12-12-2013, 09:46 PM
I agree with you both. The Peshitta should not be excluded in textual criticism whether it is generally agreed to be the original or not. Having to conform to "mainstream" positions is ridiculous and harmful according to both history, logic, and Christianity. The mainstream positions that mankind has held over the centuries are subject to change and the possibility of being wrong. Here are some nice little examples from Wikipedia:
I firmly believe that God led me to the Peshitta. When I believed in Greek primacy, I had no problem with Textual Criticism, and I still don't. Textual criticism is a fallible thing just like everything else, but the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts of the Greek New Testament both are wrong in areas and correct in others. It makes more since for the original text to be a combination of the two, along with having unique readings of its own. The Peshitta New Testament that has been preserved by the Assyrian Church of the East definitely fits that bill. In fact, textual criticism is still important for the Western Five (especially the Book of Revelation). Translating the Greek back into Aramaic certainly shows some anomalies, but the Aramaic versions we have today are translations of what seem to also be translations, therefore the Greek is (most likely) closer to the original Aramaic than the Crawford manuscript (which could be independent of the Greek, but I'm not sure) or the Harklean. I haven't read enough about Crawford's Western Five to form an accurate opinion as to its importance.
Quote:One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it.
Advocates of heliocentrism, such as Galileo Galilei were strongly suppressed, despite scientific evidence, now recognized as factual, that supported heliocentrism at the expense of geocentrism.
I firmly believe that God led me to the Peshitta. When I believed in Greek primacy, I had no problem with Textual Criticism, and I still don't. Textual criticism is a fallible thing just like everything else, but the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts of the Greek New Testament both are wrong in areas and correct in others. It makes more since for the original text to be a combination of the two, along with having unique readings of its own. The Peshitta New Testament that has been preserved by the Assyrian Church of the East definitely fits that bill. In fact, textual criticism is still important for the Western Five (especially the Book of Revelation). Translating the Greek back into Aramaic certainly shows some anomalies, but the Aramaic versions we have today are translations of what seem to also be translations, therefore the Greek is (most likely) closer to the original Aramaic than the Crawford manuscript (which could be independent of the Greek, but I'm not sure) or the Harklean. I haven't read enough about Crawford's Western Five to form an accurate opinion as to its importance.