Two different fields.

John,
thanks for the interest. We seem to be clashing heads here, and at times over the same issues. So i might leave it here for the moment.I may come back later on your questions, but for today, if I can point out with regard to the estrangelo script one quick point. I gave a link which you have referenced part of which follows........Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke. It was spoken in south western mesopotamia in the small kingdom of Osrhoene with its capital at Edessa. The earliest datable Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (Maricq 1962, Pirenne 1963). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and script existed before Jesus' ministry. Another first century Syriac inscription was found in Jerusalem and dates from about 49 AD, [6, 7]. Many second century pagan Syriac inscriptions have also been documented from mesopotamia, [6, 7]. Three legal documents have been discovered from later in the third century (dated 28 Dec 240, 1 Sept. 242 and 243, respectively). These were discovered in the Euphrates valley (Brock 1991, Drijvers 1972). Syriac was not only spoken in mesopotamia. In fact, Syriac was still spoken by the people of Palestine many years after the time of Jesus. .....The inscription referred to here dating form 6 a.d is in estrangelo.All the best

I am aware of what your source says on the issue. I can't back it up with outside evidence. Lets look at couple of things.

quote:

---

Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke.

---

I have the feeling that your source is confusing 'aramaic' and 'syriac'. The two are not the same and are not interchangeable. Syriac is an aramaic dialect. It does not work the other way around. Every reference I have found to the Galilean Christ spoke places it as an aramaic dialect. It doesn't follow that it was also syriac. In fact, the dialects in use at the time appear to be the palmerian and the hatran, not the syriac which came along later.For details:
ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUNDAlso:

quote:

---

These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and script existed before Jesus' ministry.

---

I cannot find anything confirming that the script is estrangelo, even in the text you quote, though that text asserts that the inscriptions proves that the script was around. It is very vague and that makes me suspicious. And please remember, it isn't the syriac it is the estrangelo script that concerns me. The text goes on to make several more claims about syriac inscriptions, but these are irrelevant unless they also demonstrate the estrangelo script.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"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."William Cureton.
as quoted ...
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

quote:

---

William Cureton.
as quoted ...
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

---

Yes, judge, and that is the ONLY place I can find a similar statement.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have the feeling that your source is confusing 'aramaic' and 'syriac'. The two are not the same and are not interchangeable. Syriac is an aramaic dialect. It does not work the other way around. Every reference I have found to the Galilean Christ spoke places it as an aramaic dialect. It doesn't follow that it was also syriac. In fact, the dialects in use at the time appear to be the palmerian and the hatran, not the syriac which came along later.To be honest John I am not sure what the point you are making is.
without doubt the dialect spoken in gallilea was different to that spoken in Syria, or that even in jerusalem (probably the hebrew dialect).
The point is they were very similar. jesus had no trouble speaking with the Syro(syrian) phoenecian (cannanite?) woman in Johns gospel.Spanish in south america differs from castillian spanish as well.
English around the globe differs from the queens english as well.Gallilean aramaic had it's own nuances..so?
They are all dialects of chaldean/babylonian/aramaic.[This message has been edited by judge, 01-23-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 01-23-2003]

quote:

---

To be honest John I am not sure what the point you are making is. without doubt the dialect spoken in gallilea was different to that spoken in Syria, or that even in jerusalem (probably the hebrew dialect).

---

The point is that the logic is backwards.The argument reads something like this to me:Christ spoke a dialect of aramaic.
Syriac is a dialect of aramaic.
Therefore christ spoke syriac.This is fallacious. It is used to connect the language of the peshitta with the language of christ, but it is a bad argument.Various aramaic dialects have existed as spoken languages since 2000BC. You may be correct that these languages were mutually intelligible. I am not sure. Frankly, French is a dialect of latin and so is Spanish but the two are not mutually intelligible. Nonetheless, mutual intelligibility isn't the issue. The issue is timing. And...1) At the time of Christ syriac was not a common language
2) At the time of Christ syriac was written in blocky arabic characters, not the estrangelo of the peshitta. The two are radically different.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The point is that the logic is backwards.The argument reads something like this to me:Christ spoke a dialect of aramaic.
Syriac is a dialect of aramaic.
Therefore christ spoke syriac.Judge:
No one is arguing that Christ spoke Syriac!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a dialect of Aramaic). He would have spoken somehting very similar, but with its own nuances.Christ came from gallilea. (quite close to Syria though IIRC).Aramaic was the language of the entire region for ages. Abram was of Aramaic stock. Jacob is described in the torah as a "wandering Aramaen"
This was the language of the babylonians. It survives in the book of Daniel.

quote:

---

No one is arguing that Christ spoke Syriac!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a dialect of Aramaic). He would have spoken somehting very similar, but with its own nuances.

---

hmmmmm.... really it seems that someone has been so arguing, or least blurring the distictions. Notice the blurring of the various dialects? It is not ok to treat them as one language. When called on something similar previously, you replied: Here again there is a great emphasis upon the Syriac, presumably because that is the language in which the Peshitta is written. And as the Peshitta is being asserted as the original text, the implication is that the earliest disciples spoke syriac.William Cureton practically states that syriac was the language of the disciples. All of this, I think to blur the time lines and confuse the dating.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

John:
All of this, I think to blur the time lines and confuse the dating.

---

Hey John,
Are you suggesting an intentional confusing of the matter by the early church? To some specific purpose? If so, any suggestions as to what that might be?Curious point.-Shiloh

I'm not implying an intentional confusing of anything by the early church. I have, however, come to believe that some modern sects are pushing the peshitta as original despite the evidence, just as some christians push the KJV as being more than it is.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,I have long held that there is indeed a great deal of overplaying certain takes on scripture, particularly among literalists, the KJV-Only crowd, etc.It's a shame, too, since there is a lot to be gained from a differant sort of study, one which does not ask the reader to check his brain or life experience at the door. As to how one might ought to read the Bible, John Wesley said, "the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contradictory to some other texts." (Letters:"To Sam Furly", III, 129, John Wesleys Theology, R. Burtner & R.Chiles,1982, p.20)It would appear from this quote that Wesley allowed for contradictions when reading literalisticly. What suprises me is that others cannot see the failing in such a rigid position, when it so obviously struggles. (P.S. I was raised in an arch literalist Southern Baptist home with a fundimental indoctrination of scripture. I cannot adhere to that thinking now. That is to suggest that it is not all-or-nothing when it comes to the value of the Bible. I can reject the literalistic position and still gain greatly from a differant sort of reading.)Thanks,
-Shiloh

John:
I'm not implying an intentional confusing of anything by the early church. I have, however, come to believe that some modern sects are pushing the peshitta as original despite the evidence, just as some christians push the KJV as being more than it is.judge:
Er...John, the assyrain Church of the East is not a sect.Their liturgy is the oldest in use anywhwere."Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East., New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141)It' important , I think here to keep a sense of humor of course.
But I do find it curious that you think the COE is a sect, and on the other hand have such high regard for the writings on a "white supremecist" website, i.e the christian separatists..all the best.

quote:

---

Er...John, the assyrain Church of the East is not a sect.Their liturgy is the oldest in use anywhwere.

---

errr..... sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group. ( from rhymezone )

quote:

---

But I do find it curious that you think the COE is a sect, and on the other hand have such high regard for the writings on a "white supremecist" website, i.e the christian separatists.

---

Running out of substantial responses and opting for fallacious jabs instead? Just scanning this site on logical fallacies I find that your statement fits the following:1) Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
2) Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
3) Attacking the Person: the person's character is attacked
4) Attacking the Person: the person's circumstances are notedWhy not review the response I gave last time you tried this tact? I thought we'd cleared this up, but I guess you were just saving it for a rainy day.Now, care to provide some substantial response to my objections?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sure John,
Tell you what ...why don't you list your objections...and be very specific. And if you could be concise that would help too.But please be concise and stick to the facts.and on that othr point,are you surprised that doing a little surfing with google and then cut and pasting a white supremecist web site may make you look less credible? really?All the best[This message has been edited by judge, 01-25-2003]

quote:

---

Tell you what ...why don't you list your objections...and be very specific. And if you could be concise that would help too.

---

Judge, if had been reading my responses you'd already know the answer to this question. I've stated my objections time and again. I've lost count.

quote:

---

and on that othr point,are you surprised that doing a little surfing with google and then cut and pasting a white supremecist web site may make you look less credible? really?

---

I am surprised that you have stooped to mudslinging. So in this post then you admit that this was an attempt to discredit ME. This is a fallacy. You avoid the argument presented. This is a fallacy. And you minimize the effort I have put into researching your claims about the Peshitta. This is a further attempt to discredit me.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com