Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 04-11-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I am unaware of this version. As far as I am aware the NT used in the East is and was the Peshitta

There were quite a lot of different syriac versions. First we have the Old Syriacs, the Sinaitic and Curetonian, and their competitor, the Diatessaron. Then came the Peshitta (it is definitely later than the Old Syriacs). We also have the Philoxenian and the Harclean, it is unclear if the Harclean is just a republishing of the Philoxenian with some fixes or a new version. Then came the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version. It seems to be much later and is in Syriac script but in the language of Palestine.

Julian

judge · 04-11-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

There were quite a lot of different syriac versions. First we have the Old Syriacs, the Sinaitic and Curetonian,

Yes but these are quite late, probably at least one of these was the version made by rabulla.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

and their competitor, the Diatessaron. Then came the Peshitta (it is definitely later than the Old Syriacs).

I don't think you can provide any evidence for this. But i am very interested if you can.

The peshitta is quoted word for word on many occaisions by Aphrahat. No other version is quoted word for word by him.

Can you provide any evidence at all of the OS prior to Aphrahat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

We also have the Philoxenian and the Harclean, it is unclear if the Harclean is just a republishing of the Philoxenian with some fixes or a new version.

Much later version done for theological reasons, as was rabulla's version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Then came the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version. It seems to be much later and is in Syriac script but in the language of Palestine.

Julian

Yes so I am interested in what regions you are referring to when you say

Quote:

Originally Posted by julian

Aramaic, in addition to Greek, was certainly spoken in the Levant, probably as far north as Edessa and Aleppo. It stretched even further east. The syriac NT known as the Christian Palestinian Aramaic is attestation to the fact that it was spoken in those regions.

The Church of the East in mesopotamia and further East certainly did not use this. They only used the peshitta.

And the COE it seems is the oldest branch of the christian religion, at least litugically.

Quote:

Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East., New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141

Bear in mind that all syriac/aramaic versions apart from the peshitta seem to have been done to provide a syriac version that did not confirm the heretical, so called Nestorian theology.

Those to the west, could not bear the nestorian theology, particularly in the wake of Ephesus, and so provided their own versions.

This did not happen in the east, where there is no evidcne that anything but the peshitta was used.

Julian · 04-11-2006, 03:55 PM

Here is some stuff on the Syriacs. From what I remember Metzger/Ehrman agrees with this in The Text of the New Testament but provide more reasons.

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac

Julian

judge · 04-11-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Here is some stuff on the Syriacs. From what I remember Metzger/Ehrman agrees with this in The Text of the New Testament but provide more reasons.

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac

Julian

Thanks, i have read the link before and will make one comment.

Quote:

A very early date was once assumed; in the nineteenth century, many scholars would have dated it to the second century. In the twentieth century, this view has largely been abandoned -- not because of any specific evidence, but simply because the earliest Syriac authors (Ephraem in particular) do not quote the Peshitta.

This is incorrect, not true, false.

As I mentioned in my post above. On many occaisions Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word.

Westren scholars have not dealt with this.

I can provide many examples if you wish.

Also epraem was not COE so would not be expected to quote the peshitta due to the theological differences around this time.

judge · 04-11-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Here is some stuff on the Syriacs. From what I remember Metzger/Ehrman agrees with this in The Text of the New Testament but provide more reasons.

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac

Julian

Here are some examples of Aphrahat, who is prior to ephraem, quoting the peshitta.

This is from paul Younan's analysis.

Quote:

Here is a quote from Mar Aphrahat's Demonstrations on Faith:

0n0 rm0d Mdmd Yhwdymltl ryg rm0
0ryhnb Jwtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb Jwkl

This is translated "For he said to his disciples: whatever I tell you in the darkness, proclaim in the light (Nahira)."

John 10:27:

Peshitta:
0ryhnb Jwtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb Jwkl 0n0 rm0d Mdm

"Whatever I tell you in the darkness, proclaim in the light (Nahira)."

Old Syriac:
0rhwnb Jwtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb Jwkl 0nrm0d Mdm

"Whatever I tell you in the darkness, proclaim in the light (Nuhra)."

Next from mar Aphrahats 22nd demonstration where he quotes Romans 5:14.Of course here there is no OS text to compare it to.

0xyl4 rm0d Ky0
04wml 0md9w Md0 Nm Fwm Klm0d
w=x fd Nyly0 L9 P0w

Transliteration:
Aykh d'emar Shlikha:
d'amlekh mowtha men wAdam w'adma l'Moshe
w'ap al aylyn d'la khaTaw

Translation:
As the Apostle said, that "Death ruled from Adam unto Moses" and "even over those who sinned not."

Now the peshitta:
04wml 0md9w Md0 Nm Fwm Klm0
w=x fd Nyly0 L9 P0

Transliteration:
amlekh mowtha men wAdam w'adma l'Moshe
ap al aylyn d'la khaTaw

Translation:
"Death ruled from Adam unto Moses, even over those who sinned not."

Here is another from Mar Aphrahat's Demonstrations on Faith where he quotes Luke 15:8. We can compare the peshitta with both OS Mss.

Mar Aphrahat:
hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
Jwhnm dx dbwtw Nyzwz 0rs9
Fyb 0mxw 0gr4 0rhnm fw

"What woman, who has ten coins and loses one of them, and (Waw Proclitic) not does light a lamp and sweep (Khama) the house..."
:

Peshitta:
hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
Jwhnm dx dbwtw Nyzwz 0rs9
Fyb 0mxw 0gr4 0rhnm fw
"What woman, who has ten coins and loses one of them, and (Waw Proclitic) not does light a lamp and sweep (Khama) the house..." (exactly 100% the same as Mar Aphrahat)

Old Syriac Sinaiticus:
hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
Jwhnm dx db0tw Nyzwz 0rs9
Fyb 0mxw 0gr4 0rhnm f
"What woman, who has ten coins and loses one of them, not does light a lamp and sweep (Khama) the house..."

Old Syriac Cureton:
hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
Jwhnm dx dbwtw Nyzwz 0rs9
Fyb 04nkw 0gr4 0rhnm f
"What woman, who has ten coins and loses one of them, not does light a lamp and organizes (kansha) the house..."

NOGO · 04-12-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The evidence seems to indicate IMHO that the gospels were written in Aramaic. therefore those who wrote them most probably had Aramaic as their first tongue.

These wrtings were no doubt translated into other tongues as time went on.

You missed my point entirely.
If they were written in Aramiac and were written for non-Jews then they were written for a rather small audience.

Evidence indicates that the gospels were written in Greek.
They quote the septuagint ... in many cases if they quoted the Hebrew bible they would not be able to make the point that they are making.

judge · 04-12-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Evidence indicates that the gospels were written in Greek.

Unfortunately there is a wealth of evidence for you to refute.

You can start here.

Aramaic peshitta

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

They quote the septuagint ... in many cases if they quoted the Hebrew bible they would not be able to make the point that they are making.

Really? what does the peshitta quote?
The LXX?

But even the greek NT does not quote the LXX.
Sometimes it agrees with the LXX and sometimes is disagrees with it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2006, 03:55 PM	#23
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Here is some stuff on the Syriacs. From what I remember Metzger/Ehrman agrees with this in The Text of the New Testament but provide more reasons. http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.