Peshitta Forum
Aphrahat quoting OS? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Aphrahat quoting OS? (/showthread.php?tid=1010)



Aphrahat quoting OS? - judge - 08-31-2004

I've been involve in another discussion elsewhere.

And it has been suggested that Aphrahat quotes the OS against the peshitta. Here is what was written to me.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=2137&mode=full&page=">http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.ph ... full&page=</a><!-- m -->

As for Aphraates, he added 3 kings (Ahazia, Joash & Amozia - a gloss which is found in the Curetonian) to the Matthean genealogy and also agrees with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta in 9:13, 18:30, 21:43, 23:6 and 25:40. He used a lot of paraphrase in his Commentary, so it's often difficult to assign his writings to one text type or another.

Any one know about these instances?

Added in edit:
The gentleman made these further comments in the next post.

Matthew 9:13 - Aphraates agrees with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac. However, there are a few other singular readings (no other major manuscript has the readings) where Aphraates agrees with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta in Matthew: 18:24, 9:28, 4:16 and 19:22 and in 16:21 with the Curetonian (Sy-S has lacunae).
Furthermore, Aphraates disagrees with both the Peshitta AND the Palimpsest when it agrees with the Curetonian in Matthew 2:20 and 19:21.
The following Peshitta manuscripts agree with the Old Syriac against the majority of Sy-P texts in Matthew:
#14 with Sy-S in 26:7
#18 with Sy-S in 27:21
#3 with Sy-C in 6:32 (Sy-S not extant)
#4 with Sy-C in 22:18.
I don't have the manuscript numbers handy, there are also copies of the Peshitta which agree with the Old Syriac against the majority of Sy-P witnesses in verses 1:22, 4:6, 14:13, 15:7 and 24:38.
Thus, you can see that even the Peshitta is not completely uniform in the copies which have come down to us through the ages



Re: Aphrahat quoting OS? - Paul Younan - 09-01-2004

Shlama Akhi Michael,

judge Wrote:As for Aphraates, he added 3 kings (Ahazia, Joash & Amozia - a gloss which is found in the Curetonian) to the Matthean genealogy

But that could be Aphrahat expounding on the scriptures with reference to the actual lineage presented in the OT. The writers of Old Scratch could have done the same thing.

It is absurd to imagine that this was part of Matthew's original text - as the number 14 would have been destroyed....and we can't imagine that a tax collector was unable to perform simple arithmetic operations like addition! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

judge Wrote: and also agrees with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta in 9:13, 18:30, 21:43, 23:6 and 25:40.

9:13 - There is 1 word difference in the text between Peshitta and Old Scratch - simple copyist error.

18:30 - Actually, the OS(s) and OS© differ radically from one another - which one is Aphrahat supposedly quoting? We need specifics here. The Peshitta agrees with neither.

21:43 - There is absolutely no difference between Peshitta, OS(s) and OS©. I don't know what this person is talking about.

judge Wrote:He used a lot of paraphrase in his Commentary, so it's often difficult to assign his writings to one text type or another.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Now this person is at least being honest. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

judge Wrote:Matthew 9:13 - Aphraates agrees with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac. However, there are a few other singular readings (no other major manuscript has the readings) where Aphraates agrees with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta in Matthew: 18:24, 9:28, 4:16 and 19:22 and in 16:21 with the Curetonian (Sy-S has lacunae).

Read my explanation on 9:13 above. Of course there are Peshitta manuscripts with the missing word....it's simply a copyist error. Aphrahat was quoting Peshitta, not Old Scratch. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

judge Wrote:Furthermore, Aphraates disagrees with both the Peshitta AND the Palimpsest when it agrees with the Curetonian in Matthew 2:20 and 19:21.

2:20 - there are three additional particals in OS© that Aphrahat could easily have added if he was paraphrasing (eg., "for", "because", etc.) This is hardly convincing for someone who has admitted that Aphrahat paraphrased extensively! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> To be sure, he should supply the reading (or reference) from Aphrahat.

19:21 - The major differece between Peshitta and OS© is that the latter includes the phrase "and take up your cross" (2 words in Aramaic - "w'sab sleewakh"). This is hardly convincing, again, for someone who has admitted that Aphrahat paraphrased. But we need to see Aphrahat's quote, verbatim, because for all we know this phrase could be the only thing in common with OS© - you know what I mean, Akhi Michael? What if all the other words Aphrahat used were completely different....see how slippery these people are? They admit he paraphrased so they could cover their rear end if we actually find out that they are exaggerating their evidence. We saw this with Juckel's study. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

judge Wrote:The following Peshitta manuscripts agree with the Old Syriac against the majority of Sy-P texts in Matthew:
#14 with Sy-S in 26:7
#18 with Sy-S in 27:21
#3 with Sy-C in 6:32 (Sy-S not extant)
#4 with Sy-C in 22:18.

26:7 - The major difference between the two texts is how they say "very expensive". I need to know if manuscript #14 is a "western" type (Peshitto) or an "eastern" type. It makes all the difference in the word - since OS was used extensively in the West and this manuscript or fragment could have been the work of a scribe who wished to "correct" the Peshitta based on the version in popular use at the time that Rabbula the maniac forced his version down everyone's throat in Edessa.

27:21 - The OS is missing the phrase "of these two?" - if some Peshitta manuscript (#18) is also missing it, I want to know the origin of the manuscript. I have a suspicion that, like the example above, the manuscript is from the western tradition where there is documented evidence of tampering.

The same goes for the remainder of his examples. I'd like to know the pedigree of these manuscripts. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

judge Wrote:Thus, you can see that even the Peshitta is not completely uniform in the copies which have come down to us through the ages

Of course not, if within what he calls "the Peshitta" he includes both eastern and western manuscript traditions after Rabbula's episcopate. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->