Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Dictionary of the New Testament Background
#1
Hello Darrell,

In your email, you asked me to take notice of this quotation from the Dictionary of the New Testament Background:

Dictionary of the New Testament Background Wrote:"Diatessaron of Tatian. This harmony of the Gospels produced by Tatian about A.D. 170 became the Gospels of the Syriac-speaking church from the late second century until the mid-fifth century, when it was finally suppressed through the efforts of Rabbula, the bishop of Edessa . . . Besides the four Greek Gospels, Tatian apparently used a West Aramaic Gospel, as evidenced by the use of West Aramaic vocabulary . . . "

There are numerous errors in this short quote, but I want to focus on just one of them right now (for simplicity's sake.)

This article states that Tatian (the Assyrian) used a "West Aramaic Gospel" as is evidenced by his use of "West Aramaic" vocabulary.

My question to you is this: How exactly is it possible that we know what his Aramaic vocabulary was like....if no copies of his Aramaic Diatesseron are extant today? Remember, this very article states that Rabbula "suppressed" it. (That was a long time ago.)

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Paul
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Classic!!!
Reply
#3
Conder replies....

Darrell Conder Wrote:Once again I want to state that neither of us are scholars. You and I use the work of others, who are supposed experts in their fields, as evidenced by the quotes you've offered in defense of your position.

You make a good point, Paul. How indeed? With that question in mind, how is it possible for you, or anyone else, to know what happened in those years? More to the point, how is it possible to trace your Peshitta back any further than this brick wall of history? Scholars have made their conclusions based on circumstantial evidence, legend and speculation, which (you and I both know) forms the bulk of Christian history from the fourth-fifth century back. This is an ominous revelation for those who have based their lives on, and have faith in the contents of the Peshitta or the jumbled Greek MSS.

Now, let me ask you a question: What is the oldest existing manuscripts of the Peshitta?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Hello Darrell,

You are correct, neither of us are scholars. I would be more than willing to stop quoting from scholarly resources if you are not impressed by that type of thing. I would be very happy to begin demonstrating to you that the Aramaic text as is it preserved in the Peshitta canon is the basis for the various Greek textual families and manuscripts. We must, however, get past these false and dated claims from various sources that Rabbula is the author of the Peshitta. If you would be willing to concede that the origin of the Peshitta is shrouded in mystery (I believe you had previously made a substantially similiar statement) - I can move on. Is that acceptable to you?

To answer your question - the oldest extant manuscript of the Peshitta dates from the early fifth century. There are a total of 350 manuscripts which read identically. Several of them date from the 5-6th centuries, and the latest dates to around the 9th century. This is apart from the modern printed copies made by the Church of the East and other middle-eastern Christian communities.

In formulating your opinion of the age of the oldest extant manuscripts, please keep a couple of things in mind. In Semitic tradition, a biblical manuscript is not allowed to decay to the extent that it begins to fall apart. If a manuscript reaches that point, it is immediately buried or burned. This is done out of respect for the material contained therein. The Greek-based Christian community has no such tradition, hence the multitudes of fragments which are older than the oldest extant (and complete) manuscript of the Peshitta.

The second thing I would like for you to keep in mind is that, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls roughly 80 years ago - the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Aleppo Codex (also known as the "Leningrad Codex".) The age of that manuscript was circa 1000 A.D. Before the discovery of the DSS - the oldest copy of an OT was a Greek one. But nobody dared to claim that there was anything but a Hebrew original to the OT. I would like to remind you of the general tradition stated above - the reason why the Leningrad Codex was at one time the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the OT is because Semites do not allow their religious texts to decay. The same thing happened in the tradition of the Church of the East (who are also Semites), and this is a well-known fact. I would like to summarize by saying that a manuscript's age is not at all important. The material contained therein is the most important thing.

With your permission, I would like to begin to demonstrate the dependence of the Greek manuscripts on the original Aramaic text as preserved in the Peshitta. I will lay the two texts for you side-by-side, and the translation will stick out like a sore thumb. This will directly deal with your other question about how it is possible that I can go back farther in history with this text. No more scholarly quotes, I promise. From this point on you will be directly presented with evidence from the text itself, so you can judge for yourself.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Paul
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
well seems you have sparked his interest somewhat Paul.

I'm trying to be postive about it, but when do think he will grow horns and start chanting "death to Christians!" ?
Reply
#6
Awesome post Akhi, I was unaware of Semitic tradition to throw away originals. Sounds kinda wierd

""Several of them date from the 5-6th centuries, and the oldest dates to around the 9th century.""

oldest dates to 9th?
Reply
#7
Oops - meant to say "the latest dates to the 9th century." <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->

It's not a "throwing away" of originals. When they reach a state of decay they are copied immediately, and then buried or burned in a respectful manner - much like a funeral service of a deceased relative. This is done so that the fragments don't fall on the floor and become trampled on.

This is why you have over 1,000 year span between the DSS and the Aleppo Codex. Ever wonder why we don't have Hebrew OTs still around from the 4th or 5 centuries? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
Dave Wrote:well seems you have sparked his interest somewhat Paul.

I'm trying to be postive about it, but when do think he will grow horns and start chanting "death to Christians!" ?

He's just playing nice right now to give me the false sense that he's a breeze in a debate. His strategy is to get to the point where he concedes Aramaic primacy, and then challenge me to an all-out debate on the inspiration of the NT in hopes that he fooled me into thinking it would be easy.

I'm no dummy - I won't fall for his trap. The only thing I ever hoped for in this debate is to demonstrate to all of you how shallow the typical arguments of a Greek Primacist really are. Something beneficial will come out of this - I hope.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)