11-05-2009, 09:47 AM
Hi,
Judge found one quote on the web which is from later in Brock. The main problematic quote is as I wrote earlier:
Brock writes about Philoxenus that he ..."explains in his Commentary on the Prologue of John, Philoxenus found himself obliged to undertake this because the original translators 'had made mistakes in many things, whether intentionally or through ignorance.' Note13."
What someone needs to check is the CSCO.
Judge's suggestion that:"
1."Nestorianism" has been condemned.
2. The faithful are to condemn Nestorius or be anathematised.
3.The Peshitta readings have a "Nestorian" slant.
4.Therefore the Peshitta must necessarily be a corrupt translation."
....does not make complete sense because some *anti-Nestorian* groups also used the Peshitta, like the Oriental Orthodox of Antioch/Syrian Orthodox, and the Maronites (later). I don't think the evidence is that the Peshitta was necessarily seen as "Nestorian". So he may have cited the "Nestorian-leaning verses" as a reason for re-translation, but that does not seem adequate reason for Philoxenus to re-write history! ((All references here to "Nestorian" are using Brock's words and do not reflect any negative view from me!))
Is there any evidence that Philoxenus's statement was challenged at the time? Given the enormous pro-Syrian and anti-Greek feelings at the time surely someone would have outspokenly been critical of Philoxenus at this point if he was wrong?
What other written evidence from this time is there for the provenance of the Peshitta?
Judge asks: "Was Philoxenus really saying that the Peshitta of John's gospel contained many mistakes? "
Yes it is about John's gospel. See the quote above.
I am surprised by the few replies to this since if we cannot explain it then it puts a dent in the whole Aramaic/Peshitta primacy that I have become convinced of.
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Judge found one quote on the web which is from later in Brock. The main problematic quote is as I wrote earlier:
Brock writes about Philoxenus that he ..."explains in his Commentary on the Prologue of John, Philoxenus found himself obliged to undertake this because the original translators 'had made mistakes in many things, whether intentionally or through ignorance.' Note13."
What someone needs to check is the CSCO.
Judge's suggestion that:"
1."Nestorianism" has been condemned.
2. The faithful are to condemn Nestorius or be anathematised.
3.The Peshitta readings have a "Nestorian" slant.
4.Therefore the Peshitta must necessarily be a corrupt translation."
....does not make complete sense because some *anti-Nestorian* groups also used the Peshitta, like the Oriental Orthodox of Antioch/Syrian Orthodox, and the Maronites (later). I don't think the evidence is that the Peshitta was necessarily seen as "Nestorian". So he may have cited the "Nestorian-leaning verses" as a reason for re-translation, but that does not seem adequate reason for Philoxenus to re-write history! ((All references here to "Nestorian" are using Brock's words and do not reflect any negative view from me!))
Is there any evidence that Philoxenus's statement was challenged at the time? Given the enormous pro-Syrian and anti-Greek feelings at the time surely someone would have outspokenly been critical of Philoxenus at this point if he was wrong?
What other written evidence from this time is there for the provenance of the Peshitta?
Judge asks: "Was Philoxenus really saying that the Peshitta of John's gospel contained many mistakes? "
Yes it is about John's gospel. See the quote above.
I am surprised by the few replies to this since if we cannot explain it then it puts a dent in the whole Aramaic/Peshitta primacy that I have become convinced of.
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton