07-04-2005, 07:58 AM
His style is typical Paul.
Dave and others have run people off here who were a threat at times to their text. I seen a scholar run off here because he thought like you, desiring to validate what was the truth.
The section that you found validates the tampering that happened not just in the greek, but carried over into the syriac. The tampering has to be a theological one for the church present at the time, hence the Trinity insertion. On the one hand, you have a section that doesn't belong, such as matthew, and on the other in 1 John, you have a section that belongs of which is missing in the peshitta. If one does some historical searching on the Johannine comma, it also has a little church father support, but more Waldnesian support in about 4 different translations that stem from a rough old latin language from about 125 AD, that goes way beyond the peshitta and others. All documented by experts.
The syriac text has very little in the way of proof outside of it anyways. Unlike the greek, the eastern syriac has small amounts of historical proof in the way of church fathers that quoted mega-amounts of scripture so that one could compare. They have a few, but most are not this "eastern" person (maybe one that is quoted on here Araaphat (sp)), most are the western type, and they disregard them quickly on here.
One of the tricks I seen out of the camp here is to require only eastern materials, wether it be texts or quotes, it has to be eastern for them. In their eyes, this limits what may be utilized against them, although that is not the consenses of the scholarly community, of which they hate.
Comparisons are a good thing. One of the things that Trimm used to do on various forums was post sections of text in comparisons, so that the lay person could see what was missing and what was transferred correctly. Here is one:
This way one could see the progression in comparison. Here is another with notes:
It doesn't take much to see the differences involved at times, as long as one is honest enough to put them out there, neither is it a requirement to know aramaic to see these things.
Dave and others have run people off here who were a threat at times to their text. I seen a scholar run off here because he thought like you, desiring to validate what was the truth.
The section that you found validates the tampering that happened not just in the greek, but carried over into the syriac. The tampering has to be a theological one for the church present at the time, hence the Trinity insertion. On the one hand, you have a section that doesn't belong, such as matthew, and on the other in 1 John, you have a section that belongs of which is missing in the peshitta. If one does some historical searching on the Johannine comma, it also has a little church father support, but more Waldnesian support in about 4 different translations that stem from a rough old latin language from about 125 AD, that goes way beyond the peshitta and others. All documented by experts.
The syriac text has very little in the way of proof outside of it anyways. Unlike the greek, the eastern syriac has small amounts of historical proof in the way of church fathers that quoted mega-amounts of scripture so that one could compare. They have a few, but most are not this "eastern" person (maybe one that is quoted on here Araaphat (sp)), most are the western type, and they disregard them quickly on here.
One of the tricks I seen out of the camp here is to require only eastern materials, wether it be texts or quotes, it has to be eastern for them. In their eyes, this limits what may be utilized against them, although that is not the consenses of the scholarly community, of which they hate.
Comparisons are a good thing. One of the things that Trimm used to do on various forums was post sections of text in comparisons, so that the lay person could see what was missing and what was transferred correctly. Here is one:
Quote:Mt. 10:42
Codex D: his reward will not be lost
Old Syriac: his reward shall not be lost
Alexandrian & Byzantine: he shall in no way lose his reward
Peshitta: his reward is not lost
This way one could see the progression in comparison. Here is another with notes:
Quote:Mt. 18:2
DuTillet Hebrew Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)
Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew: ???And he called one boy??????(a certain boy)
Old Syriac Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)
In the Hebrew and in the Old Syriac Aramaic (but not the Peshitta) we have a common Semitic idiom by which a ???certain??? thing is modified with the word ???one???. In this case Yeshua calls ???one boy??? in the Hebrew and Aramaic, i.e. ???a certain boy???. Codex D has: ???And Iesus called the one boy?????? This Western Greek reading preserves the Semitic idiom ???one boy??? which has no place in the Greek language.
However the traditional Greek has been revised into smoother Greek to read: ???And he called a boy??????
And the Peshitta was revised to agree with the traditional Greek text to read: ???And Yeshua called a boy??????
It doesn't take much to see the differences involved at times, as long as one is honest enough to put them out there, neither is it a requirement to know aramaic to see these things.