The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Kevin,

Can you support this tradition with the testimony of outside sources (i.e. scholars, Western Church Fathers, etc)?

No. But think about that question for a moment. Imagine tomorrow morning, we wake up....make some coffee...fire up the laptop....go to our favorite news page and read in the headlines that an old manuscript has been found that listed the names of the Jewish scribes in Corinth and the work they did to translate Paul's Epistles for the benefit of the non-Jews in their congregation.

Of course, they wouldn't have called it the "Peshitta" - since the collection had not yet been named. But they included enough information like direct quotes, that it was readily apparent the text type of the Aramaic was most like the Peshitta, albeit perhaps in a script more common among the Jews at the time.

Think about that for a moment.

What would change? The evidence, textually, is still the same. You still have the same text. The same "forensic" evidence that we strive to find here.

Is that all it would take to convince you? Is it really a matter that that type of direct evidence is more powerful in your eyes, than the evidence of a forensic nature that we find in every book of the scripture?

If we were to have DNA samples on the manuscripts themselves, would that convince you? Would we even be here talking about this?

Akhi Kevin, you ask questions that are obviously going to be impossible to answer. They're called loaded questions. If only it were that simple, that a Greek or Aramaic manuscript were found with Paul's signature right on it....carbon dated to 60AD. That would settle the question nicely, wouldn't it?

Brushing aside the impossible (or rather, improbable)...all we have to go on is a rational examination of the evidence in the scientific manner. Forensic Linguistics, if you will. That's what we do here.

I can only support my hypothesis that the collection we now call Peshitta came from the Apostles, with Forensic Linguistics. That's all I've got. That's all Metzger had. It's up to you to decide as an individual which is more persuasive. No need to appeal to emotion, pride or hope. The evidence on both sides can lead one to a rational conclusion.

PS - it's really not that prominent a tradition in my church. Actually, none of our Patristic writers ever cared to mention it. I've never heard a sermon about it. The church really doesn't make it a priority. They'd rather feed the poor and minister to the sick, go figure! I'm really the only one who makes a big deal about it. And some of them think I'm crazy for placing so much emphasis on it.

I know you keep hanging on this church belief/tradition thing. Did you hear anything about Aramaic when I was translating for you at the service you and I attended together in L.A., with our brother Dean Dana? Really? Not one word was mentioned about Aramaic? Wow. That's every Sunday for me. So trust me when I tell you this really, really is not a church tradition.

It used to be a priority for Mar Eshai, of blessed memory. But he's long in the arms of our Saviour. I haven't heard anything since. The mission of the Church is not Aramaic Primacy. It would rather that you read the KJV, and believe, than read the Peshitta and be a non-believer like Metzger.