Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A top dog Greek Primacist's attitude, when challenged.
I had started a thread over at "New Testament Textual Criticism", a Facebook page with over 1,770 members, led by a Greek textual scholar of some standing, and after it was gaining some steam and getting some likes and responses...he came in and shut it down, and removed me from the group, which I had been part of for about two years.

Here was his two responses, when I brought up Paul Younan's challenge about finding a translational error from a supposed Greek source text for the Peshitta.

James M Leonard: It is our intention that this website reflect mainstream NT Textual Criticism, and that no idiosyncratic views be unduly represented. This being the case, we advise participants that Aramaic Primacy is an idiosyncratic perspective that is not likely ever to arise in the estimation of New Testament scholars, and hardly deserving of scholarly effort to refute it.

James M Leonard: Those interested in discussing Aramaic Priority are encouraged to take their discussions to other venues other than this mainstream TC site.

A less fearful and more graceful Greek P, wrote this in response to the 1st post there by James M Leonard...then he was removed from the same group, for some reason today.

He had said.

James E Snapp Jr: James M Leonard, That concern is understandable; on the other hand, a few balancing considerations might be in play: (1) Asking about how to answer a claim of an advocate of the Aramaic Priority theory is not the same as direct advocacy of the theory. (2) Much can be learned in the course of answering such questions, just as an athlete can grow stronger and faster in the course of running to a post in the desert, even if he has no intention of residing there. (3) Discussion of "fringe" theories not only is a practical and edifying exercise for those who have to deal with them (and who are interested in preventing them from being embraced in the general populace), but also ensures that there is no appearance of an "Ivory Tower" mentality at work in academia. The man on the street might duly wonder about the strength of conventional wisdom if its managers stifle, delay, or avoid its challengers instead of dealing with them in the ring, so to speak.

They are indeed the modern day Pharisees. With the notable exception, perhaps, that most of them are atheist.

That is the attitude of someone who sounds not to be up to the challenge because he is afraid of what he may (not) find.

Look at the name of their little facebook clique. "New Testament Textual Criticism." You're threatening the very basis for their existence. The thought of a single text (gasp) shakes them to their core. What, pray tell, would we need their ingenious minds for, if there were a text like the Muslims have ? The Muslims have no textual criticism cliques on facebook. They have a single text without any variation. They can feel confident that the Koran they read today, is the same text as was read by their great-great-great-grandparents. They can feel confident that every other Muslim is reading the exact same text.

God forbid that we Christians should have a single authoritative original text. They would be out of their "ivory towers", and have to go out and debate subjects that are tougher than which Uncial manuscript is superior Attic Greek.

I agree with you both. The Peshitta should not be excluded in textual criticism whether it is generally agreed to be the original or not. Having to conform to "mainstream" positions is ridiculous and harmful according to both history, logic, and Christianity. The mainstream positions that mankind has held over the centuries are subject to change and the possibility of being wrong. Here are some nice little examples from Wikipedia:

Quote:One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.

At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it.

Advocates of heliocentrism, such as Galileo Galilei were strongly suppressed, despite scientific evidence, now recognized as factual, that supported heliocentrism at the expense of geocentrism.

I firmly believe that God led me to the Peshitta. When I believed in Greek primacy, I had no problem with Textual Criticism, and I still don't. Textual criticism is a fallible thing just like everything else, but the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts of the Greek New Testament both are wrong in areas and correct in others. It makes more since for the original text to be a combination of the two, along with having unique readings of its own. The Peshitta New Testament that has been preserved by the Assyrian Church of the East definitely fits that bill. In fact, textual criticism is still important for the Western Five (especially the Book of Revelation). Translating the Greek back into Aramaic certainly shows some anomalies, but the Aramaic versions we have today are translations of what seem to also be translations, therefore the Greek is (most likely) closer to the original Aramaic than the Crawford manuscript (which could be independent of the Greek, but I'm not sure) or the Harklean. I haven't read enough about Crawford's Western Five to form an accurate opinion as to its importance.
Great display of arrogance by Greek Primacists. "IF you don't conform to the standard mainstream talking points, you have nothing to say". The attitude among GP textual critics reminds me of what we Austrians (members of an economic school founded in Austria by Carl Menger) experience when we communicate with those of the neo-Classical schools. "Thou shalt not teach consider heterodox ideas".
Orthodoxy is a narrow worldview established by human hands. Then again, perhaps I'm just a rebel! <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Orthodoxy is a narrow worldview established by human hands. Then again, perhaps I'm just a rebel! <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->

Does that mean that Heresy is established by alien heads? <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->
Have you went over to that forum and told all those Greek textual critics that Ivan Panin's edited Greek text is the Autograph in print?

If not, go tell them that...and tell it like you have here, in the same tone and with the same attitude...Tell them that it is the inspired and inherent NT, and that they needn't bother with all that laborious textual criticism work any longer, as Ivan's re-constructed Numeric version is the right and true version that the Apostles wrote down, word for word, letter for letter, and all other texts are corrupted and belong in the toilet.

See what they say... see how they act. Then come back here and give a report on what they said and how they treated you.
to gp:

you said, "a Greek primacist like James M Leonard who has no interest whatsoever in your hypothesis, and in case you didn't know, an hypothesis doesn't even qualify to be a theory, that's how far away you guys are from reality on this issue."

Let everyone see how far off base gp is with this belief! <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->

Hypothesis, theory, fact are deemed according to MAN not the Creator of man. Basing what you read as fact and filing it under belief is not what our Master says to do NOR are FACTS EVER set it stone even though you yourself seek to. As well as all the rest of the world trained by the likes of Jesuits and Masons , you are dead wrong in everything because of this one sliver of error in your belief.
godparticle or gp. May I ask you a question? my name is Mike Karoules and I have NOT been involved in discussion forums here for some time. I enjoy coming here and talking about the Scriptures of Aramaic Eastern Peshitta or the Greek version of the Scriptures no matter what position one holds to. But I would like to ask how you support the theory that most ALL Jews in the Diaspora during the Roman times or first century (when the early church was growing by leaps and bounds in the Diaspora cities like Corinth, Thessalonikka, Ephesus , Rome and ALL the others) spoke only Greek or predominately Greek (yes I am referring to the Hellenists or the "Grecians" as the New Testament has labeled them) BASED ON THE SCRIPTURE THAT YOU CITED where Peter said in Acts 10:28 "You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; . . ."

So, from that text in Acts (Peter's words) how do you come to the conclusion that this supports the theory that the Hellenists or Grecian Jews ("Grecians") in the Diaspora only (or predominately) spoke Greek and not Aramaic? Please break this down for me. I don't get it.

gp, I ask this here because the previous forum thread (began by you) has been locked and I read much of it only for the first time this past Saturday night - really , really late.

Anyone who wishes to chime in on this - please do so.

I thank you, gp, and anyone who wishes to share.


Mike Karoules
gp -

1. I'm gonna try again. I requested that you please tell us what you believe about Acts - Who wrote it, why, for what purpose, etc.. Not 20 pages of defensive firepower, just some basic ideas.
You come back over and over to Acts and it is a puzzle. What are your beliefs concerning Acts?

2. Further, you have some novel ideas concerning the text. "...we know that they only spoke Greek, why? Because the official definition of a Hellenist is "A Jew who spoke ONLY GREEK!" "
Where, oh where, did you get this idea of an "Official Definition?" Who was the official who made that rule up? When did that happen? What book? Where? This isn't some "Poster's Shorthand" here. You are making a HUGE assumption that can - and most certainly will - be argued 'til the cows come home and the cows are gonna be grazing very late tonight.

3. Acts 6: 1 does NOT state what you appear to be believe it says. The subject of the verse is not the "Hellenists" being discriminated against by "The Jews". "The Jews" were not in charge of obtaining and distributing the food (Do you know who was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of food?). The focus of the verse is the "WIDOWS", whose husbands are being killed by - Here we go again - "The Jews". Failure to understand this leads to you being deceived as to the purpose of this entire passage.

4. Please, gp, answer #1 first, before you set sail on the other comments. #1 is most important. It is obviously important to you as most of your Posting references Acts.


Thanks for your response and answer to my question about a week ago (or more). Take care.


godparticle said, "Clearly we know the scripture is THE WORD OF GOD! right?"

I say in response: The Scriptures reveal the Word of "God" (Really not God rather, YHWH) and blueprint the plan of redemption through The Living Word, therefore, the text is the Written Word, and The Word of YHWH is The Living Word; TORAH, and MESSIAH!

godparticle said, "The rest of your contentions and questions are dogs-breath, pure garbage, not worth the time of day"

I say in response: What makes you think any one person will listen to that spirit?

godparticle said, "Truth is we know that even Jesus himself spoke Greek, including most if not ALL the Jews, how? Or why? Because the Greek Septuagint was the text they were reading from, very telling i would have thought."

I say in response: You thought. IF He read the Septuagint, it was translated in more likely than
Hebrew, Aramaic! Why translate from Hebrew to Greek just to translate it back to Hebrew? Aramaic Septuagint is more likely than the other two languages.
Why would Jesus preach in Greek to an Aramaic speaking people? Why would He quote the Greek Septuagint during an Aramaic sermon? According to Luke 4:16-20, Jesus could read and speak Hebrew also. When quoting the Scriptures, Jesus and the apostles usually paraphrased. The Aramaic Targums were still existing only in oral form, yet were the main way the common people (most of whom did not speak or read Hebrew) learned the Tanach. If Jesus could read and speak Hebrew (as well as Aramaic), why would He use a Greek translation? Languages like Greek and Latin cannot adequately carry Semitic thought, and because of this, the Septuagint was not well liked in Israel by the rabbis.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)