02-25-2010, 07:40 PM
Jeremy,
I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you, too, for your encouraging words. May God bless you and yours!
Regarding the Peshitta's strongest points, I agree that it is closest to the Aramaic original. But what is meant by "original?" If by original, we mean Jesus' oral teachings, then based on the high level of uncertainty and turmoil surrounding the early Gospels (i.e. uncertain authorship, questionable memories, character, and motivations of unknown authors, intentional/unintentional scribal corruptions, theological disputes, etc), we can only say that the Peshitta preserves the original idiom behind what Jesus may or may not have said---saying more than this is superfluous. However, if by original, we mean the manuscripts originally authored by members of the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christian communities, who pseudonymously wrote under "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" in their own styles and formats, then in terms of closeness, we can only say that there is a moderately high probability that the Peshitta is closer to this "proto-Gospel" than the Greek Gospels for linguistic reasons alone. However, without autographs, we can never say anything absolute about the Peshitta.
I would have a large problem with any corruptions because I would not know where the true words begin and where the scribe ends. Studying early Christianity (before the fourth century), for instance, we know that the Gospels were in constant flux. We also know that before the churches canonized their NT books, they made subtle textual corruptions (one letter here, a word there), to justify their theological positions. We find, as you have testified, such corruptions in the Peshitta, which means that it, too, was not immune to human pride. This brings us to a few unavoidable questions:
(1) How many subtle textual corruptions entered the Syriac Gospels before they became "peshitta" or "straight?"
(2)To call the 4th century Syriac NT "straight," is to imply that what came before it was "crooked?" How so? What about the Syriac Gospels needed to be corrected?
(3)For the sake of argument, let's assume that the original authors of the Gospels were (a) pious (b) sane © blessed with amazing memories and (d) unbiased when they sat and recalled what they heard about Jesus' life. If what they wrote was "corrected" or made "straight," can we really say that we are reading all of the historical Jesus' actual words? Are we reading most of his actual words? Which are his words and which are the scribes'?
Finally, I believe that the "son of the man" term inside the Syriac Gospels will strengthen my argument. If you recall, I tried to argue that this term is a Greek christological term that the Syriac Church, in conformity, forced into Jesus' dialogue .If my hypothesis is correct, it will demonstrate either one of the following:
(1) The Syriac Gospels are creative translations of the Greek Gospels
(2) Scribes interpolated the Syriac Gospels in conformity to 4th/5th century theology.
I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you, too, for your encouraging words. May God bless you and yours!
Regarding the Peshitta's strongest points, I agree that it is closest to the Aramaic original. But what is meant by "original?" If by original, we mean Jesus' oral teachings, then based on the high level of uncertainty and turmoil surrounding the early Gospels (i.e. uncertain authorship, questionable memories, character, and motivations of unknown authors, intentional/unintentional scribal corruptions, theological disputes, etc), we can only say that the Peshitta preserves the original idiom behind what Jesus may or may not have said---saying more than this is superfluous. However, if by original, we mean the manuscripts originally authored by members of the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christian communities, who pseudonymously wrote under "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" in their own styles and formats, then in terms of closeness, we can only say that there is a moderately high probability that the Peshitta is closer to this "proto-Gospel" than the Greek Gospels for linguistic reasons alone. However, without autographs, we can never say anything absolute about the Peshitta.
Quote: and the Aramaic disagrees with itself really in only a couple of instances, and those are in regards to known theological controversies between the East and West. so if i had to go with accuracy alone, the Peshitta would win hands-down regardless of personal bias.
I would have a large problem with any corruptions because I would not know where the true words begin and where the scribe ends. Studying early Christianity (before the fourth century), for instance, we know that the Gospels were in constant flux. We also know that before the churches canonized their NT books, they made subtle textual corruptions (one letter here, a word there), to justify their theological positions. We find, as you have testified, such corruptions in the Peshitta, which means that it, too, was not immune to human pride. This brings us to a few unavoidable questions:
(1) How many subtle textual corruptions entered the Syriac Gospels before they became "peshitta" or "straight?"
(2)To call the 4th century Syriac NT "straight," is to imply that what came before it was "crooked?" How so? What about the Syriac Gospels needed to be corrected?
(3)For the sake of argument, let's assume that the original authors of the Gospels were (a) pious (b) sane © blessed with amazing memories and (d) unbiased when they sat and recalled what they heard about Jesus' life. If what they wrote was "corrected" or made "straight," can we really say that we are reading all of the historical Jesus' actual words? Are we reading most of his actual words? Which are his words and which are the scribes'?
Finally, I believe that the "son of the man" term inside the Syriac Gospels will strengthen my argument. If you recall, I tried to argue that this term is a Greek christological term that the Syriac Church, in conformity, forced into Jesus' dialogue .If my hypothesis is correct, it will demonstrate either one of the following:
(1) The Syriac Gospels are creative translations of the Greek Gospels
(2) Scribes interpolated the Syriac Gospels in conformity to 4th/5th century theology.