Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
From before the foundations of the world...
#16
Paul Younan Wrote:Kara,

It's always been the case that our readership comes to their own conclusions after weighing the evidence presented for/against an argument. There is always an open invitation to criticize ideas and question conclusions and how they are arrived at. What you're asking for is nothing new. What is objectionable is your approach.

Consider how this thread developed.

I presented an argument that the Peshitta was known to the Odist. I offered one piece of linguistic evidence, in the form of an idiom, and explained in detail why it better matches the Peshitta than the Old Syriac.

When I called on you to provide evidence to back up your hypothesis, as I did, you readily admitted that this is not your field of expertise and you called your opinion an assertion.

Quote:In other words, you see your role on this forum as being that of a questioner, not an expert on the subject matter.


Quote:While I appreciate your honesty, with which you validated Andrew's opinion that you are not literate in the subject, I would much more appreciate if you took the time to think out your assertions and perhaps flesh them out with some detail. A one liner, like "But it could have also been...." doesn't really get me excited.

I would really like it for once if someone would come along and punch me in the mouth with a solid piece of evidence that would refute my theory. For instance, you could have dropped in a few examples of how the Odist makes use of the Diatesseron or Old Syriac, but you chime in with a one-liner. A hardly thought-out one at that.

There are ways to question a hypothesis that does not rub someone the wrong way. The fact that both Andrew and I got the same impression from your writings suggests that you should alter your approach.

I'm open to suggestions. Which ways of questioning are more user-friendly? Let's say that a prominent physicist, such as Stephen Hawking, gave a lecture about his research at so-and-so hall. I'm one of the students sitting in the lecture hall with little to no experience in, say, astrophysics. After the lecture, he asks for any comments or questions. Do you think he'd find my questions offensive, considering that I stick to questioning the premises of his argument? If he did object to my questions, what would be a reason why, other than because of a shattered ego? Do you think he'd dismiss my questions or rival causes simply because I don't know astrophysics? Truth is, in my opinion, I hurt Andrew's feelings because he thought he knew something, only to discover he couldn't answer my simple questions about his source and his assumptions; he resorted to poisoning the well and straw man's argument . He turned this into me disrespecting his tradition. So defend him. That's what friend's do.

Also, when I do make a point, I take the time to appeal to qualified authority, you know, actual experts in the relevant field. Whether or not you choose to abnegate their testimony simply because it's detrimental to your argument and call it "copying and pasting" is ultimately up to you. Isn't that what Andrew did? Why the double standard?

Who here defines "evidence?" Is it you? Is evidence whatever promotes Aramaic primacy? Is there such a thing as "strong" and "weak" evidence here or is "evidence" assumed to be strong everytime, depending on his faith, values, and place in your heart? I find this to be hellishly one-sided. Thirdly, yes, I'm a questioner and not an expert. Who, here, REALLY qualifies as an expert? Andrew? Why? Because he has a Jewish background and was baptized by your Church? Because he possesses a decent library? You? Why? Because you're fluent in Syriac and is involved in the Church? You don't think your research suffers from EXTREME bias and distorting influences, such as staying true to Church tradition? In light of this, I remain distrustful of whatever's posted until every premise is proven irrefutably

And wait a min. Are you pardoning Andrew's behavior because the approach of my questions hurt his feelings? No matter how you try to turn it around, my questions remained pointed at his argument, not his person. He insulted me as a person. You wrote rules for that.
#17
Kara Wrote:I'm open to suggestions. Which ways of questioning are more user-friendly?

OK, here's a suggestion: you don't have the intrinsic right to answer a post which took hours to research with a one-liner. That would be a good start.

Kara Wrote:Let's say that a prominent physicist, such as Stephen Hawking, gave a lecture about his research at so-and-so hall. I'm one of the students sitting in the lecture hall with little to no experience in, say, astrophysics. After the lecture, he asks for any comments or questions. Do you think he'd find my questions offensive, considering that I stick to questioning the premises of his argument?

Suppose, after an hour-long extensive lecture on the expansion of the universe via a wave function, Mr. Hawking's attention is turned to me in the audience with a microphone shouting:

".....or it could have been an orbital function."

Would he not be reasonable in ignoring me and moving along to the next questioner?

Kara Wrote:If he did object to my questions, what would be a reason why, other than because of a shattered ego? Do you think he'd dismiss my questions or rival causes simply because I don't know astrophysics?

Yes, he probably would dismiss you if it were as readily apparent to him as it was to Andrew and I that you really didn't have any substance to your argument, other than to argue.

And not because of a shattered ego, trust me that neither Andrew nor I have egos.

Kara Wrote:Truth is, in my opinion, I hurt Andrew's feelings because he thought he knew something, only to discover he couldn't answer my simple questions about his source and his assumptions;

Let me bring something to your attention, Kara, that may not be readily apparent to you. Nothing you could do or say would hurt Andrew's feelings, trust me on this. I've seen Andrew easily hand people far more qualified and learned in this topic their proverbial derriere on a silver platter. I doubt Andrew shed one tear over your post. Who has the ego? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Kara Wrote:...he resorted to poisoning the well and straw man's argument . He turned this into me disrespecting his tradition. So defend him. That's what friend's do.

Again, Andrew needs no defending from me. My intention in bringing up that other post was to bring to your attention the fact that you are being hypocritical. Not to defend Andrew.

The "friends" argument you keep bringing up is getting rather stale. Of course Andrew is a friend, as are a lot of people here with whom I've had many disagreements in the past. But you are clearly in the wrong on this thread and on the other one, and I call it like I see it.

Kara Wrote:Also, when I do make a point, I take the time to appeal to qualified authority, you know, actual experts in the relevant field. Whether or not you choose to abnegate their testimony simply because it's detrimental to your argument and call it "copying and pasting" is ultimately up to you. Isn't that what Andrew did? Why the double standard?

Appealing to authorities is fantastic. Why did you choose not to do so on this thread? Instead, you throw out a one liner and we are all supposed to gasp?

Kara Wrote:Who here defines "evidence?" Is it you? Is evidence whatever promotes Aramaic primacy?

Evidence is anything substantial you can bring forward to support your argument.

Here is a bad example: (what you did)

".....or it could have been (snip, blah blah"

Here are some good examples:

"How do you explain Ode 42:17, where the wording is more like....."
"Prof. So-and-So, in his article in So-and-so journal, argues for a different origin to the idiom in the Odes...."

Kara Wrote:Is there such a thing as "strong" and "weak" evidence here or is "evidence" assumed to be strong everytime, depending on his faith, values, and place in your heart?

Strong evidence: Direct quotes from the primary texts, or from an authority.
Weak evidence: Any one-liner beginning with "Or", "But", "Well", etc.

No you are not getting away with spending 2 minutes responding on something that took me hours to formulate and research. At least put in a reasonable amount of time fleshing out your ideas with actual facts and some sort of reasonable evidence, before wasting our time just because you feel you need to get a word in.

Kara Wrote:I find this to be hellishly one-sided.

Yea, one side is right and the other (you) is wrong.

Kara Wrote:Thirdly, yes, I'm a questioner and not an expert.

Yes, one of those in the back of the hall that the professor tries hard to avoid eye contact with because she knows the question will be asked just for the sake of asking it.

Kara Wrote:Who, here, REALLY qualifies as an expert? Andrew? Why? Because he has a Jewish background and was baptized by your Church? Because he possesses a decent library?

If you could product a somewhat sensible post that contained your own thoughts and research, that amounted to half of the quality that Andrew's typical post contains I would be pleasantly surprised. And I'm not saying that to attack your person, but only to encourage you to do so. You are obviously a bright and articulate individual, and I hate to see you waste your time questioning other people's ideas rather than applying substance to your own.

Kara Wrote:You? Why? Because you're fluent in Syriac and is involved in the Church?

I'm really not into puffing my chest talking about my qualifications. Suffice it to say that, like most people, I have spent my lifetime learning something that is important to me. I am always learning. Not from you, unfortunately since all you do is critique the ideas of others.

Kara Wrote:You don't think your research suffers from EXTREME bias and distorting influences, such as staying true to Church tradition? In light of this, I remain distrustful of whatever's posted until every premise is proven irrefutably

No one is without bias. That's a part of life.

Whether or not my research suffers from extreme bias, and distorting influences I will leave it up to others to decide for themselves, as always. I hide nothing. I am who I am, and everyone knows what that is. None of us knows who you are, none of us heard of you before you barged in here with little more care than the proverbial elephant in a china shop.

Contrary to your opinion, I have nothing to sell you or anyone else. I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your mind, evangelizing you or being your internet buddy. I do this for a love of the language of my Saviour, and for other personal reasons I would rather not share with you at the moment. I have done this for a decade of my own time, sweat and effort. And I have asked for nothing from anyone in way of support. I don't have a book to sell you, and the 10-15 regulars here are hardly a cult following fit for my huge ego. I manage to mess up making Kool-Aid, so don't shed a tear worrying about that.

You know, the other day I received an email from a marketing company wanting to pay a substantial amount of money to advertise on peshitta.org. My response to them was that it was important to me that our readers not be bothered with distractions such as advertising, so I turned them down despite the fact that the monetary compensation based on our traffic and importance was substantial. I have in fact turned down many such offers in the past.

Allowing you to become an unchallenged distraction would be far worse. If you have anything constructive to add we would all certainly welcome it. But please, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. Add something to the mix. Stir up ideas. Flesh out your hypotheses. Challenge, if you must, in a substantial manner.

Kara Wrote:And wait a min. Are you pardoning Andrew's behavior because the approach of my questions hurt his feelings? No matter how you try to turn it around, my questions remained pointed at his argument, not his person. He insulted me as a person. You wrote rules for that.

Are you saying that Andrew hurt your feelings because he said it was readily apparent to him that you are illiterate (by way of Aramaic)?

Both of my parents were illiterate in English until the day they died. Why is that an insult to their person?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#18
...


As I have been reading these threads a few Scriptures keep coming to mind...I'll share them here.

"Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe???"

"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, ???"

"To malign no one, to be un-contentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men."

"To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing."

Phil 2:14-15, Titus 3:2, 2 Tim 2:24-25,1 Pet 3:8-9


...
#19
Kara Wrote:But given the fluidity of the New Testament before its final canonization, in my opinion, both are highly possible

Kara can you explain what you precisely mean WRT to fluidity of the NT prior to canonisation and how this is relevant to the peshitta?

I think you will struggle to connect these things, but I am very interested if you can.

Al the best. Judge
#20
Paul Younan Wrote:What does this evidence suggest?

(a) That the Peshitta was in the hands of the 1st-century Odist
(b) That the Peshitta predates the so-called "Old Syriac" manuscripts
© That Old Scratch can't stay consistent with Semitic idioms, and are exposed as 2nd-rate translations

Comments are welcome...... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

That's incredible Shamasha! I'd love to see the Zorbans attempt to refute this one!

judge Wrote:???A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it???

Amen, amen, amen!!!
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#21
Quote:OK, here's a suggestion: you don't have the intrinsic right to answer a post which took hours to research with a one-liner. That would be a good start
.

I'm assuming, then, that the following "one-liners" are acceptable on this forum:

"i think you're being humble -- aren't the ramifications of this HUGE for pushing Peshitta primacy? i was reading it with jaw hanging open..."

"Greek primacy is finished...however one must take to heart the words of Max Planck."

"This is fascinating!"

Etc.

C'mon, Paul. Now, all of a sudden, there are rules behind one-liners? Is it or is that not a double standard? Yes or no and why. No sidestepping.


Quote:Suppose, after an hour-long extensive lecture on the expansion of the universe via a wave function, Mr. Hawking's attention is turned to me in the audience with a microphone shouting:

".....or it could have been an orbital function."

Would he not be reasonable in ignoring me and moving along to the next questioner?

Stephen Hawking, heck, most professors would either:

a) Prove how the rival cause is wrong because of (x) reasons

OR

b) Invite me to his office if explaining would take too much time from the other students at the lecture hall.

Sidestepping and/or dodging the question completely would damage his ethos alongside the credibility of his research. It'd make him look sensitive. Thus, to answer your question, no, he would be unreasonable.

Based on your last response, I doubt you know the politics of the lecture hall.


Quote:Yes, he probably would dismiss you if it were as readily apparent to him as it was to Andrew and I that you really didn't have any substance to your argument, other than to argue.

And not because of a shattered ego, trust me that neither Andrew nor I have egos.

For the last time, I wasn't arguing for anything, thus there was no substance. I was asking questions and producing rival causes for an event/situation that Andrew "unquestionably" proved with a string of quotes. Again, I wasn't arguing for anything. I was asking questions and producing rival causes. I cannot emphasis that enough.

Secondly, he does have an ego, otherwise he wouldn't feel personally attacked by my questions. Andrew's usually cool, collected, and ready to see the happy medium between two contentious parties. He's the guy who relaxes everyone after a heated debate. But as soon as I question his research, it's all fire and brimstone. Why the shift in behavior? Probably because he felt embarrassed in front of his peers; it's hard to realize you don't really know what you thought you knew. Hence, to veil his inability to answer the questions that should've been asked prior to publishing a book, he makes me look crazy because I questioned his "self-evident" truths about the Talmud and Matthew. That's the sign of an ego.


Quote:Let me bring something to your attention, Kara, that may not be readily apparent to you. Nothing you could do or say would hurt Andrew's feelings, trust me on this. I've seen Andrew easily hand people far more qualified and learned in this topic their proverbial derriere on a silver platter. I doubt Andrew shed one tear over your post. Who has the ego? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

You can promote Andrew all you want, but everyone sees how sensitive he is about his work.


Quote:Again, Andrew needs no defending from me. My intention in bringing up that other post was to bring to your attention the fact that you are being hypocritical. Not to defend Andrew.

You failed to show me. When I play the communicator, then you can hold me to my own criteria.

Quote:The "friends" argument you keep bringing up is getting rather stale. Of course Andrew is a friend, as are a lot of people here with whom I've had many disagreements in the past. But you are clearly in the wrong on this thread and on the other one, and I call it like I see it.

Andrew blew a fuse and you're here to make me look like the bad guy. If him and I switched positions--me being the communicator and he the listener, and he asked those same questions with the same approach, you'd say something like "if you can't handle constructive criticism, then...." or "Andrew's an intellectual giant, this is what intellectuals do...." If you want to appear neutral, try to step in my shoes for once.

He said his proved "unquestionably" that the Talmud incorporated quotes from Matthew, probably based on 1) Rodkinson, one of Andrew's sources, who said in his introduction of the Talmud:

Thus, if R. Johanan b. Zakkai had not, risking his life, petitioned Vespasian to spare the Sanhedrin, who had been compelled during the tumults at Jerusalem to move with their college to Jamnia, there would have remained no vestige of the Talmud, since most of those who cherished it had passed away by the sword, by hunger and by the plague. Besides, the disciples of Jesus who then believed in his Messiahship, but not in his divinity, began secretly to undermine the Talmud, which laid more stress on external ceremonies than they deemed necessary, and endeavored with all their might to weaken its influence among the populace, but R. Jehanan b. Zakkai and the Sanhedrin in Jamnia, with Rabban Gamaliel, the son of the slain Simeon, at their head, restored the Talmud to its prestige, and took pains to raise up others in the places of the murdered sages.

Thus the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple, although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and Bathueians and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees and their doctrines in public. So R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to introduce many reforms; and Rabban Gamaliel of Jamnia, notwithstanding his office of Nasi, and his lofty bearing towards his colleagues and adversaries, was compelled to go many times to Rome to ask for mercy for his college and the Pharisaic sages. And this first Nasi, after the Temple's destruction, also had to witness the evil consequences of quarrels in the midst of his own nation, added to the calamities from without. (Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, Michael L. Rodkinson)

& 2) Acts (I forget the ch and verse). He wants me to assume Acts is historically accurate and unanimously agreed upon by people in those areas, at that time period.

But is Rodkinson qualified to make this statement? If so, what qualifies him? He was a American-Jewish publisher. For starters, what he needs, in order to make this statement (and remain credible), is an advanced history degree. I mean, seriously, where is Rodkinson getting this information from? He doesn't list his sources. Did scholars, at the time, agree with him? Did they disagree? If so, why did he omit their dissenting views? We don't know. What do scholars say now?

Let's turn to Ben Zion Bokser, a Rabbi ordained at Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1931, obtaining his Ph.D at Columbia University in '35:

The Talmud arose during the epoch when Christianity began its secession from Judaism, and when the Christians were looked upon as dissident Jews. Against that background, there must have been extensive controversy between the adherents of traditional Judaism and the advocates of the new doctrine. The Talmud generally avoids polemics; but some echoes of that controversy survived in the Talmud, principally a prayer against sectarianism, the prayer Velamalshinim, as it is known in the present Jewish liturgy. This now became a cause of serious charges against Judaism, above all against its revered classic, the Talmud.

And Joseph Barclay, who in his preface says how his "residence of several years in the East, of which ten were passed in the Holy Land, enabled me to gather the opinions of some of the most learned Rabbis with regard to disputed points in the interpretation of the Talmud," says:

In the later editions of the Talmud the allusions to Christ and Christianity are few and cautious, compared with the earlier or unexpurgated copies. The last of these was published at Amsterdam in 1645. In them our Lord and Saviour is "that one," "such an one," "a fool," "the leper," "the deceiver of Israel," etc. Efforts are made to prove that He is the son of Joseph Pandira before his marriage with Mary. His miracles are attributed to sorcery, the secret of which He brought in a slit in His flesh out of Egypt. His teacher is said to have been Joshua, the son of Perachiah. This Joshua is said to have afterwards excommunicated him to the blast of 400 rams??? horns, though he must have lived seventy years before His time. Forty days before the death of Jesus a witness was summoned by public proclamation to attest His innocence, but none appeared. He is said to have been first stoned, and then
hanged on the eve of the Passover. His disciples are called heretics, and opprobrious names. They are accused of immoral practices; and the New Testament is called a sinful book. The references to these subjects manifest the most bitter aversion and hatred. (The Talmud, Joseph Barclay)

Admittedly, his credentials are a bit shaky, but does recent scholarship confirm the greater part of his statements? You decide:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/jesus-in-talmud.html">http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2008/10/ ... almud.html</a><!-- m -->

In light of this, I am justified in questioning Andrew's "cross-pollenization" theory. If Pharisaic Jews generally considered the disciples of Jesus, a man called "a leper," to be "heretics" who observed "immoral practices" and whose principal teachings "a sinful book," what is there for the two groups, namely, early Christians and Jews, to talk about? Is it tenable that they'd put in the mouth of Hillel, known as the second Ezra, something Jesus is famous for saying?

Or was the rival cause, namely, that Jesus studied the Talmud tenable? Or that perhaps Paul (disciple of Gamaliel) and his followers determined, to a greater or lesser degree, what Jesus said as a way of commemorating his former master? Interestingly enough, Rodkinson says:

Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud? . . .The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. What sort of book is it? The answer is at first sight discouraging to flesh and spirit. The Talmud appears to view in form of fourteen heavy folio volumes, of thick, solid Hebrew and Aramaic consonants, without a vowel to be seen from the first word of the first volume to the last word of the last. Such is the Jewish Talmud, including both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian. Who can read it? It can be read, for it has been read . . .The Talmud is the great repository of the mental products of a most vigorous and vivid race of thinkers, through long ages of degradation, persecution, oppression, and sorrow; and, as such, few human works are more worthy of, or will better repay, the student of human nature . . .What light it may shed on the words of Jesus and Paul to know the modes of thought which were such a perfect world in their time! When Paul speaks of his studies at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the principal authors of the Talmud, of his profiting in the matters of law above many of his equals, we see him, an ardent young enthusiast, on the way to become an accomplished rabbi, perhaps even a Nasi, in some future day, and we understand what he means when he says, "But what things were gain tome, these I counted loss to Christ." It was a whole education and a whole life's work that he threw at the feet of his new Master (ibid).


Chew on that.


Quote:Appealing to authorities is fantastic. Why did you choose not to do so on this thread? Instead, you throw out a one liner and we are all supposed to gasp?

I wasn't trying to prove a point. Besides, I didn't know you'd get so serious on me. You did say "comments are welcomed," not arguments. Adoration, of course, is welcomed. My comments have to be immediately substantiated, but "that's fascinating!" can fly? C'mon, Paul.


Quote:Evidence is anything substantial you can bring forward to support your argument.

Here is a bad example: (what you did)

".....or it could have been (snip, blah blah"

Here are some good examples:

"How do you explain Ode 42:17, where the wording is more like....."
"Prof. So-and-So, in his article in So-and-so journal, argues for a different origin to the idiom in the Odes...."

As I mentioned earlier, supposedly, Mingana found a direct parallelism between the Syriac reading of Psalm 88 and Ode 42. It's possible, then, that the scribes' rendering of the Psalm was influenced by their possession of the Odes. If that's so, it's possible that they altered Jesus' saying, using the aforementioned. I don't assume the early scribes were angels, thus unable to change this word or that around. They were probably under certain pressures and influences of the time; changing a word here or there will go unnoticed, given the COE buries old copies of the Peshitta and no one memorizes the text. I don't want to assume; was there a legitimate safeguard against corrupt scribes under, perhaps, the influence of the fancies of an archbishop in COE tradition? Another possibility is that the Peshitta preserves an idiom, known to either Jesus or to early scribes, also retained in the Odes.

Now you can either show me how these rival causes are untenable or you can continue "poisoning the well" with sarcastic quips in order to make me look silly without actually answering me. That's your common tactic.

Quote:Strong evidence: Direct quotes from the primary texts, or from an authority.
Weak evidence: Any one-liner beginning with "Or", "But", "Well", etc.

No you are not getting away with spending 2 minutes responding on something that took me hours to formulate and research. At least put in a reasonable amount of time fleshing out your ideas with actual facts and some sort of reasonable evidence, before wasting our time just because you feel you need to get a word in.

At the end of your research, you said "the evidence suggests..." I made a suggestion too. Unsubstantiated, but a suggestion, nevertheless. I admittedly didn't have evidence. And I could have avoided this misunderstanding if I quoted Max Planck! That's the type of response you're looking for!

Quote:Whether or not my research suffers from extreme bias, and distorting influences I will leave it up to others to decide for themselves, as always. I hide nothing. I am who I am, and everyone knows what that is. None of us knows who you are, none of us heard of you before you barged in here with little more care than the proverbial elephant in a china shop.

Contrary to your opinion, I have nothing to sell you or anyone else. I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your mind, evangelizing you or being your internet buddy. I do this for a love of the language of my Saviour, and for other personal reasons I would rather not share with you at the moment. I have done this for a decade of my own time, sweat and effort. And I have asked for nothing from anyone in way of support. I don't have a book to sell you, and the 10-15 regulars here are hardly a cult following fit for my huge ego. I manage to mess up making Kool-Aid, so don't shed a tear worrying about that.

You know, the other day I received an email from a marketing company wanting to pay a substantial amount of money to advertise on peshitta.org. My response to them was that it was important to me that our readers not be bothered with distractions such as advertising, so I turned them down despite the fact that the monetary compensation based on our traffic and importance was substantial. I have in fact turned down many such offers in the past.

Allowing you to become an unchallenged distraction would be far worse. If you have anything constructive to add we would all certainly welcome it. But please, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. Add something to the mix. Stir up ideas. Flesh out your hypotheses. Challenge, if you must, in a substantial manner.

Don't sidestep using pathos. What exactly qualifies you to translate the Peshitta (without Church approval) and spread Aramaic primacy? What makes you an "expert" of this subject and ones akin to it?

Quote:Are you saying that Andrew hurt your feelings because he said it was readily apparent to him that you are illiterate (by way of Aramaic)?

You're right. I'll drop that particular charge against him.
#22
judge Wrote:
Kara Wrote:But given the fluidity of the New Testament before its final canonization, in my opinion, both are highly possible

Kara can you explain what you precisely mean WRT to fluidity of the NT prior to canonisation and how this is relevant to the peshitta?

I think you will struggle to connect these things, but I am very interested if you can.

Al the best. Judge

First, historically, which came first: the Diatessaron or the Peshitta?
#23
Shlama Kara,

I'm at work at the moment so I can't answer everything you posted, but here are a couple of things I wanted to address:

Quote:What exactly qualifies you to translate the Peshitta (without Church approval)

What makes you think I am translating the Peshitta? I have stated many times in the past that I share the opinion, historically, that the Peshitta should not be translated. An Interlinear text is quite a different beast.

Lamsa, Bauscher and Andrew have provided translations. I have not, nor will I.

Quote:...and spread Aramaic primacy? What makes you an "expert" of this subject and ones akin to it?

When and where have you seen me label myself an expert? I am now and will always be a student of these topics, for a lifetime. I don't believe in "experts." What is an "expert", anyway?

Let's just get this straight: I am an Aramaic-speaking clergyman, an Assyrian by birth, born to Aramaic-speaking parents and I serve an Aramaic-speaking Christian community.

Besides those things there are no special qualifications that I possess. I have repeatedly chastised people in the past who have referred to me by titles which I do not possess, like "Dr." I have repeatedly stated that this work is not sanctioned by the CoE, not because they have refused but because I never intend to ask. I don't want it to be sanctioned, because I am more conservative than they are about the no-translation policy. I wouldn't accept their sanction if I were called to a Synod and offered it. That's because I know how imperfect the work is, and will always be.

Your store shelves are full of "translations" by "experts", you don't need anything from me.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#24
Kara Wrote:
judge Wrote:
Kara Wrote:But given the fluidity of the New Testament before its final canonization, in my opinion, both are highly possible

Kara can you explain what you precisely mean WRT to fluidity of the NT prior to canonisation and how this is relevant to the peshitta?

I think you will struggle to connect these things, but I am very interested if you can.

Al the best. Judge

First, historically, which came first: the Diatessaron or the Peshitta?


IMHO the diatessaron was made from the peshitta. So the peshitta came first. You can see some of the reasons I came around to this view here.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401</a><!-- l -->
#25
Quote:IMHO the diatessaron was made from the peshitta. So the peshitta came first. You can see some of the reasons I came around to this view here.


Conclusion: The peshitta predates the distessaron

Reasons: ??? (I invite you to look outside the forum for at least one of the reasons)


You see, it's easy to let Paul do the work for you. But before blindly accept his thinking as the truth, could you do me a favor and check to see if he omitted sources detrimental to his argument? Could you check the sources themselves?
#26
Kara Wrote:
Quote:OK, here's a suggestion: you don't have the intrinsic right to answer a post which took hours to research with a one-liner. That would be a good start
.

I'm assuming, then, that the following "one-liners" are acceptable on this forum:

"i think you're being humble -- aren't the ramifications of this HUGE for pushing Peshitta primacy? i was reading it with jaw hanging open..."

"Greek primacy is finished...however one must take to heart the words of Max Planck."

"This is fascinating!"

Etc.

C'mon, Paul. Now, all of a sudden, there are rules behind one-liners? Is it or is that not a double standard? Yes or no and why. No sidestepping.


.

Well I am responsible for the one liner I have emboldened. I have been studying these things and posting on forums at peshitta.org since 2001 IIRC.
After 8 years I have never seen any serious refutation of the material posted here. So my "one liner" is really in response to more than just this one post.
But here is a question for you.
If you think the peshitta was edited to conform to the hymnal then what you proposing Aramaic speaking believers were using prior to this in their NT?
#27
Kara Wrote:
Quote:IMHO the diatessaron was made from the peshitta. So the peshitta came first. You can see some of the reasons I came around to this view here.


Conclusion: The peshitta predates the distessaron

Reasons: ??? (I invite you to look outside the forum for at least one of the reasons)

What would you like me to look at in particular. As I mentioned I have been actively investigating this topic for 8 years or so.

If you have some evidence that the diatessaron predates the peshitta, then I am all ears.
#28
Quote:Well I am responsible for the one liner I have emboldened. I have been studying these things and posting on forums at peshitta.org since 2001 IIRC.
After 8 years I have never seen any serious refutation of the material posted here. So my "one liner" is really in response to more than just this one post.
But here is a question for you.
If you think the peshitta was edited to conform to the hymnal then what you proposing Aramaic speaking believers were using prior to this in their NT

First, I will not overextend myself. You quoted my response to Paul. That's for him and I to discuss. Secondly, refer back to my response about the Diatessaron. If you cannot furnish your own reasons without immediately quoting Paul, then I'd rather talk to Paul. Thirdly, let's discuss one prop question at a time. No outsiders. Just you and I.
#29
Kara Wrote:First, I will not overextend myself.


Fair enough.

Quote:You quoted my response to Paul. That's for him and I to discuss.

If you wish , but as this is a public discussion forum you must expect that third parties will comment from time to time.

Quote: Secondly, refer back to my response about the Diatessaron.

Where is this discussion?

Quote: If you cannot furnish your own reasons without immediately quoting Paul, then I'd rather talk to Paul.

I could, but Pauls post I linked to is a good place to start. No need to reinvent the wheel when it already undercuts the faulty assumptions either directly or indirectly.

Quote: Thirdly, let's discuss one prop question at a time. No outsiders. Just you and I.
Im happy to if you wish.
#30
Kara Wrote:First, historically, which came first: the Diatessaron or the Peshitta?

The Peshitta obviously...

Kara Wrote:
judge Wrote:IMHO the diatessaron was made from the peshitta. So the peshitta came first. You can see some of the reasons I came around to this view here.

Conclusion: The peshitta predates the distessaron

Reasons: ??? (I invite you to look outside the forum for at least one of the reasons)

You see, it's easy to let Paul do the work for you. But before blindly accept his thinking as the truth, could you do me a favor and check to see if he omitted sources detrimental to his argument? Could you check the sources themselves?

Reason? How about common sense? You need 4 separate Gospels in order to create a harmony of them, or do you perhaps have any other idea how it's possible to create a Gospel harmony because that's what the Diatessaron is!

You see this is why I don't bother with popular western scholarship because the overwhelming lack of common sense therein truly amazes me!!!

Here's a tip for you, why don't you quit copy & pasting other "experts" vomits and use your bloody brain!!!

AND YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ABOUT YOUR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOUR ON BOTH THIS THREAD AND ANDREW'S TARGUM THREAD. BACK OFF!
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)