05-12-2004, 01:54 PM
Shlama Akhi Paul,
No, I don't have any big personal stake in this, because my position on this matter, just like on the matter of Aphrahat using the Diatessaron, is in fact identical to the mainstream scholarly position.
I'm not the one who's on the outside looking in, so why should I take these matters personally?
I'm only the messenger bringing you these news, so it won't do much good to shoot the messenger...
My only agenda is to try and bring more co-operation among all Aramaic researchers, so that they can work together to challenge the prevailing Egyptian Greek dogma. But I guess this is a bit more difficult than I thought.
The question of scientific methodology is very important, because this is the only way the academic mainstream can be challenged on their own ground. They will not pay much attention to any argument that is based on faith and/or tradition.
So I encourage you to clarify your position further in this area. It's quite OK to say that faith and tradition is what matters to you most, and the science is only secondary -- as long as you go on record clearly about this, so that there's no misunderstanding.
But if you see scientific research as your main goal, then some of the things you've been saying clearly seem to be in contradiction with this.
It is my belief that, in order to further the course of Aramaic and Peshitta studies, it is important to follow the standard scientific methodology as much as possible, rather than to isolate oneself from the scholarly mainstream. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I think.
No, I'm not comparing apples and oranges. In both cases, the text that had been erased was the biblical text.
Shlama,
Yuri.
No, I don't have any big personal stake in this, because my position on this matter, just like on the matter of Aphrahat using the Diatessaron, is in fact identical to the mainstream scholarly position.
I'm not the one who's on the outside looking in, so why should I take these matters personally?
I'm only the messenger bringing you these news, so it won't do much good to shoot the messenger...
My only agenda is to try and bring more co-operation among all Aramaic researchers, so that they can work together to challenge the prevailing Egyptian Greek dogma. But I guess this is a bit more difficult than I thought.
The question of scientific methodology is very important, because this is the only way the academic mainstream can be challenged on their own ground. They will not pay much attention to any argument that is based on faith and/or tradition.
So I encourage you to clarify your position further in this area. It's quite OK to say that faith and tradition is what matters to you most, and the science is only secondary -- as long as you go on record clearly about this, so that there's no misunderstanding.
But if you see scientific research as your main goal, then some of the things you've been saying clearly seem to be in contradiction with this.
It is my belief that, in order to further the course of Aramaic and Peshitta studies, it is important to follow the standard scientific methodology as much as possible, rather than to isolate oneself from the scholarly mainstream. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I think.
Paul Younan Wrote:Besides, are we comparing apples and oranges. You do realize, don't you, that although Old Scratch is a Palimpset....it's the text that is erased, right?
No, I'm not comparing apples and oranges. In both cases, the text that had been erased was the biblical text.
Shlama,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->