answer the big questions.

I think you and I have different "big questions" then. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Quote:I want answers, not endless speculations.

Then you will be "endlessly" disappointed.

There are very few things that we can claim certainty to, especially about the Bible.

However even if one does obtain Certainty, then of what use is Faith?

Quote:Steve, based on the evidence that I have seen, it seems to me that we have the answers in The Eastern Peshitta text,

Answers to what questions?

Quote:and so far, I have seen no real proof/evidence from you, or any Greek primacist, that I have had discussions with over the years, that the Aramaic couldn't be the original NT, or the Eastern Peshitta couldn't be the original form of the Aramaic NT.

What I have seen though, is the many evidences which point in the direction to it being the original form.

You've found meaning in this. There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. For a vast number of reasons, I don't want to convince you otherwise.

I have simply not been convinced by the same evidences, apparently.

Quote:P.S. I have something else to discuss with you, but, will send you a privet message on that subject.

I have an inkling where this is going... Off to my inbox.

Peace,
-Steve

P.S. This is all I have to say on this matter.

I don't think Steve has motives that we should worry about. If he wants to show why he believes Peshitta primacy is incorrect, then he is free to express his thoughts (which I really enjoy hearing). I personally didn't come to Peshitta primacy out of a crisis of faith like some people have, but out of my own research. The Greek New Testament is not as muddied as a lot of Peshitta primacists make it out to be, as most of it is textually certain but not the entire thing. I personally believe that some of these variants and awkward readings did come from misreading an Aramaic word for another. Even if the Greek is the original, it won't effect my faith. I first started studying the Word of God from the King James Version (obviously translated from the Textus Receptus) and was blessed in ways that words can't explain.

Quote:I don't think Steve has motives that we should worry about.

I am leery of his motives, and concerned for those who may be swayed into thinking as he does, which can lead to one loosing their faith in God, as we have seen with some, thinking that the original words which God spoke through His Prophets and Apostles have been lost, and that we can't be certain if what we read in the NT is the original, or not, and doomed to endlessly speculate which one is the right reading. I believe that we have the right reading in the Eastern Peshitta's text, and that God helped preserve its text.

Quote:If he wants to show why he believes Peshitta primacy is incorrect, then he is free to express his thoughts (which I really enjoy hearing).

Of course, and I am free to challenge his assumptions and ask for real evidence for his speculations.

Quote:I personally didn't come to Peshitta primacy out of a crisis of faith like some people have, but out of my own research.

Perhaps some have, Dylan, because they have seen the condition of the Greek text, and thought that if it was the original NT form, then which gave up the hope of knowing what it really said.

For me, it wasn't a matter of my Faith in God at all, but, my belief that the Greek preserved the true form of the NT, in any one family of its versions, or in any one of the many English translations of these variant riddled Greek manuscripts.

Quote:The Greek New Testament is not as muddied as a lot of Peshitta primacists make it out to be, as most of it is textually certain but not the entire thing.

If you only knew the whole truth, Dylan. I think you are blessed to be getting to know the Aramaic NT at such an early age. Stick with it, you wont be sorry.

Quote:I personally believe that some of these variants and awkward readings did come from misreading an Aramaic word for another.

I believe you are correct.

Quote:Even if the Greek is the original, it won't effect my faith.

Not mine either...not in God anyway...but, it would most definitely effect my faith in it's text, if it was, as we simply can't tell which reading of these thousands of variant are the original wording. Those who try to say that they are of little matter, are trying to fool you, and maybe fooled themselves.

Quote:I first started studying the Word of God from the King James Version (obviously translated from the Textus Receptus) and was blessed in ways that words can't explain.

More often than not, the TR contains the right reading, and more often than not, it agrees with the Aramaic NT, but, not always on both counts, for various reasons. It is way better than what we find in the Westcot and Hort's concoction of a text though. Have you seen all that they took out of their edited Greek text, and tried to pass off as the more original Greek NT, even against evidence to the contrary?

.

Thirdwoe Wrote:I am leery of his motives, and concerned for those who may be swayed into thinking as he does, which can lead to one loosing their faith in God, as we have seen with some, thinking that the original words which God spoke through His Prophets and Apostles have been lost, and that we can't be certain if what we read in the NT is the original, or not, and doomed to endlessly speculate which one is the right reading. I believe that we have the right reading in the Eastern Peshitta's text, and that God helped preserve its text.

Wow. That actually hurts. I don't want to take it personally, and I said I didn't want to say any more about this, but I must be honest and say it's hard not to.

Thinking the way *I* do can end up with one losing their faith? I have no words to express how I feel. None in English or in Aramaic.

Faith is not about certainty. It's about taking chances; making mistakes.* It's about seeing adversity through despite difficulty. It's about a shared history, a shared suffering, and a shared wonder that there is something out there bigger than our collective selves and understanding. It's the mystery of Christ that cannot be fully understood no matter how hard we try. That's why it's called "the Mystery of Faith."

If dealing with certain realities of our situation vis-a-vis the transmission of the Bible -- or any realities -- causes you to lose faith, then what was one's faith founded upon? An unreasonable expectation of how the world works? Did one truly have faith in the first place if it is faith in an untruth? That faith might as well have been made of glass. One crack from reality and the whole thing spiderwebs and falls apart.

It's this kind of all-or-nothing thinking that's driving away the youth from the Church in droves. Kids are seeing Christianity as "anti-science," "anti-inquiry," and "anti-scholarship" and want nothing to do with it. (Or so the polls tell us with the reasons given by the "Unaffiliateds" or "Nones" climbing in ranks.) Just trust X. Just believe Y. Don't think about it. If you think about it, you'll lose your faith. Like Looney Tunes, don't look down or you'll fall.

Do you think I started AramaicNT.org to try and persuade people away from their faith or realize that it just might be a whole lot deeper than they thought? To tell people that Christ is a rubbish made-up figure, or share what has made my faith stronger over the years by examining his words?

Words, though. I need more words. So here are a few:

If "thinking as I do" -- one whose faith has been tried and tested in so many fires (I might even tell you about them one day) -- leads towards losing one's faith, then you have a very shallow idea of what Faith is all about and that very fact cries for you to re-examine yourself.

But that is between you and God. It's not my business.

I do not like to discuss theology online. I do not need to debate it to self-validate, I've matured past that. But I tell you, this careless, backhanded comment really got to me, Charley.

And with that, I'll shut up and be quiet before Paul comes in and says to break it up.

Peace,
-Steve

* Which, ironically is the same philosophy as Valerie Frizzle, but I digress...

I'll leave it at that as well, Steve. It will just go back and forth, as we do not think or believe the same way... in closing, I'm not saying these things to hurt you, but rather to warn you and others not to go down that dead end road. And based on what you are telling me in privet now, this matter here is of much less concern, though you might not see it so, either.

SteveCaruso Wrote:It's furthermore important to note that I don't to pursue or seek after people to "convert them away" from Peshitta Primacy. I occasionally point out and articulate my problems with the position (and I indeed have a page on AramaicNT.org dedicated to some of those problems)

Steve can you post a link that page? I looked but could not find it. Thanks

It is a very interesting (and understandably can be "touchy" to you involved) conversation to watch, because it is about _motives_ (and faith), which are key in relationships.

WHY we (or you) do what you do and why we (or you) claim what we (or you) claim. It would help to accept your position (not necessarily agree, but at least be able to say "I understand you") if I (we) knew the motives. Of course everyone is free to share them to the extent one feels comfortable.

What I have found reading Youkhanan and really, really like is the fact that this talmid states very clearly in the gospel text and also in his letter WHY he has written them (e.g. 20:31). He also shows that Yeshu'a explained why he has said and done what he has done (e.g. 10:10). Knowledge of their (good) motives gives me extraordinary peace. The same applies to other people I encounter. I trust people who can express and explain (and prove in practice) the good motives behind their acts and words. Some (immature) unfortunately don't even know themselves what their motives are, or what they want.

For me faith is about "acting out" the trust and that develops with time and experience, it is a journey (or a way) ... and I prefer not a bumpy one and not full of mistakes (to everyone though whatever they wish). There is some "first step" or "leap" (basically a decision) but mistakes are not a necessary experience for everyone for the journey, it is possible to have one with only a minimal dose, have "fun" all the way, as "those of the truth hear his voice", and if you hear it and follow why would you make mistakes? Just my humble opinion and (general) ramblings. Hopefully helpful to the reader.

So ... what is your mission ... and why ... ? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> ... not only what you do, but why ...

Jerzy

judge Wrote:Steve can you post a link that page? I looked but could not find it. Thanks

It is rather out of the way (but then again it's not my focus, so there you go). It's the very last link in the Articles menu.

It also needs updating, as there are 3 or 4 more pericopes I need to add to it.

Peace,
-Steve