|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Two different fields. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days)  Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
quote: It is far more than simply less formalized. You understate the differences. To say it is 'less formalized' is to me misleading. Less formalized implies that the more formalized coexisted or preceeded the less formalized. Maybe its just me.  The script that we have on this inscription is the earlier block form of aramaic, which is exactly what we'd expect.
quote: Could have, judge, but this undercuts your arguments that it DID exist. Much of what you have argued has hung on very fine threads. I think if you'll read through some of your posts, you've hung a lot on this inscription. It could have existed in any of many scripts, but we have no evidence that it did. What we have is estrangelo, and it didn't show up for several hundred years.
quote: No it isn't. This isn't the argument at all. The argument is about dating the document. If we had a book written in a particular typeface and we looked up the typeface and found that it was invented in 1950, then we know that the book was printed no earlier than 1950.
quote: Wow. Struck a nerve... It is very very simple, judge. 1) The Peshitta was written in estrangelo2) Estrangelo did not exist around the time the NT was written 3) Thus, the Peshitta is not original. It was copied from some other work. That other work could have been an earlier arabic work but we have no copies and no evidence of there having been copies. Or it could have been copied from any of the thousands of greek manuscripts we do have, which is a hell of a lot more reasonable. Either way it isn't original and you can't use it for the very precise semantic analysis' of which you are fond. Now, if it were copied from an aramaic original, why can you not use it as if it were original? Because there are several hundred years between the writing of the NT and the emergence of the estrangelo script. Languages change. If you read the posts discussing that inscription, you'll notice that not only is the script different but so is some of the grammar. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok lets say for the sake of argument that this is not estrangelo, but a less formalised very similar script. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John:It is far more than simply less formalized. You understate the differences. Judge:Can you explain the differences then? John are you aware that the discussions you refer to are calling this estrangela?...did you notice that? John:To say it is 'less formalized' is to me misleading. Less formalized implies that the more formalized coexisted or preceeded the less formalized. Maybe its just me. Judge:Now you are getting warm! John:The script that we have on this inscription is the earlier block form of aramaic, which is exactly what we'd expect Judge:John if you are going to make claims like you will need to explain what you mean. As noted, the discussion I referenced is calling the script estrangela. Can you tell me your expertise in discussing ancient scripts. If you are going to contradict these other people then you surely must have some expertise in this area. Do you? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That because later peshitta texts use a more formalised script that a version in this very similar script could not have existed in similar script in the first century. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John:Could have, judge, but this undercuts your arguments that it DID exist. Much of what you have argued has hung on very fine threads. I think if you'll read through some of your posts, you've hung a lot on this inscription. It could have existed in any of many scripts, but we have no evidence that it did. What we have is estrangelo, and it didn't show up for several hundred years. judge:What we have today is the king james version in modern styles of the alphabet. Does this mean that the king james did not exist because they used a different style of alphabet?? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is like arguing that because our king james version uses a script that is different (but with the same letters) than the one that was used in the days of king james that the king james could not have existed then. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John:No it isn't. This isn't the argument at all. The argument is about dating the document. If we had a book written in a particular typeface and we looked up the typeface and found that it was invented in 1950, then we know that the book was printed no earlier than 1950. Judge:Do you really beleive this? The argument is not about dating a document...unless you are now introducing this. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IT"S LIKE SAYING THAT THE VERSIONS WE HAVE ARE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS...but we think people use lower case in those days so if people used lower case then then our version which is in capitals could not have existed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge:Wow. Struck a nerve... yikes It is very very simple, judge. 1) The Peshitta was written in estrangelo No this is your assumption. Please do not make out that I am arguing this. What script the peshitta was first written in we do not know. Whatever script Paul and the disciples used.The earliest copies we have are in the 'formalised'estrangela script. Same letters same words...perhaps a different style of letter.....perhaps a different style of alphabet. But the same letters... It's just a syle of writing the individual letters! Some say that only the "formal" style is really estrangela. Its just a name. 2) Estrangelo did not exist around the time the NT was written Judge:Irrellevant! either way. Judge:3) Thus, the Peshitta is not original. It was copied from some other work. Judge:Incorrect John...the style of the letters may have changed thats all! John:That other work could have been an earlier arabic work but we have no copies and no evidence of there having been copies. judge;Exactly! we have no evidence of these so called other copies. So this argument is weak. John:Or it could have been copied from any of the thousands of greek manuscripts we do have, which is a hell of a lot more reasonable. Either way it isn't original and you can't use it for the very precise semantic analysis' of which you are fond. judge:If it is the same words with the same letters then I can. John:Now, if it were copied from an aramaic original, why can you not use it as if it were original? judge:You have already pointed out that we have no evidence of this other work. Might be best to abandon this line of argument until you find some. John:Because there are several hundred years between the writing of the NT and the emergence of the estrangelo script. Languages change. If you read the posts discussing that inscription, you'll notice that not only is the script different but so is some of the grammar. judge:John...the inscription is from turkey IIRC not galilee or judea, so these differenes in conjugation are therfore irrelevant. Do you now see what I am saying?all the best [This message has been edited by judge, 01-31-2003] [This message has been edited by judge, 01-31-2003] [This message has been edited by judge, 01-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John are you aware that the discussions you refer to are calling this estrangela?...did you notice that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I notice that the title refers to the oldest estrangela, presumably in reference to the claims made that it is in fact estrangela. You can see this theme starting in the second post of this thread: Peshitta Forum - The original script of Aramaic In the text, the only reference to estrangelo is to point out the differences between this text and that of the peshitta and to point out a feature of the Alaf that doesn't appear to be relevant to our discussion. Also, notice how the Shin character in this Edessan inscription is very close to the shape of the Ashuri~Hebrew S rather than the shape of Peshitta Estrangela $ judge:John, unfortunately you are wrong here. I recently (in the last week) was in contact with the gentleman who started that discussion. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John if you are going to make claims like you will need to explain what you mean. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge, look at the script. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to see the differences. judge:one has been engraved by hand in stone! quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What we have today is the king james version in modern styles of the alphabet. Does this mean that the king james did not exist because they used a different style of alphabet?? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It means that it probably did not exist much before the EARLIEST style of alphabet of which we have an example. judge:? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument is not about dating a document...unless you are now introducing this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have got to be kidding me? You are arguing for an ARAMAIC original. Timing is a critical issue. judge:The arguments for an aramaic original are basically arguments internal to the text itself. Look at it this way, before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest old testaments were in greek not hebrew. The oldest hebrew copies were from the middle ages. Did this mean people argued that the OT ws written in greek? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What script the peshitta was first written in we do not know. Whatever script Paul and the disciples used. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then you have lost a key component of the aramaic original argument. You are now basing the arguement upon the assumption that the peshitta was copied from an earlier aramaic text for which we have no evidence. Judge:I have already provided you with the words of famous scholar saying that the dialect of the peshitta and that spoken in first century palestine are extremely close if not identical. You on the other hand prefer to believe a white supremacist from "christian separatists" who thinks that there is a jewish conspiracy to promote an aramaic original....stop for a minute and think. Here again, are the words of william Cureton.."Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place." quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incorrect John...the style of the letters may have changed thats all! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is your assumption and without the hypothetical earlier copies we don't know this. You don't know this. People tend to update spellings and change words for many different reasons. Just look at the countless modern translations of the Bible. Two hundred years ago most anyone would have written 'negro' and never thought twice about it, but when working up a modern version of that book from an unfamiliar alphabet the translators are going to be real tempted to change it. judge:Again I have provided you with a scholarly assessment. You have chosen to ignore this. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly! we have no evidence of these so called other copies. So this argument is weak. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ummmmm.... why are you changing your mind now? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it is the same words with the same letters then I can. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But you have lost the ability to prove that assertion. Either the earliest copies of the peshitta are original, or they are not. If not you can't make the very fine distinctions that you need to make. And we have both agreed, it seems, that the earliest copies of the peshitta are not original. judge:You are misrepresenting my argument here John. I have repeatedly said it is word fro word the same. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have already pointed out that we have no evidence of this other work. Might be best to abandon this line of argument until you find some. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are you talking about? This makes absolutely no sense. You need proof of pre-peshitta NTs, I don't. judge:There are no pre-peshitta NT's. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John...the inscription is from turkey IIRC not galilee or judea, so these differenes in conjugation are therfore irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The peshitta was produced somewhere around edessa, just a hop skip and jump from this inscription. Review of Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament Time can account for the grammar differences as well, so you cannot simply dismiss it but must show that the peshitta grammar does match that of judea in the first century. I can't find any such comparisons. Perhaps you can. judge:John this getting funny now. Did you read the article? Did you read the heading? lol Lets have a look at the first few words. here they are. M. P. Weitzman. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Do you see? The article you have quoted concerns the peshitta OLD TESTAMENT....NOT THE NEW.Again, this makes it irrellevant! We are discussing the NEW TESTAMENT Thanks for the link though, it will help me with something else i am donig at the moment. All the best, and have a good day. [This message has been edited by judge, 01-31-2003] [This message has been edited by judge, 01-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
quote: That's nice judge. And the reason for the title is ... ?
quote: Fair enough statement. It does not answer the real question though. How is it that this has been determined to be estrangelo? Perhaps it is an attempt at something else? How is the ID made judge?
quote: The KJV, judge. NOT THE BIBLE. We can infer the original dates of the KJV by observing the text styles of the copies we have. It isn't all that complicated. Archeaologists do it all the time with countless scripts. The script style tells you when the document was produced.
quote: And here again the bulk of scholars disagree with you. What am I to make of that? Secondly, the proponents don't get to select what evidence can be used in the discussion, which you seem to be implying. Surely you see how that biases the result?
quote: Nope. There is evidence, internal and external, that the greek was a translation. ( You claim this for the Peshitta, but I don't see it; nor do the majority of scholars, as per my own investigation. ) The point being, we know we have a copy and a translation at that. The peshitta is the same.
quote: Yes William Cureton who died in 1864. Can't you come up with MODERN corroboration? Looks like there ought to be some. I can't find it. You are basing everything you have on the word of this man and ignoring the bulk of the scholarship.
quote: Have you so little that you must repeat this attempt to discredit me? Well, you are an ass for it.
quote: Yes, yes... sound great doesn't it, so long as no one stops to think about the many scholars who disagree? But do tell me how, without knowing what words and letters were in place in the original, you can know that they are the same as in the copy?
quote: Yet you HAVE NO WAY IN HEAVEN OR HELL TO KNOW THAT!!! Word for word the same? Word for word the same as what? We don't know. In fact...
The style of the Peshitta differs noticeably from the Old Syriac. It is more fluent and more natural than the other Syriac versions. Most scholars therefore believe that it was a substantially new translation rather than a revision. There are readings which remind us of the older Syriac versions, but these may be simple reminiscences rather than actual cases of dependency.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac 5. (B) The second oldest version is the "Peshitta" (= "common" or "vulgate"; Syrp or Syrpes), extant in over 350 manuscripts (the oldest of which dates from the fifth cent.). Its genesis is placed in the early- to mid-fifth century. Unlike the vetus syra, whose circulation was apparently limited (it was overshadowed by the more ancient Diatessaron), the Peshitta enjoyed the approval of clergy whose allegiance was to the Western "Great Church"; it became the standard NT of the Syrian church. The Diatessaron--which from antiquity had been the standard text of the Syrian church--was swept aside in the 420s by the "Great Church" bishops (e.g., Rabbula of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus), whose allegiance lay with Rome and Constantinople, not the traditions of Edessa and Jerusalem (cf. the Doctrina Addai and the much-remarked upon and striking disjunction between bishop Aggai [Jerusalem-oriented] and his successor bishop Palut [Rome-oriented]; see, e.g., Bauer 1971: 16-17). The Peshitta represents a careful, quite consistent rendering of its fourth- or fifth-century Greek base.
Review of Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Notice this scholar considers the Diatessaron to be older?
quote: Yes, wrong link Glad you have use of it though.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
quote: ummm.... ok. Who is he and why should his title be taken as evidence? Here, I can name a thread anything at all. I assume it is the same there.
quote: I've been pointing this stuff out to you for weeks, judge.
quote: The people on the chat forum where that picture is posted are pointing out dialectical differences, judge. There is no need for a markedly different dialect. ( I admit to over-reacting and over-stating my position on this.  )An identifiable difference in dialect is sufficient to date the composition. This is why it isn't dated to the first century but to the middle of the second century at the earliest but frequently later. However, for the record:
Some scholars, however, have overemphasized the importance of the Peshitta, claiming that, since the Syriac language is closely related to the Aramaic Jesus spoke, His actual words may be better preserved in the Peshitta than in the Greek NT. This is, of course, wrong; the Peshitta is merely a translation of the Greek NT (Wegner, 244).
Page Not Found - Discover The Hidden Meanings of Your Dreams | ElatedDreams.com quote: Yes, praise for the article, not for the man's views on anything else. Why can you not understand this?
quote: Bloody hell. You ask, I provide references. You dismiss. You are hopeless. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
judge Member (Idle past 6464 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
