In reply to message #5
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,
>The currently accepted Western framework is
>that the Old Syriac is
>a translation from Greek and
>that thge Peshitta is a
>revision of the Old Syriac.
>1. I reject that model
>(as do you)
>2. Actually OS = G <> P examples would support >the commonly accepted theory that the OS was >translated from Greek and that the Peshitta was >the result of its revision (since that theory >would predict a closer agreement between the OS >and G than between P and G."
I believe the commonly accepted theory that the OS was translated from the Greek.
You're right, the Greek primacists would come back and argue, then, that since the Peshitta is a "revision" (I say that biting my tongue) of the OS....it would play into their hands.
Unless we show, of course, that the Peshitta is not a result of an OS revision.
For every example they can give, I can give 10 like the two I've given so far that would refute their theory, along with an explanation of their 1 example.
">One problem I have had with
>your reasoning is the assumtion
>that the less a text
>agrees with the Greek, the
>more original it must be. "
That's not my reasoning at all. I'm showing how the Peshitta is far from both the OS and the Greek, to refute both misconceptions (viz,
Peshitta translated from Greek, or revised from OS in favor of the Greek.)
I may have given you that impression because I, so far, have been concentrating on how close the OS is to the Greek, while the Peshitta ignores both.
I have other methodologies by which we can demonstrate the total independence of the Peshitta, which will be used later.
">From the examples you give one
>could argue that the Old
>Syriac is the Older more
>primitive text on the very
>basis that agrees with the
Or that the OS was a 4th-century translation from the Greek, which was translated from the Peshitta in the 1st or early 2nd century.
>One could aregue
>based on these examples that
>the Aramaic copy which the
>Greek translator was working from
>in the first century must
>have agreed with the reading
>of the Old Syriac rather
>than the Peshitta.
One could also argue that the Aramaic copy the Greek translator was working from in the first century was the Peshitta, and the mistakes he made carried over into the 4th-5th century attempt to Hellenize the Semitic Scriptures - also known as the OS.
I think the evidence points to the latter, and I also think I can prove it without a shadow of a doubt. I've given 2 examples so far.....after a few more, a pattern will emerge that is undeniable.