Haran

I thought I had read something like this in George Kiraz' Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, or Jan Wilson's The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations, but I may have misread as I was speed-reading in the local seminary library.

Haran

Rather, I believe it was thought that the Peshitta was done by Rabulla, but that belief appears to be changing:

Metzger/Ehrman - The Text of the New Testament 4th ed.
"The Peshitta version, of Syriac Vulgate, of the New Testament (SyrP) was prepared about the beginning of the fifth century, probably in order to supplant the divergent, competing Old Syriac translations. ....Until recently, scholars thought that Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (c. A.D. 411-31), was responsible for the Peshitta; but is more likely that his revision marked an intermediate stage between the Old Syriac text and the final form of the Peshitta." <- It seems, from a footnote, that this information originates from Arthur Voobus' Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac.

judge

As I understand it the peshitta was originally thought to be very old. The view was revised by F.C. Burkitt who thoerised that the peshitta was the work of Rabulla.
This idea was obviously wrong for several reasons. The reason Metzger alludes to I beleive is that the peshitta was used by both the SOC and the COE. The COE would never have used the peshitta if it had been the work of Rabulla as he was their enemy. They referred to him as the tyrant of edessa.

The peshitta could not be the work of Rabulla also because COE monk Aphrahat quotes it word for word on many occaisions . Aphrahat never ever quotes the Old Syriac word for word although at times his paraphrase may have similar of the same words in places (as one would expect in paraphrase).

Paul Younan of peshitta.org has a theory that the Old syriac was in fact the work of Rabulla. I will reiterayte some of his arguments here.

In a biography of rabulla from that period we find.

Rabulla himself wrote.

The ending of the Old Syriac gospel of john reads.

In other words the Evangelion de Mepharreshe or seperated gospels (as opposed to the diatessaron) is the work of rabulla.

He did his own version because he disagreed with the theology of the COE!

For the same reason the SOC version of the peshitta, the peshitto, changed some verses (Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28) to reflect their theology.

These quotes and the argument it self can be found here

Steven Avery

PESHITTA ORIGIN
First, let me just say that my sense on the Peshitta is the earlier theories scholars had, 100 years ago, were right. That the Peshitta was a fairly early edition, maybe around A.D.200, and that the A.D.400 date was an artificial late creation because the Peshitta is actually relatively close to the Byzantine text and an A.D.200 date throws a big monkey wrench in all the alexandrian text and lucian rescension theories. So the Peshitta date was moved back to match 'modern scientific textcrit'. If anyone has real evidences for the 400 date, I will be very interested.

MATTHEW GENERATIONS
While I know there are some other harmonies offerred , the generations really looks like one of the simplest textual harmonies.

The flaw is thinking, as Judge above, of Matthew as saying "3x14 = 42".
Matthew simply never says that.

Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Some potential scriptural harmonies are so simple that they are overlooked by the scholarly and wise.

http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbaother2.htm
THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST - Anastasios Kioulachoglou
Most people read the 3 fourteen of the above passage and instead of trying to find those three fourteen they try to find a single forty two (42). Really, where does the Word speak for forty two generations? Nowhere. The only that it speaks is for three groups of fourteen generations each.
The 2nd group is from David to the captivity in Babylon. The mistake of many is that though the Word says "FROM DAVID" they start to count from Solomon. Following the boundaries of the Word we have:
"from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations"
"David, Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Mannasses, Amon, Josias"
This is the regal group of fourteen generations since all in this group were kings2. The group starts with David and closes with Josias the last real king3 of the kingdom. (more information on site)

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

andrewcriddle

IIUC Peshitto is simply the pronunciation of Peshitta among the Syrian Orthodox.

The consonantal text of the Peshitta/Peshitto is almost identical among Syrian Orthodox and Chaldeans/Nestorians.

The Harklean manuscripts represent a quite drastic revision of the Peshitta slavishly conformed to the Greek. In its present form it dates from around 616 and is the work of Thomas of Harkel.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

However the Eastern Peshitta people point out that the SOC bible has some differences, and they consider their version to be a later Greek influenced Peshitta variant, the Peshitto, making the vocalization difference into a name difference.

Understood, but some Eastern folks consider those differences that are there as being significant, even if just Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 - Of course there is also the pesky 5 books. I believe the SOC fully considers them scripture.

Is the Harklean being used by SOC or others at this time ? Is it an active version. Where would one see in translation a few of the differences ? I think they might have put in the Pericope Adultera, which is the biggest Peshitta/Byzantine difference -- my memory is vague though.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

andrewcriddle

IIUC the Pericope Adultera is not part of the original form of the Harklean text, however it was translated into Syriac at around the same time as the Harklean revision, and often occurs in Harklean manuscripts (and occasionally in late Peshitta manuscripts)

Andrew Criddle

judge

The peshitta is clearly prior to this becuase Aphrahat quotes it word for word on many occaisions. Aphrahat never quotes anyhting but the peshitta word for word.

judge

Try www.peshitta.com for the SOC version

Steven Avery

Hi Judge, Aphrahat may be good proof for the Peshitta being used in the 300's. And that would match the earlier theories before the Westcott-Hort view of the text became predominant.

However, when I check the scholarship on the net there are folks that indicate some Aphrahat usage of the Diatessorian. If so that would disagree with "Aphrahat never quotes anything but the Peshitta..."

Apparently his works are extant in Armenian, which of course adds a little layer of complexity in analyzing quotes.

I have found it stated clearly that Aphrahat used the Peshitta Tanach, but of course that is not particularly significant to the thread.

Can you find either some exact quotes (English translation is fine by me) or some scholarship references supporting your view above. Please don't just quote Andrew Gabriel Roth or Chirstopher Lancaster or even Paul Younan, unless they give scholarship references or primary sources, or quotes, and expect it to be accepted as strong evidence or proof. (Those three names are supportting Peshitta Primacy, Paul Younan is the one who is most well acquainted with the Aramaic and the Peshita text).

Thanks.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

PS. Just to be clear, on a doctrinal level I would much prefer proof that Aphrahat quoted the Peshitta, as it would help destroy some textual theories popular today which I consider very erroneous. However, I would need some hard evidence before aggressively taking that stance :-)