Julian

In light of repeated discussion of the Peshitta primacy in the Syriac tradition by certain posters, I have decided to address the issue so that we may put it to rest insofar as we are able. For those not conversant with the Syriac textual tradition I will include a small overview as to the state of knowledge.

The Syriac Tradition

The first Syriac version of the New Testament was not a translated exemplar of our traditional Greek NT books. It was Tatian’s Diatessaron. Tatian was the student of Justin Martyr and was originally a Syrian (or Assyrian, as he says in his writings, “I was born in the land of the Assyrians…”¹), he taught in Rome in his own school, but was eventually expelled for encratitic (strange that Irenaeus would comment on something one would think he would approve of) views and following the teachings of Valentinus, the famous Gnostic. Much more could be said about Tatian but suffice it to say that he eventually wrote the Diatessaron, from the Greek διὰ τεσσάρων, meaning “through [the] four [gospels].” As the name implies it was a gospel harmony, supposedly made from combining the four canonical gospels. This is probably not entirely true, as we shall see momentarily. The Diatessaron was to leave a lasting impression on subsequent Syriac versions and makes it very hard to determine the Syriac textual development. In addition to the four gospels, Tatian as used what might have been either the Gospel of Thomas or a source document common to both the Diatessaron and GThomas. A majority favor independence meaning both Tatian and the author of GThomas used an extra-canonical source or some early variety of a canonical gospel.²

Besides the Diatessaron, we also have the Old Syriacs (Vetus Syra), the Peshitta, the Philoxenian (Philoxeniana), the Harklean (Harklensis), in addition to the Palestinian Syriac, the latter being irrelevant to our discussion.

Most sources state that it is almost impossible to determine if the Diatessaron was originally written in Syriac or Greek when Tatian composed it, probably around 172CE. However, D. Plooij has determined that it was originally written in Syriac, mainly because of subsequent exemplars. For an overview, see W. L. Petersen.³ The early date of the Diatessaron means, of course, that chronologically the Diatessaron (no exemplars survive) pre-dates all NT exemplars except P52 (depending on the date you accept for this papyrus fragment). The Diatessaron’s influence can be felt throughout numerous early translations of the NT writings that appears in harmony form, from Old Icelandic to Arabic. That the Diatessaron was the first Syriac NT gospel is not disputed by anyone. Most of what we know about the Diatessaron we have from Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, found first in Armenian then in Syriac. The only Greek attestation we have is from Romanos the Melodist, but he was a Syrian and ultimately depended on the Syriac version. The Dura fragment seems to be a translation from the Syriac and has been challenged.

Next we come to the Old Syriacs that survive in two incomplete gospel manuscripts. One is called the Curetonian (Curetonianus) after its discoverer, William Cureton and is designated sy^c in the critical apparatus. Twin sisters, Agnes Smith Lewis and Magaret Dunlop Gobson, discovered the other at Mt. Sinai. It is designated sy^s in the apparatus. The two manuscripts, while not completely identical, are so closely related that they are both counted as examples of the Old Syriacs. This version underwent much revision and never became fixed as more upheavals were in store for the Syrians. Titus of Bostra and Eusebius quote from some variety of this tradition and not the Diatessaron since some of the church father’s quotes do not exist in that earlier version. The Old Syriacs probably date from sometime in the 4th century, possibly earlier and they show some influence of the Diatessaron.

Next we come to the Peshitta. The term was first used in 903 by Moses bar Kepha. It is the best attested Syriac version and is still preserved in the Syriac church. It contains 22 NT books, lacking 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation as well as the periscope de adultera and Luke 22:17-18 as well as other fragments. It must dated at least as early as the mid-fifth century (431CE) because both of the Syriac churches, the Monophysite and the Nestorians, use it, i.e. it must have been accepted before the split. It must be dated somewhat late because it mostly reflects a Byzantine text type with a few Alexandrian readings. In Acts it looks somewhat Western which leans it in a slightly earlier direction.

The later versions are the Philoxenian, noted as sy^ph and the Harklean, in the apparatus as sy^h, which are both late. We know that the first one was written in 507CE by the chorepiscopus Polycarp (not that Polycarp) at the behest of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbug, and the other by Thomas of Harkel, Bishop of Mabbug in 616. How related they are is subject to debate. Either way, neither can claim any kind of Syriac primacy. They do mark the point when the minor catholic letters and revelation was translated into Syrian. It is also the best witness to the Western text of Acts surpassed only by Codex Bezae D (05).

The Peshitta can be determined to be a later version because:

1) It sports many Byzantine readings.
2) It is more closely in line with the Greek, which is a noticeable chronological trend in Syriac witnesses.
3) The revision took place over an extended time as we have revisions before and after the early fifth century.
4) We have no exemplars from before the fifth century.
5) The early exemplars shows stability apart from a few deviations, some of them noted also in the Greek, e.g. Heb 2:9 χαριτι θεου versus χωρις θεου.⁴
6) There are manifestations of Old Syriac readings in the Peshitta.
7) Early commentaries quote the Peshitta, Romanos the Melodist, Ephrem, and Aphrahat.⁵
8) Liber Graduum also supports an Old Syriac reading.

Overall, we have no reason whatsoever to suspect Peshitta primacy and many, many solid reasons for rejecting it. Textual analysis shows that the Peshitta was a late-comer.⁶ For more agreement look in the standard references, such as K. Aland and B. Aland⁷, Metzger and Ehrman⁸, and even a relatively conservative source.⁹

Our conclusion, given the significant amount of evidence, is that the Peshitta was the result of gradual Syriac revisions using pre-existing native witnesses checked against an early Byzantine Greek exemplar.

Julian

¹ Oratio ad Graecos, chap. xlii (ANF, ii. 81-82)

² R. McL. Wilson, Nag Hammadi and the New Testament, NTS 28 (1982) 297

³ William L. Petersen, The Diatessaron of Tatian in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 77-96.

⁴ Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scrupture 146-150.

⁵ T. Baarda says, “that Aphrahat knew the Diatessaronic tradition.” In Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (2 vols.; Meppel: Krips Repro, 1975).

⁶ Tjitze Baarda, The Syriac Versions of the New Testament in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 97-112.

⁷ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament

⁸ Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.

⁹ S. P. Brock in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI 796-799.

Ben C Smith

That would have been quite a trick.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

The view that the archtype of the Old Syriac is later than and dependent on the Diatessaron is currently by far the majority position among scholars.

It is not IIUC a consensus.
Various scholars in the past have held it to be either earlier than (Harris Torrey etc) or independent of (Burkitt) the Diatessaron.

One issue is that our surviving Old Syriac texts clearly have been influenced by the Diatessaron but in some cases the Diatessaron influenced reading is found in only one of our two main manuscripts and may not have been in the archtype. (FWIW the differences between the Curetonian and the Sinaitic Syriac are often substantial the Curetonian agrees with the Diatessaron in having Mark 16:9-20 whereas the Sinaitic ends Mark at 16:8)

IMVHO the complex problem of the Diatessaron's text is easier to explain if there was some pre-Diatessaronic Syriac gospel text sometimes used by Tatian, to supplement the Greek texts which were his main surce.

Andrew Criddle

judge

Hi I am going to be away for a few day and will respond further later. But for now


A MAJOR problem here is that none of these people even consider the arguments for peshitta primacy.
None of them address any of the arguments in any of their work.

How can we have confidence in their conclusions if they have not addressed any of the arguments?
It is unreasonable.

judge

Well there is no reason this text could not be the peshitta.
This explains why the arabic diatessaron (translated by a COE Monk) matches the peshitta.

Julian

No, it is not unreasonable given the evidence. Your stance is unreasonable since you give no evidence against the points I listed. I realize that you indicated that you didn't have time, which is fine, of course. However, before you call it unreasonable I would like to see how you explain the Byzantine character of the text. I would also like to see how you counter the lack of early commentary and attestation. If you present any Syriac readings I will need word for word translations (with some grammar, if possible) or I will not be able to check against other readings. Is something like that available online? Or can you do your own translations? Or both?

In the meantime I will check up on some of the alternate views which will prove difficult since most of the articles are old and probably not online. I am familiar with brief overviews of some of the material cited by Andrew above but have not read it in full. Are old issues of JTS online?

Julian

Julian

The text couldn't be the Peshitta since it contains stuff not in the Peshitta. The pre-diatessaronic material might be the Gospels to the Hebrews or the Ebionites, but that is vague specualtion. I can expand on this issue, if necessary, but it is not the Peshitta. Or, if you put the Peshitta before the Diatessaron, you will have to add yet another source document to explain the light at the baptism, for example. Why bother? Why is it so important that the Peshitta has primacy? This is beginning to sound more and more like a KJV-only argument (style-wise, that is). What are your reasons for taking this view? I think that is a fair question.

Julian

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, actually, Andrew, nothing is very clear in this area. Most of such arguments just happen to verge on circularity.

And here's an example of such a circular argument. Can we really be so sure that “the original Diatessaron” had Mark 16:9-20?

Not at all!

IMHO “Tatian's Diatessaron” is a myth!

All the best,

Yuri.

andrewcriddle

Hi Yuri

Among other things the way in which our extant Diatessaron texts skilfully interweave verses from Mark 16:9-20 with the other resurrection narratives makes it unlikely IMO that the original lacked these verses.

Andrew Criddle

judge

Well we have yet to see any evidence as such here.


What is unreasonable if for one to conclude, as you seem to have that there is no reason to conclude the priority of the peshitta on the basis of Metzger etc.

None of those you referred to have dealt with the evidence for the priority of the peshitta, therefore it is unreasonable in the light of this to make conclusions based on their work.


Sure let's have a look at an example.


The (eastern) peshitta is used by the COE. Liturgically the COE is the oldest branch of christendom existing. Older than the RCC. In the west we tend to focus on the RCC and it's stepchild ,protestantism.

The earliest attestation we have from this community is their liturgy, which exclusively uses the peshitta and the work of Aphrahat which exclusively uses the peshitta, word for word.

Most of our early attestation comes from within the roamn Empire where greek versions or latin were used.
The original Aramaic remained in use in Mesopotamia, but we just don't have the same ammount of surviving early comentary from there, that all.



I am preparing some quotes at the moment but it might have to wait a short time.

Not sure, but this may help.
Burkitt revised the view that the peshitta was quite ancient. He proposed that it was the work of Rabula. Voorbus rebutted this but still held the peshitta was the a revision of the OS.



added in Edit:

Why does Metzger not know that Aphrahat again and again and again quotes the peshitta word for word?
If he did he could easily put the peshitta much earlier than he does.

western scholars have not examimed the issues thouroughly.