04-16-2004, 07:00 PM
Shlama Akhi Antonio,
I have one area of agreement with you: and that is, to discuss the variants that Old Scratch presents and to show you why they don't matter one iota.
Two disagreements I have with you: you keep mentioning "church" in the singular. My church, while it accepts Peshitta primacy, is by no means the only one. All Aramaic-based churches... those that actually speak the language at home and in the liturgy (Chaldean Uniate Catholic, Syriac Uniate Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Maronite Catholic and Church of the East) - they all have the Peshitta as their official version, and no other text is allowed in the churches.
So please, acknowledge that it is not just my church but ALL Aramaic churches which have this tradition. And that no community of believers uses Old Scratch. I wonder why?
The second disagreement I have with you is that you try and make the case for some standardization of the Peshitta text, and that's why there are no variants.
You have to realize that ALL existing Peshitta manuscripts agree. There is no justification or scientific evidence for your claim of standardization. There is on the Greek side, there is not on the Aramaic side.
I don't care what the Masoretes did with the MSS - I'm telling you the facts that every scholar acknowledges - the Peshitta NT is better preserved than even the Hebrew MSS......forget about anything in Greek.
Unless you have evidence of any sort of standardization among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition (historical quotes, manuscript evidence, etc.) then simply saying "the Jews and Greeks did it, why not the Arameans?" is irrelevant. That is begging the question. Do you have any proof of any sort of standardization of variants among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition?
If so, I would love to see it. Because I've compared 5th-century manuscripts with the printed version available in bookstores today and have barely found a spelling error per chapter or two.
IS this what you consider a variant? If not, then show your evidence.
But DO NOT compare the Peshitta with the Old Scratch as they are NOT from the same textual tradition. Of course you will find variants between them. You will find variants between the Sinaitic and Cureton, who cannot agree amonst themselves.
But the Peshitta is, by and large, 99.9% the same in printed form today as it was in the 5th century - and even the 0.1% differences are things like "Bar-Anasha" vs. "Bar-Nasha", etc........in other words, small tiny spelling variances or mistakes by a scribe.
NOTHING in the order of Greek variances, let me assure you!
I have one area of agreement with you: and that is, to discuss the variants that Old Scratch presents and to show you why they don't matter one iota.
Two disagreements I have with you: you keep mentioning "church" in the singular. My church, while it accepts Peshitta primacy, is by no means the only one. All Aramaic-based churches... those that actually speak the language at home and in the liturgy (Chaldean Uniate Catholic, Syriac Uniate Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Maronite Catholic and Church of the East) - they all have the Peshitta as their official version, and no other text is allowed in the churches.
So please, acknowledge that it is not just my church but ALL Aramaic churches which have this tradition. And that no community of believers uses Old Scratch. I wonder why?
The second disagreement I have with you is that you try and make the case for some standardization of the Peshitta text, and that's why there are no variants.
You have to realize that ALL existing Peshitta manuscripts agree. There is no justification or scientific evidence for your claim of standardization. There is on the Greek side, there is not on the Aramaic side.
I don't care what the Masoretes did with the MSS - I'm telling you the facts that every scholar acknowledges - the Peshitta NT is better preserved than even the Hebrew MSS......forget about anything in Greek.
Unless you have evidence of any sort of standardization among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition (historical quotes, manuscript evidence, etc.) then simply saying "the Jews and Greeks did it, why not the Arameans?" is irrelevant. That is begging the question. Do you have any proof of any sort of standardization of variants among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition?
If so, I would love to see it. Because I've compared 5th-century manuscripts with the printed version available in bookstores today and have barely found a spelling error per chapter or two.
IS this what you consider a variant? If not, then show your evidence.
But DO NOT compare the Peshitta with the Old Scratch as they are NOT from the same textual tradition. Of course you will find variants between them. You will find variants between the Sinaitic and Cureton, who cannot agree amonst themselves.
But the Peshitta is, by and large, 99.9% the same in printed form today as it was in the 5th century - and even the 0.1% differences are things like "Bar-Anasha" vs. "Bar-Nasha", etc........in other words, small tiny spelling variances or mistakes by a scribe.
NOTHING in the order of Greek variances, let me assure you!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan

