Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
before I begin
#16
I believe we have proved in old forum discussions that the so-called Old Syriac (Old Scratch) is a not-very-old translatrion from a Greek version of the NT. It is not related to the Peshitta.

Otto
Reply
#17
ograabe Wrote:I believe we have proved in old forum discussions that the so-called Old Syriac (Old Scratch) is a not-very-old translatrion from a Greek version of the NT. It is not related to the Peshitta.

Otto

Shlama akhi Otto,

yes, i'm right there with you on that point, but for the discussion, i think Kevin is in a much different place and needs to know that for himself, which is a legitimate concern. i was trying to recall some other key examples that vividly show the problems with Ole Scratchy...but the one i posted was all i could remember off-hand.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#18
ograabe Wrote:I believe we have proved in old forum discussions that the so-called Old Syriac (Old Scratch) is a not-very-old translatrion from a Greek version of the NT. It is not related to the Peshitta.

Otto

I dont know if I have read every post on this but I do remember Paul thinking that there was a relationship.

Quote:Rabbula did not make a "fresh" translation right from the Greek.

The Peshitta and OS are 70-80% word-for-word the exact same. There is definitely a relationship there.

What Rabbula did do was to use the Peshitta as a base and wherever it disagreed with Bezae he translated the Greek and inserted it in to the Peshitta reading.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698</a><!-- l -->

Was there some further discussion around this point?

It is curious though, that at times that seem quite unrelated to any theological themes, the OS deviates from the peshitta.
Reply
#19
Shlama akhi,

yes -- i recall that post now! thanks for sharing the link!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#20
Greetings and Blessings,

First, I want to thank Burning One and Judge for their discussion. Both of you have been very helpful and kind. Now, I want to examine Paul's argument regarding Old Syriac.

He states that there is a relationship between the Peshitta and Old Syriac because comparatively, there is a 70-80% word-to-word match. After acknowledging this strong correlation between the two mss, Paul determines that the Old Syriac derives from both the Greek and the Peshitta. By what grounds?

There are a couple possibilities that explain the relationship:

a) The Peshitta is a modification of the Old Syriac
b) The Old Syriac is from both the Peshitta and the Greek
c) The Peshitta and Old Syriac are both separate translations of the Greek

Paul chooses (b) because it confirms his bias, as evident that he fails to provide any justification for his choice. As we know, there is a big difference between a correlation and causation. One cannot leap from a correlation, however strong, to a causation without first experimenting; one would need to develop an independent variable b) dependent variable c) a falsifiable hypothesis.

Subsequently, he states that Rabbula used the Peshitta as a template for the Old Syriac. But where's the proof? Before we tackle this particular question, we must examine his viewpoint. His Aramaic primacy stance is based on the following assumptions: 1) since the Syriac Church has existed since apostolic times, its scriptures must, too, be from apostolic times in the Aramaic language 2) the Syriac scriptures remained unchanged, word for word, in its original Aramaic, 3) from the beginning, these scriptures were known as Peshitta and (4) All of the Greek mss are translations of the Peshitta.

But where is the proof? Without showing evidence, Paul is begging the question.

I invite him to prove (1)-(4). The stipulation behind this invite is that all correlational research is inadmissable. I want to see the details of well-developed experiments that strengthen his standpoint before we can even approach questions about Old Syriac.

Kevin
Reply
#21
Kara Wrote:Greetings and Blessings,

First, I want to thank Burning One and Judge for their discussion. Both of you have been very helpful and kind. Now, I want to examine Paul's argument regarding Old Syriac.

He states that there is a relationship between the Peshitta and Old Syriac because comparatively, there is a 70-80% word-to-word match. After acknowledging this strong correlation between the two mss, Paul determines that the Old Syriac derives from both the Greek and the Peshitta. By what grounds?

The reasoning is contained in other threads IIRC.

Here is on simple piece of evidence that places the peshitta before the old syriac.
Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word may times against the OS.

Is there any evidence of anyone quoting the OS before this? If so what is the evidence?
Reply
#22
Quote:Here is on simple piece of evidence that places the peshitta before the old syriac.
Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word may times against the OS.

Is there any evidence of anyone quoting the OS before this? If so what is the evidence?
[/quote]

Greetings and blessings, Judge. I hope you and yours had a wonderful weekend.

Before we address the Old Syriac, I have a couple questions for you:

a) Can you provide at least two impartial sources that verify the claim that Aphrahat repeatedly quoted from the Peshitta NT?
b) Can you find any mention of the Peshitta (by name) in the writings, such as commentaries and poetry, of the early Syriac Church Fathers (pre-5th century)?

If the Peshitta Gospels existed and remained authoritative before and after the Diatessaron, then we will find at least one direct mention of it by pre 5th century Syriac writers, such as St. Ephrem and Aphrahat. Otherwise, we are forced to conclude that either the Peshitta was of little regard within the Syriac Church until the 5th century or that the Peshitta did not exist before the 5th century.

Kevin
Reply
#23
Kara Wrote:Greetings and blessings, Judge. I hope you and yours had a wonderful weekend.

Likewise to yourself! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:Before we address the Old Syriac, I have a couple questions for you:

a) Can you provide at least two impartial sources that verify the claim that Aphrahat repeatedly quoted from the Peshitta NT?


There is a quote somewhere on this forum from prof Gwynne to that effect on the basis that Aphrahat never quoted the "disputed 5" books. Im not sure where it is.


Quote:b) Can you find any mention of the Peshitta (by name) in the writings, such as commentaries and poetry, of the early Syriac Church Fathers (pre-5th century)?

Was it called the peshitta back then?

Quote:If the Peshitta Gospels existed and remained authoritative before and after the Diatessaron, then we will find at least one direct mention of it by pre 5th century Syriac writers, such as St. Ephrem and Aphrahat.


Not if they didnt call it by that name then.

Quote:Otherwise, we are forced to conclude that either the Peshitta was of little regard within the Syriac Church until the 5th century or that the Peshitta did not exist before the 5th century.

Kevin

How then would it have come to be part of the COE liturgy?
Reply
#24
Peace and Blessings,

Judge, I hope you are having a great day. I want you to consider the following passages. I have collected quotations from authoritative, varied sources in regards to the Peshitta and Old Syriac:

William L. Petersen:

If one ignores the Diatessaron (which is the oldest gospel text in Syriac), then three recensions of the gospels in Syriac exist. (A) The oldest of these three is the vetus syra or "Old Syriac," which exists in two manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus (Syrs or Syrsin, dated to the mid- or late-fourth cent.) and Codex Curetonianus (Syrc or Syrcur, early fifth cent.). It must be pointed out that these two manuscripts do not appear to be related; rather, each seems to represent a more or less independent translation of a Greek archetype (the Greek archetype apparently differed, as well); that this is the case is demonstrated by the differences in (1) word order, (2) vocabulary choice, (3) handling of passages in the Greek which required circumlocution in the Syriac, etc.

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.
(<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol02/Kiraz1997rev.html">http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol02/Kiraz1997rev.html</a><!-- m -->)

Ilaria Ramelli (footnotes):

6 This is the oldest Syriac version of the Gospels after Tatian???s fragmentary
Diatessaron (which moreover was a harmony rather than a translation
of the four Gospels). The Vetus Syra, i.e., the ???Gospel of the Separated???
(in reference to its distinction from the Diatessaron), dates to the late
second century in its earliest phases, and in its late phases to the fourth.

7 Sinaiticus, or ms. Syr. Sin. 30, is a palimpsest from the Monastery of
St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai: its original leaves date back to the fourth century,
and it reflects a still earlier translation, of the second or third century:
thus, it is a fundamental witness to a very early phase of the Vetus Syra.
It
is probable that relatively soon further parts of this translation will be
available, which would be most valuable to scholars. Curetonianus (ms.
Brit. Lib. Add. 14451), written in the fifth century, represents a later stage
of the Vetus Syra, probably of the fourth century.

8 I use G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Aligning the
Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Pesh??t?t?? and H?arklean Versions (Leiden: Brill, 1996),
3.352 on Luke 17:21b. The Peshitta was born as a revision of the Vetus
Syra aimed at a more literal adherence to the Greek; it was completed in
the fifth century for the New Testament.
(<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No2/HV12N2Ramelli.pdf">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No2/HV12N2Ramelli.pdf</a><!-- m -->)

Brittanica Encyclopedia under "Peshitta" and "Diatessaron":

Peshitta
(Syriac: ???simple,??? or ???common???), Syriac version of the Bible, the accepted Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century ad. The name Peshitta was first employed by Moses bar Kepha in the 9th century to suggest (as does the name of the Latin Vulgate) that the text was in common use. The name also may have been employed in contradistinction to the more complex Syro-Hexaplar version.

Of the vernacular versions of the Bible, the Old Testament Peshitta is second only to the Greek Septuagint in antiquity, dating from probably the 1st and 2nd centuries ad. The earliest parts in Old Syriac are thought to have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts by Jewish Christians at Edessa, although the Old Testament Peshitta was later revised according to Greek textual principles. The earliest extant versions of the New Testament Peshitta date to the 5th century ad and exclude The Second Letter of Peter, The Second Letter of John, the Third Letter of John, The Letter of Jude, and The Revelation to John, which were not canonical in the Syrian church.

Diatessaron
the four New Testament Gospels compiled as a single narrative by Tatian about ad 150. It was the standard Gospel text in the Syrian Middle East until about ad 400, when it was replaced by the four separated Gospels. Quotations from the Diatessaron appear in ancient Syriac literature, but no ancient Syriac manuscript now exists. A 3rd-century Greek papyrus fragment was discovered in 1933 at Doura-Europus, northwest of Baghdad, Iraq. Whether the original writing was done in Greek or Syriac is unknown. There are also manuscripts in Arabian and Persian and translations into European languages made during the Middle Ages.

George Kiraz:

The Old Syriac is known in Syriac as Evangelion Dampharshe meaning 'Gospel of the Separated [Evangelists]', in order to distinguish it from the Diatessaron, 'Gospel of the Mixed'. This translation was made at some point between the late second century and the early fourth century by a number of translators. Rather a literal translation, this was a rather free translation from the Greek. A series of revisions took place over a long period of time which brought the Old Syriac into closer line with the Greek. The original translation of the Old Syriac is lost, but we are fortunate to have two lacunous manuscripts which represent two different stages of the revisions: the Sinaiticus palimpsest and the Curetonianus manuscript ( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html">http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html</a><!-- m -->).


Kevin
Reply
#25
Kara Wrote:Peace and Blessings,

Judge, I hope you are having a great day. I want you to consider the following passages. I have collected quotations from authoritative, varied sources in regards to the Peshitta and Old Syriac:

Ok I read them and considered them. Can you tell me the actual evidence that led them to their conclusions?
Reply
#26
Quote:Ok I read them and considered them. Can you tell me the actual evidence that led them to their conclusions?

Peace and blessings,

Purchase G. A. Kiraz, "Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions". You can also find it at many academic libraries.
Reply
#27
Shlama,

enter "Aphrahat" in the search box on this site, and spend some time reading the historical evidence showing that the Peshitta clearly preceded Old Scratch. then analyze how it fits your current views. it is definitely worth the time to check out the info for yourself.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#28
Quote:Shlama,

enter "Aphrahat" in the search box on this site, and spend some time reading the historical evidence showing that the Peshitta clearly preceded Old Scratch. then analyze how it fits your current views. it is definitely worth the time to check out the info for yourself.

Peace and blessings,

I am definitely willing to consider these posts, Jeremy. Can you paste links to the posts with the strongest line of reasoning in regards to Aphrahat?

Kevin
Reply
#29
Hello again Kevin,

These all have been helpful to me. Please remember to let the Holy Spirit guide your heart and mind.

Quotes from Mar Aphrahat (280-367 A.D.)

About Mar Aphrahat
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=237">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=237</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Mattai 1:23
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=194">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=194</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Mattai 5:16
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=228">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=228</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Luqa 15:8
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=231">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=231</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 10:27
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=225">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=225</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 10:30
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=273">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=273</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 11:43
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=277">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=277</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Yukhanan 13:34
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=224">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=224</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Romans 5:14
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=297">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=297</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and 1Corinthians 2:9
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=400">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=400</a><!-- l -->

Mar Aphrahat and Galatians 3:28
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298</a><!-- l -->

Aphrahat's style of Biblical Citation - the FINAL word
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=737">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=737</a><!-- l -->


Other Interesting Topics

Prof. Brock Speaketh With a Foot in his Mouth
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=747">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=747</a><!-- l -->

Statement from Ibas, Bishop of Edessa
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1463">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1463</a><!-- l -->

The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401</a><!-- l -->

Push b'shayna,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#30
If I may, I would like to point out that Aphraates quotes (or rather, paraphrase), some verses of the Gospels that are omitted (not missing) in SyrSin. e.g. Mark 16:16-18 and Mat. 21:44 (there are others). Altough these verses occur in SyrCur.

Shlama
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)