Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Philoxenus?
#1
Hi all,

I recently read that Philoxenus said he did his translation because the original translation from Greek into Syriac was flawed? Huh? Was he making that up? Did he not know the history of the Peshitta? Was he politically motivated? I've searched the site and can't find any previous discussion. No I'm not attacking Peshitta primacy, just wondering what to do with this Philoxenus comment.
thanks in advance,

Currently working on my masters looking at influence of St Isaac the Syrian and others on early Sufi thinking and practice. Now seriously considering doing my PhD on St Ephrem's or Aprahat's use of scripture :-)

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Reply
#2
frjdalton Wrote:Hi all,

I recently read that Philoxenus said he did his translation because the original translation from Greek into Syriac was flawed? Huh? Was he making that up? Did he not know the history of the Peshitta? Was he politically motivated? I've searched the site and can't find any previous discussion. No I'm not attacking Peshitta primacy, just wondering what to do with this Philoxenus comment.
thanks in advance,

Currently working on my masters looking at influence of St Isaac the Syrian and others on early Sufi thinking and practice. Now seriously considering doing my PhD on St Ephrem's or Aprahat's use of scripture :-)

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton

Shlama Father John:
Can you produce the "article" that states that the Greek into Syriac was flawed, preferrably the URL? Let's openly examine the evidence and discuss it.

Also, please check out this book, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, by John Gwynn (1909).
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/details/remnantsoflaters00gwynrich">http://www.archive.org/details/remnants ... 00gwynrich</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Stephen
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
frjdalton Wrote:Hi all,

I recently read that Philoxenus said he did his translation because the original translation from Greek into Syriac was flawed? Huh? Was he making that up? Did he not know the history of the Peshitta? Was he politically motivated?

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton

Who could possibly, in the wake of Ephesus, suggest that the peshitta reading of Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28 was superior?
Wouldn't it be theological (and political?) suicide for anyone to say that the peshitta reading was superior?
Reply
#4
Ok, the exact quote is in a book by Sebastian Brock: "Studies in Syriac Christianity" chapter X, page 8. He is discussing developments in Syrian translation approaches and writes: "It is not surprising to find that the need for akribeia (strictness) in theological matters, engendered by the Christological controversies of the fifth century, was one of the main reasons why Philoxenus commissioned a revision of the Peshitta NT. As 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."

Brock then discusses further for several paras, Philoxenus's views of the various other non-NT books translated from Greek to Syriac. Brock's Note 13 is to the CSCO 380, 53.
Now unless Brock is misquoting Philoxenus (in the italicised section above), this is a bit hard to explain.
Comments?
Sorry I cannot find it online. But the Brock book is easily available in any large theological library. And I'm sure someone here has quick access to the CSCO books and can check the Philoxenus quote?
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Reply
#5
shlom lokh abun D'Alton,

The Philoxenian translation was rejected by the members of the Syriac Orthodox church for whom it was made. And the people continued to use the Peshitto.
The Harklean translation which was a revision of the Philoxenian, was used by the Syriac Orthodox Church for centuries, but eventually lost favour and the Church went back to the Peshitto (even during those centuries the Peshitto was still used.)

The other Syriac Churches continued to use the Peshitto/a, never using the above translations.

The Syriac Orthodox Church became Helenised early on, so it is not surprising that they would try to get closer to the Greek, where as the non-Helenised Churches didn't follow suite like the Assyrian Church, the Chaldean Church, and the Syriac Maronite Church.

I think Mor Philoxenus' comments have to be taken in light of the the path that the Syriac Orthodox Church chose to follow and the circumstances of that time period.

Here's a link to an earlier post that I had made on this forum:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1916&p=11507&hilit=Philoxenian#p11507">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1916&p=11507&hilit=Philoxenian#p11507</a><!-- l -->

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#6
Hello brother,

Thanks for your comments but I think you have missed the main issue, which is:
Q. Why does a Syrian church leader say that the Peshitta is a translation from the Greek? Was he ignorant, lying or telling what he knew of the tradition? This is an important question. Or is Brock mis-quoting him?

You wrote:
"The Philoxenian translation was rejected by the members of the Syriac Orthodox church for whom it was made. And the people continued to use the Peshitto." <snip>

All of these points are true but do not change the question. The Philoxenian translation may have been in error, but what about his testimony to the way the Peshitta was translated from the Greek?

"The Syriac Orthodox Church became Helenised early on, so it is not surprising that they would try to get closer to the Greek, where as the non-Helenised Churches didn't follow suite like the Assyrian Church, the Chaldean Church, and the Syriac Maronite Church."
Very true, and thoroughly explains the reasons for Philoxenus's work, as discussed extensively by Brock. Again, this is not the issue at stake.

"I think Mor Philoxenus' comments have to be taken in light of the the path that the Syriac Orthodox Church chose to follow and the circumstances of that time period."

This is possibly an answer but is very unclear? Are you saying he would lie about the Peshitta's origins? He was still part of the Syrian tradition and even though he was trying to hellenise things a bit would he go this far?? really? in the face of all the then current tradition about Syriac? i find that very hard to believe. Aramiac primacy people at the time would have challenged him surely.

"Here's a link to an earlier post that I had made on this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1916&p=11507&hilit=Philoxenian#p11507"
Thanks, that is also pretty much what others like Brock have said. Doesn't change the question.

Can someone please address the issue which seems a little disturbing. A convincing academic answer would be nice:
Q. Why does a Syrian church leader say that the Peshitta is a translation from the Greek? Was he ignorant, lying or telling what he knew of the tradition? This is an important question. Or is Brock mis-quoting him?

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Reply
#7
frjdalton Wrote:And I'm sure someone here has quick access to the CSCO books and can check the Philoxenus quote?
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
I don't have access to the Philoxenus quote, but am interested too see it. Was Philoxenus really saying that the peshitta of John's gospel contained many mistakes?
If so, what mistakes could he have been referring to?

Good luck with your PHD, whatever you decide to do it on. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Personally I think Aphrahat might be a more interesting choice. If it can be shown that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta, then th e peshitta becomes the earliest quoted Syriac version of the NT. If the peshitta is the earliest quoted version of the NT then convoluted attempts to show the peshitta to be a revision of the OS become very weak from a purely evidential point of view.
Reply
#8
Ok I found what I think is the relevant portion of Sebastian Brock online here...<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=mHewpd0an9IC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Philoxenus+commentary+john&source=bl&ots=kzVRo7n8en&sig=L2eqrfkR5DMxUXDS1JwKmGfTeTI&hl=en&ei=uXvySqTVCcKAkQX9-NC4Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Philoxenus%20commentary%20john&f=false">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=mHe ... hn&f=false</a><!-- m -->

We can only speculate on the exact reasons why Philoxenus wrote that the peshitta was a translation (most likely because he was told it was), but we can be confident that he was not free to say otherwise.

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.

Sebastian Brock comments

Quote:Philoxenus complained that the rather loose rendering of these verses in the peshitta gave scope for "a Nestorian interpretation" (as he called it); accordingly he saw the need for a more exact rendering of the greek
Reply
#9
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
Reply
#10
frjdalton Wrote: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.)

Quote: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."


Quote: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.


Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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"

Quote: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?
Reply
#11
shlom lokh Fr. John,

frjdalton Wrote: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.

Please have a look at your Private Messages box on this forum!

push bshayno,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#12
Hi,

Hmm, I also found references in Brock's book (X:p10)to Athanasios of Balad and Jacob of Edessa who also made new translations because they seemed to think the earlier translations into Syriac from Greek were flawed- ie they assumed/believed that the Peshitta/o was a translation from Greek. Also Moses of Inghilene -see

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=U7tW-jA2yfkC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=moses+of+inghilene&source=bl&ots=Izv8D5QQWN&sig=0vo_nu0lFqHIPKaDVSAhfZeD96w&hl=en&ei=C0n1StHJPJWBkQX0n62hAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=moses%20of%20inghilene&f=false">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=U7t ... ne&f=false</a><!-- m -->

So we have a number of Syrian church leaders who had that belief. Yet as far as I can see the literary evidence on this site overwhelmingly points to the Peshitta/o being the original. So, even if Philoxenus had a particular political agenda, given the number of others who shared his belief, either this bias was common, or, by that time, the knowledge of the Peshitta's origins was lost. Maybe they were all uncomfortable with "Nestorian" readings.

I think I'll just consider the literary evidence more weighty, and that both the "non-Chalcedonian" Syriac Churches did not consider this at the time important enough to refute at least 4 church leaders (maybe because the actual tradition was forgotten) until someone has a better idea.

Thanks judge for your replies including the private one.

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)