Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
before I begin
#31
Nimrod,

Peace and blessings. Consider the following excerpt from the article posted under "shameful":

This eleventh-century codex begins with a madrasha set to the tone ???the priest Zacharias.???4 As
written, however, this would be a particularly difficult madrasha to sing as every few lines one comes across an illegible word, illegible that is until you turn the page 180 degrees (Figure 1). The scribe
has written upside down the names of figures such as Bardaison, Marcion, and Mani whom he considered heretical. Such modifications were not limited to scribes trying to make a point. Later readers also changed manuscript text. Consider one of the most famous of Syriac manuscripts, British Library Additional 14,451. This fifth-century codex is one of two extant witnesses to
the early gospel translation now known as the Old Syriac.5 In the last century and a half, there have been numerous studies on the differences between the Old Syriac and the Peshitta.6 For at least one ancient reader this variation was not merely academic. He became so upset at the variances that, in the course of just two folios, he inserted nine words, removed twenty-four, and changed over a hundred in order to make the text correspond with the Peshitta (Figure 2).7 After expending so much energy on only four pages, faced with over one hundred and twenty more, he apparently gave up.8 Textual changes often stemmed from more fundamental disagreement with a manuscript???s content than simply a difference
in bible translations. For example, British Library Additional 14,528 contains alterations made by three different readers who shared similar motives. This sixth-century manuscript consists of ecclesiastical
canons and letters translated from Greek into Syriac.9 Not surprisingly, later Syriac readers were particularly concerned with those parts of the manuscript most closely aligned with the Council
of Chalcedon. One reader erased over two and a half folios from the manuscript???s first references to the decisions of Chalcedon and then wrote a brief marginalia telling later readers not to be alarmed
by the removed sections.10 reader made three further erasures and additions. Through effacement
and marginal glosses he changed ???the holy council??? of Chalcedon to ???the wicked council,??? its ???illustrious??? participants became ???despised,??? and a letter addressed ???To Leo the Head of the Bishops,???
now reads ???To the Wicked Leo???
(Figure 3).11 Another reader, perhaps inspired by these alterations, added an additional marginalia at the end of the same letter reading, ???Woe to your mouth,
wicked, unclean Leo.???12 A list of such emendations could easily be expanded. For instance, Wright???s catalog of Syriac manuscripts now held in the British Library refers to more than 239 cases of manuscript erasure. The frequency of such changes should alert us to the instability of Syriac manuscript text. It also suggests that analyzing the ways scribes and readers altered the works they were studying could tell
us much about the history of Syriac Christianity"

With this in mind, I cannot be totally convinced that Aphaphat directly quoted from the Peshitta NT, a manuscript that is placed, at earliest, at scores of years after his death (442CE), until it can be irrefutably shown that his Demonstrations did not suffer alteration at the hands of a fifth-century scribe who favored the new, accepted version of the Syriac Bible (Peshitta). This possibility must be ruled out first.

Secondly, I would prefer that Paul scans Aphaphat's Demonstrations . I want to compare it myself to his "direct quotes."
Reply
#32
Kevin,

Sorry, but I will be a little blunt here. With your mind set you basically want people on this forum to explain the direction of a straight line to you (yes that is a play on words - but then again you might not understand it), because you have been stuck taking a zigzagged route for most of your life.

Again, your comments are most likely talking about what the Syriac Orthodox Church is "accused" of doing, not the Church of the East! We don't accept the Council of Chalcedon. Study EASTERN/PERSIAN history, then come back and have this conversation. Because right now you are making yourself seem very ignorant to a group of people that actually want to help out.

May God bless you, but honestly I don't think you will ever understand the rational mind of Semetic people raised outside of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.

Finally, as harsh as this message may sound, I honestly mean no disrespect to you or anyone else reading this post.

Peace,

-Nimrod Warda-

p.s. I am actually half British and half Assyrian so I understand both positions fairly well.
Reply
#33
Kara Wrote:
Quote:Ok I read them and considered them. Can you tell me the actual evidence that led them to their conclusions?

Peace and blessings,

Purchase G. A. Kiraz, "Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions". You can also find it at many academic libraries.

Have you read this book?
Reply
#34
Peace and blessings, Nimrod.

To be equally blunt, I did not like the tone of your last message. But I understand that my skepticism is making you emotional, so I forgive you. I only want, indeed, that you and yours find bounty whithersoever your eye turns.

First, the article does not reference either the COE or the Syriac Orthodox Church. Instead, it refers to the Syriac tradition in the midst of Islamic rule. I invite you to reread the entire article before you suggest that I am ignorant.

Secondly, you???ve gotten besides yourself by referring to my life. But since you bring it up, let me clear any misconceptions about who I am. My name is Kevin. I am twenty-four years old. Ethnically, I am an African-American, although culturally, I am cosmopolitan. I am a bibliophile. I have other 1700 books in my library collection, all of which reflect my eclecticism. My books range from religion, the classics, ancient erotic literature, philosophy, psychology, poetry, and magic. You will find atheistic literature alongside theistic arguments. My fiance is a direct heir to the Ottoman throne, through Murad's line. I love her because there is no other way to know her.

I am a Muslim. But once, I, too, believed what the elders taught me in church. I believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believed that he is the son of God. I believed in the sacred rites. I, too, wanted his everlasting favor. But at the age of sixteen, due to constant self-reflection, I lost my faith in these principles because they no longer made sense. By definition of ???God,??? it is beneath Him to have a son because this, by default, gives Him a likeness to that of his creatures. It is beneath Him to manifest in three forms because it denotes the inability of governing as one in essence and nature. It is beneath Him, the most merciful, to need blood in exchange for forgiveness because there are few among His creatures that are capable of expunging mankind's sins, if they had the power to do so, without the shedding of blood. It is beneath Him to take flesh, for not even the mountains could withstand His glory when He revealed Himself to Moses. It is beneath Him to eat, drink, and defecate, for this was even beneath the angels who visited Abraham.

Taking Jesus into account, we find him naked, despised, crucified, and dead. How do we account for a god, all-powerful in essence, who is able to acquire so many weaknesses? How do we worship one who can be sacrificed? If one were to say that he is God in flesh, then Adam is also such, for God blew his spirit into him. If one were to say that he is less than God Himself, then he is infinitely less, as we are, for God is infinite. Apart from this reasoning, there is nothing in the Gospel that indicates that he is God, for he did nothing without God's permission (as any other creature)

Thus was my reasoning.

Then I considered the early formation of the Christian Church. I considered how the authors of the Gospels are varied and unknown, how clergymen altered their books, creating and imposing theologies that has nothing to do with the historical Jesus.

My conclusions came from a willingness to follow the evidence where it leads. It came from a willingness to consider other possibilities at the expense of my current beliefs, values, and disposition. It is very painful to accept something contrary to that which one is accustomed to, but it is more painful to deny something in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is very painful to seriously consider the argument of an opposing view, but it is more painful to be self-imprisoned.

Try it, Nimrod.

Truth is harder to absorb than light.
Reply
#35
Shlama Akhi Kevin:
As moderator of this forum I must draw the line at discussions of theology, for example, pitting Muslim theology against Christian theology. There are just too many theologies and non-theologies represented by members of this forum. I dread that this topic will deteriorate into non-reason and chaos. Some will agree and some will not. Let it be. You are posting to the Aramaic Primacy forum so please keep in mind that Aramaic Primacy is the topic, and not any specific theology, whether Christian, Muslim, or any form of expression that is not directly related to Aramaic Primacy. I love your passion and great verbal expressions. Please continue to share your thoughts.
Granted, it is understandable for Christians to have a deep and abiding affinity with the New Testament, whereas Muslims do not. However, within the scope of Christianity there are opposing views, Aramaic Primacy of the ACOE viv-a-vis Greek Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the Assyrian (Syrian) Christian Community there are varying positions as to the posterity of the Peshitta New Testament. Syriac Orthodox Christians such as Dr. George Kiraz ( I think that is his persuasion) do not share the belief that the Peshitta has survived unaltered from Apostolic times, as the Assyrian Church of the East does.
In conclusion Kevin rather than give up hope in this thread, understand that this forum welcomes scholarship from all members. Theology may be "touched on" (it's inadvertent), but must not replace the original aim of <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">www.peshitta.org</a><!-- w -->, which is Aramaic Primacy.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
(Moderator)
Reply
#36
Kara Wrote:With this in mind, I cannot be totally convinced that Aphaphat directly quoted from the Peshitta NT, a manuscript that is placed, at earliest, at scores of years after his death (442CE), until it can be irrefutably shown that his Demonstrations did not suffer alteration at the hands of a fifth-century scribe who favored the new, accepted version of the Syriac Bible (Peshitta). This possibility must be ruled out first.

."

But again Kara, as before you are asking Nimrod to prove a negative. We can never prove that soemthing didnt happen (in most instances).
All we can do, is see that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta against the OS. We can see that the COE liturgy quotes the peshitta. We can see, as Prof Gwynne dd, that Aphrahat, never quoted from the 5 disputed books. We can see that even though he quoted from the 22 books of the peshitta even though no OS versions of the other books (apart from the gospels and Acts) are known to have existed.
We can look at all this and using Occhams razor conclude that Aphrahat used the peshitta.

Against this you have a conspiracy theory that an unknown scribe changed some, but not all of Aphrahats quotes in Demonstrations, removed any quotes from the disputed 5 books (presumably as the OS was found in an area which used them), and that somehow the OS version of the other 17 NT books were lost without so much as a trace.

Which is more likely to be true?
Reply
#37
Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama Akhi Kevin:
As moderator of this forum I must draw the line at discussions of theology, for example, pitting Muslim theology against Christian theology. There are just too many theologies and non-theologies represented by members of this forum. I dread that this topic will deteriorate into non-reason and chaos. Some will agree and some will not. Let it be. You are posting to the Aramaic Primacy forum so please keep in mind that Aramaic Primacy is the topic, and not any specific theology, whether Christian, Muslim, or any form of expression that is not directly related to Aramaic Primacy. I love your passion and great verbal expressions. Please continue to share your thoughts.
Granted, it is understandable for Christians to have a deep and abiding affinity with the New Testament, whereas Muslims do not. However, within the scope of Christianity there are opposing views, Aramaic Primacy of the ACOE viv-a-vis Greek Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the Assyrian (Syrian) Christian Community there are varying positions as to the posterity of the Peshitta New Testament. Syriac Orthodox Christians such as Dr. George Kiraz ( I think that is his persuasion) do not share the belief that the Peshitta has survived unaltered from Apostolic times, as the Assyrian Church of the East does.
In conclusion Kevin rather than give up hope in this thread, understand that this forum welcomes scholarship from all members. Theology may be "touched on" (it's inadvertent), but must not replace the original aim of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->, which is Aramaic Primacy.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
(Moderator)

Peace and Blessings,

Stephen, I am very happy to hear from you. You have always been one of my favorite posters. I hope that you and yours rest under the shade of felicity. I respect your position. As a moderator, your job is to maintain harmony within the forum. Since theology is ubiquiously controversial topic, it is fitting that the discussion thereof would concern you. I want to clear any misconceptions about my recent post.

I did not write the post to start a debate with Nimrod, may God grant him mercy, about Islamic theology vs Christian theology. He displayed the audacity to comment on my life, so I thought it would be appropriate to explicitly state my position in life.

I hope to hear more from you, Stephen. Don't be a stranger.

Kevin
Reply
#38
Kara Wrote:
Quote:Shlama,

enter "Aphrahat" in the search box on this site, and spend some time reading the historical evidence showing that the Peshitta clearly preceded Old Scratch. then analyze how it fits your current views. it is definitely worth the time to check out the info for yourself.

Peace and blessings,

I am definitely willing to consider these posts, Jeremy. Can you paste links to the posts with the strongest line of reasoning in regards to Aphrahat?

Kevin

Shlama,

Nimrod more than adequately shared the topics i was thinking of, so i'll refer you to his post with the appropriate links and not waste space repeating them here.

thanks for doing all the work for me, Nimrod! <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#39
Shlama,

Kevin, i do hope you prayerfully consider the points that Judge has brought up here. they really are valid. the positions taken by most of us on here come from carefully weighing the evidence and testing the historical record. are there still unanswered questions hanging out there? of course there are, and yet we can also make educated guesses as to the best place to throw in our lot based on the majority of answers and evidence that we do have.
we're never told to have it all figured out, but to seek, and we shall find.

the story of Job can be applied in this instance: he repeatedly stated that all would be okay if he could just get his questions answered by the Holy One. well, the Holy One showed up and he didn't get to ask a single question, but the content of what was spoken to Him was sufficient enough to allow him the realization that he could TRUST what the Holy One did reveal. he never received the answers to his questions, but he still could trust what was revealed to him.

it is the same way for us all, and in this case, is applicable to the textual criticism of the New Testament manuscripts. there are all kinds of questions to be asked, and some simply cannot be answered, or at least, seem to have no answer on this earth. but a great majority can be answered in the affirmative when returning to the Peshitta -- NOT the OS, or Philoxenian, or Curetonian, Greek, etc. the historical record also bears much of this out, which is another witness that we are on the right track. still, we must remember that not every answer is laid out for us, but there are enough which are to evince that pursuing the Peshitta's text is the most logical route to take because it is the most trustworthy route to take. if it smells, acts, and sounds like a duck, why try to force it to be something else just because you can't see the duck? perhaps a poor analogy, but the hour is late and that's the best i can come up with - sorry! but hopefully you get my drift! why not go with the honest majority of information and witnesses -- not what people "suggest" or what "tradition" holds, but what the actual evidence portrays? so what if there remain a few unanswered questions? not even Muwshe had everything revealed to him when he specifically asked for certain allowances, so we really shouldn't expect it all to be given, but strive to get as far as we can with what we have, and trust that if that is all that is given, then the Holy One knows what He is doing by limiting our knowledge, and that such a situation is sufficient for man.

anyhow, i hope that spurs more consideration for you.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


judge Wrote:
Kara Wrote:With this in mind, I cannot be totally convinced that Aphaphat directly quoted from the Peshitta NT, a manuscript that is placed, at earliest, at scores of years after his death (442CE), until it can be irrefutably shown that his Demonstrations did not suffer alteration at the hands of a fifth-century scribe who favored the new, accepted version of the Syriac Bible (Peshitta). This possibility must be ruled out first.

."

But again Kara, as before you are asking Nimrod to prove a negative. We can never prove that soemthing didnt happen (in most instances).
All we can do, is see that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta against the OS. We can see that the COE liturgy quotes the peshitta. We can see, as Prof Gwynne dd, that Aphrahat, never quoted from the 5 disputed books. We can see that even though he quoted from the 22 books of the peshitta even though no OS versions of the other books (apart from the gospels and Acts) are known to have existed.
We can look at all this and using Occhams razor conclude that Aphrahat used the peshitta.

Against this you have a conspiracy theory that an unknown scribe changed some, but not all of Aphrahats quotes in Demonstrations, removed any quotes from the disputed 5 books (presumably as the OS was found in an area which used them), and that somehow the OS version of the other 17 NT books were lost without so much as a trace.

Which is more likely to be true?
Reply
#40
Hello again Kevin,

First, I honestly did not mean to dwell into your personal (family) matters, but rather I was using an analogy or metaphor to explain my point. If you knew me, you would see that I am a pretty laid back guy. So when I said I will be "blunt", I was just saying that because I didn't want to expend too much energy explaining facts that are already available on this website.

Next, when I said, "With your mind set you basically want people on this forum to explain the direction of a straight line to you (yes that is a play on words - but then again you might not understand it), because you have been stuck taking a zigzagged route for most of your life.", I was simply making a pun, because the word Peshitta itself means straight in Aramaic, and I was assuming that you do not speak Aramaic.

Furthermore, for sake of historical context, if you want to know what Caliph Mahdi (781 C.E.) thought of the Church of the East's position on God and our Holy Books, you might want to read the following document that has been translated from Arabic to English. It might be a long read (it prints out in about 40 pages or so), but definitely worth while. In a nut shell it has the Assyrian Patriarch explaining our beliefs to the Caliph in Baghdad less than 250 years after the passing of Muhammad. See below.

Introduction to the reading:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timothy_i_apology_00_intro.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timot ... _intro.htm</a><!-- m -->

Actual text:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timot ... 1_text.htm</a><!-- m -->

This work has a few errors, but overall it is quite good. Unfortunately, the translator didn't know the difference between Qnuma (the closest English word is Essence/Substance) and Parsopa (Person), so he accidentally uses "person" when translating conversations about the Trinity. Also, about 2/3 the way through the text he translates the Aramaic "yodh" (since it is the smallest letter) to the Greek "iota".

Again, please understand that I am posting this info for HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

Alaha raba rakhmana (God is very merciful),

-Nimrod Warda-

p.s. Below is a quote from Caliph Mahdi himself.
"If you accepted Mohammed as a prophet," said the Caliph, "your words would be beautiful and their meanings fine."
Reply
#41
Peace and Blessings,

Judge and Jeremy, you exposed a weakness in my argument regarding Aphrahat and the Peshitta. If I find that Aphrahat was really quoting from the Peshitta (in those incidences) and not from either Sin or Cur (Old Syriac), then I wll reconsider my argument. But as you know, I need to find the information myself before I believe anything. In the meantime, I am going to suspend my discussion on Old Syriac.

May both you and yours rest in the shade of felicity.

Kevin
Reply
#42
Nimrod Warda Wrote:Hello again Kevin,

First, I honestly did not mean to dwell into your personal (family) matters, but rather I was using an analogy or metaphor to explain my point. Honestly, if you knew me, you would see that I am a pretty laid back guy. So when I said I will be "blunt", I was just saying that because I didn't want to expend too much energy explaining facts that are already available on this website.

Next, when I said, "With your mind set you basically want people on this forum to explain the direction of a straight line to you (yes that is a play on words - but then again you might not understand it), because you have been stuck taking a zigzagged route for most of your life.", I was simply making a pun, because the word Peshitta itself means straight in Aramaic, and I was assuming that you do not speak Aramaic.

Furthermore, for sake of historical context, if you want to know what Caliph Mahdi (781 C.E.) thought of the Church of the East's position on God and our Holy Books, you might want to read the following document that has been translated from Arabic to English. It might be a long read (it prints out in about 40 pages or so), but definitely worth while. In a nut shell it has the Assyrian Patriarch explaining our beliefs to the Caliph in Baghdad less than 250 years after the passing of Muhammad. See below.

Introduction to the reading:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timothy_i_apology_00_intro.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timot ... _intro.htm</a><!-- m -->

Actual text:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/timot ... 1_text.htm</a><!-- m -->

This work has a few errors, but overall it is quite good. Unfortunately, the translator didn't know the difference between Qnuma (the closest English word is Essence/Substance) and Parsopa (Person), so he accidentally uses "person" when translating conversations about the Trinity. Also, about 2/3 the way through the text he translates the Aramaic "yodh" (since it is the smallest letter) to the Greek "iota".

Again, please understand that I am posting this info for HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

Alaha raba rakhmana (God is very merciful),

-Nimrod Warda-

p.s. Below is a quote from Caliph Mahdi himself.
"If you accepted Mohammed as a prophet," said the Caliph, "your words would be beautiful and their meanings fine."

Nimrod,

May God grant you Paradise!

Thank you for the texts. One disadvantage to posting them is that we cannot discuss them here, so I am frustrated. I have not read the entire text, but off hand, I am enjoying the Patriarch's rhetoric. I disagree with the Caliph. I think that the Patriarch's words were beautiful and fine, regardless of his position on the Prophet (pbuh). But as I read, I am resisting the urge to automatically dismiss his theological stance. Once I read it more than twice, I will make a judgment on his reasoning.

I am sorry that I missed your pun. I thought you were being rude. I appreciate that you have cleared that misunderstanding.

Kevin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)