Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steve's opinion of The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta)
Ok, I'll bite. A bit. Smile

But -- for now -- only to clear up on one thing: That's not what Assemani wrote.

He wrote, "De quodam pervetusto Evangelio, quod exstabat in sacra Ecclesia Ædium Romæorum in urbe Bagdado. Erat quodam Evangelium Edessenum (hoc est Syriacum Edessæ exaratum) pervetustum quidem, sed clarum ac dilucidunt, ex quo ne jota quidem unum deletum fuerat, legebatur autem clarius quam libri recens exarati & unus dumtaxat prior quinternio præ antiquitate ex eo exciderat."

This is Post-Classical Latin, so if you punch it into Google Translate (whose corpus is mostly from Classical Latin), and then massage the translation, you get the mish-mash of junk that Bauscher has on his webpage -- which is rubbish.

If you actually read the text properly it pretty much says -- and I translate off the cuff, here -- "About this old Gospel, which existed in the holy 'Church of the Roman Shrines/Tombs'[?] in the city of Bagdad: This was an Edessan Gospel (this is Edessa in Syria, note) [note: as opposed to Edessa in northern Greece] indeed old, but bright and easy to read, indeed not a single jot was blotted out/illegible, but [it] read more clearly like books recently inscribed, and at least one of the first [sets of] quinternions [note: 5-page quires, or page gatherings], due to its age, fell off." (Notes and glosses in [] are mine.)

No mention of "Edessan Letters" -- but he did disambiguate that it was from Edessa in Syria rather than Edessa in northern Greece (which was of more interest to classicists in his day).

He expressed bewilderment over how well-preserved the manuscript was despite how old the colophon dated it to and the fact that pages were missing, and marveled at how it was readable like it was brand new.

Most importantly: There is zero mention that this document was a Peshitta (or in Latin: Versio Simplex -- the term which he uses for it in all of his works). Assemani was a Maronite, after all. He would know a Peshitta when he saw one, and he would have called it as such.

[Image: assemani-p71.png]
(From Assemani's "Bibliothecæ Apostolicæ Vaticanæ Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus in Tres Partes Distributus" -- Versio Simplex = "Peshitta"; Heracleensis = "Harklean"; Palæstina = "Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Lectionary).")

No, instead he called it Evangelium Pervetustis (="Old Gospel" or "Ancient Gospel").

This was an Old Syriac Gospel.

Now that that's cleared up:

[Image: popcorn.gif~c200]

Please, by all means, continue making windows into my soul. Smile

Messages In This Thread
RE: Steve's opinion of The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta) - by SteveCaruso - 10-02-2015, 06:43 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)