11-07-2009, 10:39 AM
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
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