12-07-2013, 11:43 PM
Distazo,
I agree that no Manuscript would likley be 100% perfect in every respect..., but compared to the other language manuscripts, the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts are miles better as to the condition and faithfulness of the transmission of the text, which you seem to know too.
These are not xerox copies, but handwritten copies, so we can expect some slips of the human hand and mind....and we have more than one to check against...so, we can be certain what was a mistake in them. But, I believe that what is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text of the NT is 100% true to form, as to the content and the message, as it was 1st given to the Church of the East by the Apostles. And until that is proven not to be true, I'll keep faith in it.
I don't believe it has lost anything, or has added anything to it's text like the other versions are seen to have done. If the Aramaic script itself isn't the same, I believe that it is the same content nonetheless. Andrew Roth and David Baucsher now put their version of the text into the Hebrew script...but, it's the same content as it was when they 1st put it in the Estrangela script in their 1st editions, why would it be any different back them, if they changed the scripts?
I would like to know just when this Estrangela script we see in the Eastern Manuscripts were 1st employed, and if it could be what is called "Edessene letters" or not.
The reason I can't say that the Western Peshitto version is a candidate for the best form of the text, is because it is known not to be the original form of the 1st Peshitta NT. It was changed later and some things added into it. I believe that the "old Syriac" texts were also messed with by the groups who produced them, and the two examples that have partially survived time, don't always agree with themselves in their content.
I look at all the known evidence and pray about it, and I accept the answer I get. Call it reason and faith if you like. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
The Pericope Adulterea is a nice story...and it may be true, but, it looks like it came into the NT from another source besides John and Luke, where it is found in a few different places in each book in non-Aramaic versions.
Blessings,
Chuck
.
I agree that no Manuscript would likley be 100% perfect in every respect..., but compared to the other language manuscripts, the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts are miles better as to the condition and faithfulness of the transmission of the text, which you seem to know too.
These are not xerox copies, but handwritten copies, so we can expect some slips of the human hand and mind....and we have more than one to check against...so, we can be certain what was a mistake in them. But, I believe that what is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text of the NT is 100% true to form, as to the content and the message, as it was 1st given to the Church of the East by the Apostles. And until that is proven not to be true, I'll keep faith in it.
I don't believe it has lost anything, or has added anything to it's text like the other versions are seen to have done. If the Aramaic script itself isn't the same, I believe that it is the same content nonetheless. Andrew Roth and David Baucsher now put their version of the text into the Hebrew script...but, it's the same content as it was when they 1st put it in the Estrangela script in their 1st editions, why would it be any different back them, if they changed the scripts?
I would like to know just when this Estrangela script we see in the Eastern Manuscripts were 1st employed, and if it could be what is called "Edessene letters" or not.
The reason I can't say that the Western Peshitto version is a candidate for the best form of the text, is because it is known not to be the original form of the 1st Peshitta NT. It was changed later and some things added into it. I believe that the "old Syriac" texts were also messed with by the groups who produced them, and the two examples that have partially survived time, don't always agree with themselves in their content.
I look at all the known evidence and pray about it, and I accept the answer I get. Call it reason and faith if you like. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> The Pericope Adulterea is a nice story...and it may be true, but, it looks like it came into the NT from another source besides John and Luke, where it is found in a few different places in each book in non-Aramaic versions.
Blessings,
Chuck
.