Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Please confirm
#1
I found this stated today...and want to know if it is true.

"The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version. A second-century date for the Peshitta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after."

..
Reply
#2
It is untrue.

The Byzantine Text also has many words which cannot be explained to be the origin text for the supposed translated Peshitta.

This is new evidence.
From our dear S.P. Silver who transcribed the khabouris codex.
Quote:The Khaburis Manuscript is a copy of a second century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD (internally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero, in 65AD). Carbon dating has found this copy of the New Testament to be approximately 1,000 years old. Given its origins, this would make it a copy of the oldest known New Testament manuscript. It was scribed on lamb parchment and hand bound between olive wood covers adorned with gold clasps, hinges and corner-brackets. The scribe would have been in ancient Nineveh (present-day Mosul, Iraq), according to the Colophon signed by a Bishop of the Church at Nineveh. In the Colophon, the Bishop certified (with his inverted signature and seal) that the Khaburis was a faithful copy of the second century original. Of particular interest, is the fact that the Khaburis is written entirely in Aramaic, the tongue of Y?Shua, otherwise popularly known as Jesus, the Nazarite

I checked b.t.w. some typical Peshitta lines with the Gotic and it looks like the Gothic Bible _is_ a translation of the Greek.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/">http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/</a><!-- m -->
I find this quite logical b.t.w. that educated European Germanic people could speak both Gothic as well as Greek. (Not Aramaic/Syriac)
Reply
#3
Distazo...thanks for that reply...but it does not adress the issue at hand.

Please read this part below again:

"but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta..."

IS THIS TRUE...and if not, have you checked to see if this is so or not?

I dont want to just go on a person's word...I want to learn if what they say is true or not...and have no way of proving this is a false statement...and am hoping one of you can help with that.
Reply
#4
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian</a><!-- m -->

Quote:The third category of Ephrem's writings is his prose work. He wrote biblical commentaries on the Diatessaron (the single gospel harmony of the early Syriac church), on Genesis and Exodus, and on the Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Epistles. He also wrote refutations against Bardaisan, Mani, Marcion and others.

In fact, let the Greek primacists prove where the Aramaic Ephrem texts quote (in fact) the Greek NT.

As you could find out yourselves (on Wikipedia) there are a lot of Ephrem 'Greek' sources which are in fact, not authored by him at all. I would not be surprised if Greek primacists just used that as a source for their claim.

Though, it seems as if my quote in the previous post did not seem important.

As it says, the eastern syriac bible (Khabouris), claims to be copied from a document from the 2nd century.

So; it does in fact not matter too much what churchfathers said and what they quoted.
Why would a bishop of Nineve put a seal on a faked document 'as if' it was a copy of a 2nd century original?

Would he have done it to confuse Greek primacists in our age?

Or maybe this is a forgery seal made by Aramaic primacists? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#5
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo...thanks for that reply...but it does not adress the issue at hand.

Please read this part below again:

"but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta..."

IS THIS TRUE...and if not, have you checked to see if this is so or not?

I dont want to just go on a person's word...I want to learn if what they say is true or not...and have no way of proving this is a false statement...and am hoping one of you can help with that.


Shlama akhi,


Aphraates supposedly did use the Peshitta, if memory serves me right. there should be some topics on this site that refer to those instances, even. try the search bar and see what you find.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#6
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo...thanks for that reply...but it does not adress the issue at hand.

Please read this part below again:

"but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta..."

IS THIS TRUE...and if not, have you checked to see if this is so or not?

1.Aphrahat can be seen on many occasions to agree word for word with the peshitta against the
"old syriac".
2.Also Aphrahat agrees word for word , at times, with the peshitta of the epistles. As the old syriac has no version of any of the epistles, it follows Aphrahat used the peshitta.
3. Aphrahat only quotes from the 22 books of the peshitta.

See here <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=23">viewforum.php?f=23</a><!-- l --> ... scroll back through the threads
Reply
#7
judge Wrote:
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo...thanks for that reply...but it does not adress the issue at hand.

Please read this part below again:

"but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta..."

IS THIS TRUE...and if not, have you checked to see if this is so or not?

1.Aphrahat can be seen on many occasions to agree word for word with the peshitta against the
"old syriac".
2.Also Aphrahat agrees word for word , at times, with the peshitta of the epistles. As the old syriac has no version of any of the epistles, it follows Aphrahat used the peshitta.
3. Aphrahat only quotes from the 22 books of the peshitta.

See here <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=23">viewforum.php?f=23</a><!-- l --> ... scroll back through the threads


Shlama Judge,

your #2 is a powerful truth to realize for Peshitta Primacy. it is good to know others are thinking in this same manner, because i've been dealing with an ardent Greek Primacist over at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblescholarsforums.com">www.biblescholarsforums.com</a><!-- w --> who won't take ANY evidence for Peshitta Primacy at face value, but goes the route of "Peshitta was created at a later time" despite any textual evidence i offer. if more Peshitta Primacists would use the above evidences in conversations and debates, there may be a stronger push against the old tired and true Burkkitt view...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Burning one Wrote:
judge Wrote:
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo...thanks for that reply...but it does not adress the issue at hand.

Please read this part below again:

"but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta..."

IS THIS TRUE...and if not, have you checked to see if this is so or not?

1.Aphrahat can be seen on many occasions to agree word for word with the peshitta against the
"old syriac".
2.Also Aphrahat agrees word for word , at times, with the peshitta of the epistles. As the old syriac has no version of any of the epistles, it follows Aphrahat used the peshitta.
3. Aphrahat only quotes from the 22 books of the peshitta.

See here <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=23">viewforum.php?f=23</a><!-- l --> ... scroll back through the threads


Shlama Judge,

your #2 is a powerful truth to realize for Peshitta Primacy. it is good to know others are thinking in this same manner, because i've been dealing with an ardent Greek Primacist over at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblescholarsforums.com">http://www.biblescholarsforums.com</a><!-- m --> who won't take ANY evidence for Peshitta Primacy at face value, but goes the route of "Peshitta was created at a later time" despite any textual evidence i offer. if more Peshitta Primacists would use the above evidences in conversations and debates, there may be a stronger push against the old tired and true Burkkitt view...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Ive had this argument too, and the argument against was that there once existed an old syriac or ?vetus syra? version of these epistles.
IIRC this argument is the one used or implied by Barbara Aland.
I think youll find something on google books to this effect if you search, but this is going from memory.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)