Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
From before the foundations of the world...
#31
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Kara,

Kara Wrote:...or that the Odes of Solomon influenced the sources of the Peshitta.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you are suggesting the possibility that a biblical translation was influenced by a hymnal?

The funny thing about all this is that (and perhaps Kara is not aware of this) the OS is supposed to underlie the peshitta. The OS is supposed to be the source of the peshitta.
#32
Quote: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.

How long you've investigated the topic is irrelevant. Did you do hardcore research or buy a few books on the subject, only to browse through a few pages? If the former, has it been peer-reviewed? If not, then 8 or 18 yrs doesn't matter.

What did Christians use as 'scripture' before the second century? According to Bruce Metzger:


For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.

Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century. (Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, p 72-73)

Accordingly, there were two groups: The "Hellenistic Wing" and the "Jewish Christians." Before the second century, the Jewish Christians possessed "traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus."

What did come first was Tatian's Diatessaron, which is dated 170-175 CE, of which is said:

It would seem, therefore, that at a quite early stage the Diatessaron was very widely if not universally read in the Syriac churches, and commented on by scholars as the gospel; that in time it fell under the condemnation of some at least of the church leaders, who made violent efforts to suppress it; that it could not be suppressed; that a commentary on it was (perhaps in the fifth century45 ) translated into Armenian; that it was still discussed by commentators, and new Syriac mss. of it made in the ninth century, and thought worth the labor of reproduction in Arabic in the beginning of the eleventh century; that mss. of the Armenian volume continued to be made down to the very end of the twelfth century, and of the Arabic edition down to the fourteenth century; but that this long life was secured at the expense of a more or less rapid assimilation of the text to that of the great Syriac Bible which from the fourth century onwards became more and more exclusively used-the Peshitta. (Roberts-Donaldson Intro. to the Diatessaron)

In the fourth century, the Peshitta arose. According to Bruce Meztger, the Peshitta

...represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church (Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, pp. 227-228)

It arose for an interesting reason:

Still today the official lectionary followed by the Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (Kerala), and the Chaldean Syriac Church, also known as the the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (Kerala), presents lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions (ibid)

Conclusions: The Diatessaron came before the Peshitta. The Peshitta arose centuries later. It's unclear, at best, to determine what Syriac Churches used beforehand.
#33
Kara Wrote:Conclusions: The Diatessaron came before the Peshitta. The Peshitta arose centuries later. It's unclear, at best, to determine what Syriac Churches used beforehand.

Where Metzger errs is that he seems to think that there was one homogenous "syrian church". Because the diatessaron was rooted out in some areas by western authorities Metzger makes the assumption that it was rooted out in all areas. Mezger assumes that because the diatessaron was used by some syrian churches it was the fundamental text used by all.
The fact that the diatessaron was translated into Arabic after this by a COE monk shows Metzger to be wrong.
That is why I linked you to Pauls thread...because it touches on this.
That the diatessaron was not the earliest NT used in the East can be seen from the fact that our earliest eastern sources, the COE liturgy and Aphrahat quote from the letters (not merely the gospels) of the peshitta.

As Metzger ignores these facts (or is ignorant of them) his work will be revised, one day, but as Max Planck wrote, the "true believers" will die mostly without converting.

Added in edit:
A short few posts ago, you accused me of blindly following Paul. Yet aren't you just blindly following Metzger. Do you know why he came to the conclusions he did. Have you looked at the primary sources he relied on? I have a least in part. I know , based on evidence, why his theory has shortcomings. Do you?
#34
Quote: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!

1) you're implying that I have no common sense and am yet to use my "bloody brain"
2) the use of caps is used for screaming at someone on the internet, particularly chatrooms. You're screaming at me.

You're disrespecting me.

If I disrespected judge, I do genuinely apologize. But he didn't tell me I did; you are.


And what exactly is my "disrespectful behaviour" like? Did I say "judge, you're incompetent! You can't even....?" Am I cursing judge out or perhaps using caps? Am I implying he has no common sense? You did that to me. But who moderates you?

You've been granted alot of power. You can delete me at the stroke of a button, all because I put a bad taste in your mouth and not because I personally attacked someone. That's fine.
#35
Quote:Where Metzger errs is that he seems to think that there was one homogenous "syrian church". Because the diatessaron was rooted out in some areas by western authorities Metzger makes the assumption that it was rooted out in all areas. Mezger assumes that because the diatessaron was used by some syrian churches it was the fundamental text used by all.
The fact that the diatessaron was translated into Arabic after this by a COE monk shows Metzger to be wrong.
That is why I linked you to Pauls thread...because it touches on this.
That the diatessaron was not the earliest NT used in the East can be seen from the fact that our earliest easren sources, the COE liturgy and Aphrahat quote from the letters of the peshitta.

As Metzger ignores these facts (or is ignorant of them) his work will be revised, one day, but as Max Planck wrote, the "true believers" will die mostly without converting.

Judge,

I think we're on to a good conversation. However, I'm under "the eye." So if I get deleted by the end of the day, you can email me at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:ninesoulsinone@yahoo.com">ninesoulsinone@yahoo.com</a><!-- e -->. And thanx for being friendly.
#36
Kara Wrote:You can delete me at the stroke of a button, all because I put a bad taste in your mouth and not because I personally attacked someone. That's fine.

Kara, have you wondered by now why you've put a bad taste in everyone's mouth? Given the statistical sampling (you're batting 1.00 right now)...the question comes to mind, could it be true that your approach is offensive?

You haven't answered my question, where have I ever called myself an expert? I'd like to see if you admit to doing, yet again, something you have accused others of.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#37
judge Wrote:A short few posts ago, you accused me of blindly following Paul. Yet aren't you just blindly following Metzger. Do you know why he came to the conclusions he did. Have you looked at the primary sources he relied on? I have a least in part. I know , based on evidence, why his theory has shortcomings. Do you?

Judge - this is what I was talking about earlier. Kara, we all know where Metzger stands on these issues. We are well versed in his evidence and his position. That's partly why we offer our own conclusions that we draw from the evidence.

What's the point of you being here if all you're going to do is rehash the same old arguments from Metzger? We are looking at the data with a different perspective, using different techniques and coming up with theories that challenge the established majority view held by most of academia. That's part of the scientific method.

Seriously, if all you're going to do is remind us what Metzger said there's no point in dialoging.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#38
Quote:Kara, have you wondered by now why you've put a bad taste in everyone's mouth? Given the statistical sampling (you're batting 1.00 right now)...the question comes to mind, could it be true that your approach is offensive?

This is not just a forum. This is no different from any other arena in life. Take the workplace. Different people with different backgrounds. After a while, some of these people find something in common and become close associates, even friends. This group of friends will band together against opposing forces. If a newcomer is employed, he/she has to be shown the ropes. A comment from him/her will be looked upon more critically than from one initiated into the sect. And God forbid he's dissenting. The group will do anything possible to get him/her fire or, in this case, banned.

Concerning my approach, I won't kiss feet (as I used to do), but I'm willing to compromise. What do you suggest?


Quote:You haven't answered my question, where have I ever called myself an expert? I'd like to see if you admit to doing, yet again, something you have accused others of.

Actually, I thought about it. You did not call yourself an expert. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I assumed you were raising you and Andrew to the position thereto. Do you forgive me?
#39
Kara Wrote:Concerning my approach, I won't kiss feet (as I used to do), but I'm willing to compromise. What do you suggest?

Chill. Take a deep breath. There are far more important things in life than this.

Quote:Actually, I thought about it. You did not call yourself an expert. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I assumed you were raising you and Andrew to the position thereto. Do you forgive me?

Before you apologized, yes. And thank you.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#40
Quote:Judge - this is what I was talking about earlier. Kara, we all know where Metzger stands on these issues. We are well versed in his evidence and his position. That's partly why we offer our own conclusions that we draw from the evidence.

What's the point of you being here if all you're going to do is rehash the same old arguments from Metzger? We are looking at the data with a different perspective, using different techniques and coming up with theories that challenge the established majority view held by most of academia. That's part of the scientific method.

OK, show me evidence that supersedes Metzger's observations, and I will recant my conclusion.
#41
Kara Wrote:OK, show me evidence that supersedes Metzger's observations, and I will recant my conclusion.

I don't want you to recant your conclusion as a goal, I would appreciate if you examine the post Judge pointed out as a basis for our talking points. And let's respond to that post, and not this, if you have any questions about how I arrived at the conclusions I did. I would certainly welcome and appreciate your critical thoughts on that post.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#42
In the interest of preventing this post from diverting any further away from the point it was intended to make (and not from heavy-handed moderation), this post is now locked.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)