Greek vs. Aramaic

[yuku]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You have me totally perplexed. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

I ask you for proof of anyone from the CoE quoting from the Old Scratch or Diatesseron - and you give me quotes from St. Ephraem (of Edessa!)

Just give me some time, Akhi Paul! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

I ask you where "before God" is found in the Diatesseron - and you point me to the Magdelene gospel and some medieval English version, whatever those things are <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> - instead of the two oldest surviving, and most trustworthy translations in Latin and Arabic.

Actually, most Diatessaronic scholars don't think that the Latin and Arabic Diatessarons are the most trustworthy translations. It's true that the Latin Fulda Diatessaron is our oldest complete copy though...

I ask you to show me where in the CAL database that the original Aramaic of St. Ephraem contains the "before God" reading - and you point me to an English translation where only GOD knows how he ended up with that reading. I know for a fact that the reading is not present in the original Aramaic of Ephraem - because all of it is right there on CAL and I can read it like you can read this English.

As far as I know, what they have of Ephrem at the CAL website is incomplete. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

I ask you how it is possible for Ephraem to be quoting Old Scratch in his commentary on the Diatesseron <!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: --> - and I get no answer. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s -->

Well, now this is a really difficult question...

What I'm planning to do pretty soon is to write some sort of a general FAQ about the Diatessaron, a sort of a brief and basic intro. I've already written some of it, so please give me a bit of time. Then we can come back to this issue.

I ask you how Mar Aphrahat the Persian could be quoting Old Scratch when the word order is completely different, and I get no answer.

There's a change there from the active voice into the passive voice, not a big deal... The meaning is still the same.

And then you give me "scholarly" references to his quoting the Diatesseron. So which one is it, Yuri? Is Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron or is he quoting Old Scratch? I get no answer from you! You are being very slippery! <!-- sly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="ly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sly: -->

OK, I promise to come back to this issue after I write that Diatessaron FAQ.

Akhi Yuri,

I've been following you and your posts on Yahoo for a long time. You are absolutely a brilliant man and like I said back on the old forum - I am a big fan of yours.

Thank you, Akhi Paul, you make me blush. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

But this type of argument for this example is not in your league (or mine). You have to switch to something else and really demonstrate this Old Scratch theory - because that's the one thing I disagree with you most about, and I would love for you to be able to convince me that these two junk manuscripts belong in the same category as 350 beautifully-preserved manuscripts from the 5th-9th century which all agree with one another, and which have at least 1,600 years of documented custodialship in all the Aramaic-speaking churches.

You have a big task - but I know if anyone can convince me otherwise, it'll be you. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

But, Akhi Paul, it wasn't really my intention to change your mind about the Old Syriac gospels... What I really want to do OTOH was to point out where our real priorities lie.

You can still dislike the Old Syriac texts, but this shouldn't stop us from finding common areas of interest where we can co-operate productively.

The priority should be to go more mainstream, and to challenge the Egyptian Greek text where it hurts it most. There really must be a way to bring the Aramaic gospels to the attention of the scholarly mainstream in such a way that people sit up and take notice. So this is my real goal.

I will post in a separate thread a longer reply on this matter.

Also, I'm planning to post more evidence about that case of Mk 10:20/Mt 19:20/Lk 18:21, the "Rich Young Man". Just give me some time...

Shlama,

Yuri.