Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation
#37
judge Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong,


Can you exaplain what you mean. If the peshitta is in a slightly different eastern dialect at some points, does that mean we call it a translation?
I would have thought a translation is from one language to another.
If this were genuinely of first century Palestinian origin, we would expect it to be in a variation of Judean Aramaic. There were small differences between the Galilean and Judean dialects, but the Peshitta is in Syriac, another dialect entirely. So we cannot rely on the Peshitta as being any kind of original.

judge Wrote:
Quote: the proofs for primacy don't hold up,

Do you mean all the proofs?
Can you gine an example?
I do not claim that none of the arguments for Peshitta primacy hold up. that wouldn't be intellectually honest. I'm simply saying that many of the arguments that I formerly relied on turned out to be less reliable than I had thought.
For instance, some have pointed out that the Greek Revelation says "I am the Alpha and the O" not actually "I am the Alpha and the Omega." The argument is that this is derived from the appearance of the Estrangela script for "taw." This argument fails to recognize that omicron and omega were both known simply as "o" until the third century.

judge Wrote:
Quote:it's altogether too standardized, etc.

Can you exaplin on what basis this means it is necessarily a translation?

thnaks. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
It does not *necessarily* mean that the Peshitta is a translation, but it does suggest that it is more heavily redacted, and so further removed from the source material.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation - by Dawid - 05-18-2010, 04:34 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)