02-26-2010, 06:05 PM
Peace and Blessings, Judge.
You are absolutely right concerning a number of things about my argument. First, finding a textual corruption in the Peshitta is not dependent on the Syriac Gospels being derivative of the Greek Gospels; these are separate issues. Second, the burden of proof is on me. Thank you for correcting me.
George Kiraz and Sebastian Brock argue that the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac, which is a translation of a 400c Greek NT. In order to prove that the Syriac Gospels derive from the Greek, we must textually compare the Peshitta with the Old Syriac. If I find that the Peshitta is in 60% agreement or more with the Old Syriac, then their relationship is statistically significant, thereby establishing that the Peshitta is indirectly dependent on the Greek Gospels If, however, I find that the Peshitta is in 50% or less agreement with the Old Syriac, then any agreement could have resulted by chance, thereby destroying my argument
Off topic, I also love Alex Gray's work.
You are absolutely right concerning a number of things about my argument. First, finding a textual corruption in the Peshitta is not dependent on the Syriac Gospels being derivative of the Greek Gospels; these are separate issues. Second, the burden of proof is on me. Thank you for correcting me.
George Kiraz and Sebastian Brock argue that the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac, which is a translation of a 400c Greek NT. In order to prove that the Syriac Gospels derive from the Greek, we must textually compare the Peshitta with the Old Syriac. If I find that the Peshitta is in 60% agreement or more with the Old Syriac, then their relationship is statistically significant, thereby establishing that the Peshitta is indirectly dependent on the Greek Gospels If, however, I find that the Peshitta is in 50% or less agreement with the Old Syriac, then any agreement could have resulted by chance, thereby destroying my argument
Off topic, I also love Alex Gray's work.