Philoxenus?

[judge]

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."

The link I provided has an extended version of Philoxenus's words but omits the reference to where they were found (in commentary of the prologue.)

What someone needs to check is the CSCO.

Is that Philoxenus's commentary (in Syriac?) The extended version is some help.

""These mistakes concerned not only what is taught about the economy in the flesh but various other things concerning different matters. It was for this reason we have now taken the trouble to have the holy scriptures translated anew from greek to syriac."

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 think you will find that these groups used the peshitto and not the peshitta. The peshitto is a slightly edited version of the peshitta. Two verses were changed , it appears, to make them less "nestorian", Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28.
Philoxenus (and others no doubt) were concerned about more than just these two verses. They saw even more verses that might give support to "nestorianism".
The 5 "disputed" books were added to the peshitto as well.

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!))

Philoxenus may not have been trying to re-write history. He may just have been following what he himself had been taught. He may just have been taught that the greek had the original reading and therefore innocently sought to improve the peshitta/o.

The western church had some time prior to this, in a reaction against some heretics begun to look to greek words and concepts in order to define what ws orthodox. This process was imperfect and left them with Christology that did not take into account the Aramaic/Syriac word/concept of "Qnoma".
The nature of the hypostatic union was expressed and cemented with greek words and in turn this made the greek NT all the more vital.

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?

Maybe easteners might have seem things differently, but I dont know of any record of this WRT that particular portion of Philoxenus's commentary. It would no doubt have been controversial for westeners to suggest the eastern peshitta had superior readings if these same readings were regarded as nestorian

What other written evidence from this time is there for the provenance of the Peshitta?

It's use by Aphrahat (who unlike Ephram was COE), and its usage in the COE liturgy, which itself seems to be very ancient.

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 think the extended quotation indicates that it is rather (or at least also) about other NT books.

"In place of the this they (the peshittas translators) translated "when he was clothed in the flesh", and instead of translating Paul they inclined towards the position of Nestorius, who cast the body onto the word as one deos a garment onto an ordinary body or as purple is put on Emperors (these are the favourite analogies of the East syriac writers"

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

Maybe not when we consider the differences beween the peshitta and peshitto. This itself seems to be evidence that the westeners were uncomfortable with the eastern peshitta readings...doesn't it?