03-08-2011, 12:46 AM
Shlama Paul,
John Marucci's online Beth Sapra Peshitta edition is identical to mine, as far as I can see. It has the pericope de adultera in its place within brackets, without any notes of explanation or script change. This can be found on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m --> (Yes, Peshitta.org - Paul Younan's web site). Kiraz's online text of the John passage has no brackets or notes, either.
Why is mine "made in my image", while Marucci's is fit to post on your own web site?
You also say I dressed it up in DSS script. That is simply not true. I display the passage in an appendix in DSS script, to illustrate how it may have been accidentally omitted by a very early Peshitta copy (perhaps the first copy made of the original and progenitor of practically all remaining Peshitta mss.), by mistaking the first line of 8:12 for 7:53 in that particular script, It actually is a quite plausable explanation.
The text itself is in Ashuri script, the same original Online Bible OLBHEB font used throughout the NT. The Online Bible text had no notes or brackets at all for that or any other passage. There was no "dressing up" done anywhere.
I personally accept the pericope as originally written in Aramaic as part of John's Gospel. It would explain why the vast majority of Greek mss. of John, including D (5th cent) , some Old Italic mss., the Palestinian Syriac Version, and Apostolic Constitutions (AD 222), as well as other later church fathers, contain the pericope. Von Soden collated 900 Greek mss. containing the pericope. The mss. that omit it are Egyptian -a few papyrii and early Uncials.
Presumably, the Greek mss. are witnesses to the original Peshitta NT books, so about 99% of them attest to this passage as being found in the original Peshitta Gospel of John.
I know the COE does not have an official position on the authenticity or inspiration of the Western 5 books; apparently it has none on the pericope de adultera, or it would not be contained in John's Gospel, even with brackets and a note. Does not its presence there betray a doubt about its possible authenticity, as opposed to outright rejection?
You really are shooting from the hip a lot these days. What's the beef?
Qasheesha Dave
John Marucci's online Beth Sapra Peshitta edition is identical to mine, as far as I can see. It has the pericope de adultera in its place within brackets, without any notes of explanation or script change. This can be found on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m --> (Yes, Peshitta.org - Paul Younan's web site). Kiraz's online text of the John passage has no brackets or notes, either.
Why is mine "made in my image", while Marucci's is fit to post on your own web site?
You also say I dressed it up in DSS script. That is simply not true. I display the passage in an appendix in DSS script, to illustrate how it may have been accidentally omitted by a very early Peshitta copy (perhaps the first copy made of the original and progenitor of practically all remaining Peshitta mss.), by mistaking the first line of 8:12 for 7:53 in that particular script, It actually is a quite plausable explanation.
The text itself is in Ashuri script, the same original Online Bible OLBHEB font used throughout the NT. The Online Bible text had no notes or brackets at all for that or any other passage. There was no "dressing up" done anywhere.
I personally accept the pericope as originally written in Aramaic as part of John's Gospel. It would explain why the vast majority of Greek mss. of John, including D (5th cent) , some Old Italic mss., the Palestinian Syriac Version, and Apostolic Constitutions (AD 222), as well as other later church fathers, contain the pericope. Von Soden collated 900 Greek mss. containing the pericope. The mss. that omit it are Egyptian -a few papyrii and early Uncials.
Presumably, the Greek mss. are witnesses to the original Peshitta NT books, so about 99% of them attest to this passage as being found in the original Peshitta Gospel of John.
I know the COE does not have an official position on the authenticity or inspiration of the Western 5 books; apparently it has none on the pericope de adultera, or it would not be contained in John's Gospel, even with brackets and a note. Does not its presence there betray a doubt about its possible authenticity, as opposed to outright rejection?
You really are shooting from the hip a lot these days. What's the beef?
Qasheesha Dave