Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 05-29-2006, 06:20 PM

In this post The Peshitta and the Syriac tradition Julian kindly gave us a summary of common ideas regarding how the peshitta fits in with other syriac mss.

As one can see from the summary it is commonly accepted that the peshitta is a revision of the old syriac.

I would like to present some evidence that strongly suggests that the byzantine text is a translation of the peshitta and that the old syriac text is in turn a revision of the peshitta to bring it inot line with the byzantine text.

The first point is that the byzantine text appears to contain an error from a scribal misreading of the text.

The Byzantine text reads.

For John 1:28
"....These things happened in Beth-Abara on the other side of the Jordan"

The problem here is that there is no such place as Beth-Abara.

The peshitta of john 1:28 reads,

".... These things happened in Beth-Anya (Bethany) on the other side of the (b'abara) Jordan"

What is certainly looks like happened is that the scribe translating the greek text jumped ahead and instead of reading Beth-anya read b'abara (on the other side), and inserted this non existent place into the text.

Funny thing is that the Old Syriac also contains the error. It reads,

"..These things happened in Beth-Abara on the other side of the Jordan"

So the OS looks like a revision of the peshitta to bring it into line with the Byzantine text.

This adds weight to the theory that the Old Syriac is the translation done by Rabbula. He disagreed with the theology of the COE so he made his own translation more in line with his theology.

A biography of rabbula from that time reads...

Quote:

By the wisdom of God that was in him he translated the New Testament from Greek into Syriac because of its variations, exactly as it was.' (Rabul episcopi Edesseni, Baleei, aliorumque opera selecta, Oxford 1865, ed. J. J. Overbeck)

There are more examples of the Old syriac agreeing with glosses in the byzantine text against the peshitta.

Here are others,

Mark 12:23, the Imperial Byzantine Greek adds the gloss êtan ‡nastòsin "when they shall rise" to the text:

"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. " (King James Version)

The Peshitta does not contain this gloss - but the Old Syriac does - wmqd 0m , "when they shall rise" ?

Looks like the old Syriac is a revision of the peshitta.

For Luke 24:36b, the Imperial Byzantine Greek Text. reads:
"....said to them, "Peace be to you." "

The Old Syriac reads:
"....said to them, "Peace be to you." "

The Peshitta reads:
"....said to them, "Peace be to you. It is I (Ena na), don't be afraid." "

So again it looks like the Old syriac is a revision of the peshitta not the other way around.

*these examples are from the unpublished work of Paul Younan.

Julian · 05-30-2006, 09:53 AM

I am not sure how meaningful it is other than it shows that Byzantine readings started to filter into the text fairly early on. I have not done an extensive check to count Peshitta agreements with pure Byzantine readings as opposed to the Alexandrian or other older family, so I am unable to say anything on the magnitude. However, looking at the specific examples I do want to say the following.

The passage in John 1:28 read in the Greek:
ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων

for the older witnesses and

ταῦτα ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων

for the Byzantine exemplars. For the Syrian NTs we see predominantly the second reading, notably in syr^c and syr^s and in a single syr^pal which is the point judge is trying to make here and it has some validity. We do, however, see agreement with the older reading in syr^h and the remaining syr^pal. So the Peshitta is not alone in agreeing with the better readings. Interestingly, we see א^* support βηθανίᾳ but sometime in the seventh century or so א^c, NA27 uses א ² (why are those two characters coming out backwards?), and changed it to the Byz reading. The word order is also different in א as well as p66 and the vetus italia, reading ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ, incidentally brining it out of alignment with the Peshitta, although not too much should be read into that.

There seems to be no chance of h.t. or h.a. in the Greek and no examples of it exists that I know of (but I am away from my books at the moment) and the Peshitta likewise shows good distinction in characters as far as I can tell, not knowing Syriac (see page 3 of the interlinear here: http://www.peshitta.org/ ).

What we need is a good count of correspondence since a few isolated examples like these mean very little. As I have shown above, many old readings persisted well into the Byz dominated period and therefore say very little about its age. I have also shown that old readings were about in many places, including Syria. It is also clear that the 'byzantine crawl' started fairly early and we do see hybrid texts extant in all the ages. In order for a text to be shown to have affinity with a particular family it must be demonstrated to contain a significant correspondence with a representative archetype.

It will take me a little while to rig up a program that will give us a rough idea and I am short on time these days. Yet I am working on just such a program for other reasons. Maybe this would make a good text for test purposes? I also suspect that such an effort has already been done. Anyone?

Julian

judge · 05-30-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not sure how meaningful it is other than it shows that Byzantine readings started to filter into the text fairly early on.

I think the first example is very meaningful, because as far as I can see there is no way to account for the byzantine text reading beth abara unless it was a mistake made from the peshitta with the peshitta being the original reading.

Is there another way to account for it?

Julian · 05-31-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I think the first example is very meaningful, because as far as I can see there is no way to account for the byzantine text reading beth abara unless it was a mistake made from the peshitta with the peshitta being the original reading.

Is there another way to account for it?

The issue with Bethabara is an old one and can be traced to the mid-third century, and probably quite a bit before that. It appears in a very early coptic MS (sahidic) and Origen talks about it as well. He seems to think that it is an actual place:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Origen's Commentary on John, Book VI, Chapter 24

The Name of the Place Where John Baptized is Not Bethany, as in Most Copies, But Bethabara. Proof of This. Similarly “Gergesa” Should Be Read for “Gerasa,” In the Story of the Swine. Attention is to Be Paid to the Proper Names in Scripture, Which are Often Written Inaccurately, and are of Importance for Interpretation.

“These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” We are aware of the reading which is found in almost all the copies, “These things were done in Bethany.” This appears, moreover, to have been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read “Bethany.” We are convinced, however, that we should not read “Bethany,” but “Bethabara.” We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same evangelist tells us, was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, and the river Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor is there any other place of the same name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan, but they say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him; for it yields the meaning “House of preparation,” while Bethany means “House of obedience.” Where else was it fitting that he should baptize, who was sent as a messenger before the face of the Christ, to pre371pare His way before Him, but at the House of preparation? And what more fitting home for Mary, who chose the good part, which was not taken away from her, and for Martha, who was cumbered for the reception of Jesus, and for their brother, who is called the friend of the Saviour, than Bethany, the House of obedience? Thus we see that he who aims at a complete understanding of the Holy Scriptures must not neglect the careful examination of the proper names in it. In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority.

This doesn't demolish your argument but it does require you to show that Bethabara is not a real place as we now have Origen who says that it is, although it sounds like he hasn't been there himself. I find it reasonable that the earliest gospel work started in Syria and that it is quite possible that Bethabara came from a misunderstanding of the word if what you say about the sound of the Syriac word is correct. This doesn't mean that the textual tradition has to come from the Peshitta, however. I will still need to see some statistics before I can even go there, because if we start seeing significant Byzantine material, and I suspect this to the case, we will have to put the Peshitta late.

Julian

judge · 05-31-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I will still need to see some statistics before I can even go there, because if we start seeing significant Byzantine material, and I suspect this to the case, we will have to put the Peshitta late.

Julian

But if it is true that the byzantine is a translation of the peshitta, and you have indicated there is at least some evidence that could indicate this IIUC then of course there will be byxantine readings in the peshitta.

If the evidence in favor of peshitta primacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy hoild up then all accepted ideas will have to be re-jigged.

This is probably a long way off as the idea of greek primacy for the NT is firmly embedded in western minds.

But the first task is to show that the peshitta is not a revision of the OS.

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

05-30-2006, 09:53 AM	#2
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I am not sure how meaningful it is other than it shows that Byzantine readings started to filter into the text fairly early on. I have not done an extensive check to count Peshitta agreements with pure Byzantine readings as opposed to the Alexandrian or other older family, so I am unable to say anything on the magnitude. However, looking at the specific examples I do want to say the following. The passage in John 1:28 read in the Greek: ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων for the older witnesses and ταῦτα ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων for the Byzantine exemplars. For the Syrian NTs we see predominantly the second reading, notably in syr^c and syr^s and in a single syr^pal which is the point judge is trying to make here and it has some validity. We do, however, see agreement with the older reading in syr^h and the remaining syr^pal. So the Peshitta is not alone in agreeing with the better readings. Interestingly, we see א^* support βηθανίᾳ but sometime in the seventh century or so א^c, NA27 uses א ² (why are those two characters coming out backwards?), and changed it to the Byz reading. The word order is also different in א as well as p66 and the vetus italia, reading ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ, incidentally brining it out of alignment with the Peshitta, although not too much should be read into that. There seems to be no chance of h.t. or h.a. in the Greek and no examples of it exists that I know of (but I am away from my books at the moment) and the Peshitta likewise shows good distinction in characters as far as I can tell, not knowing Syriac (see page 3 of the interlinear here: http://www.peshitta.org/ ). What we need is a good count of correspondence since a few isolated examples like these mean very little. As I have shown above, many old readings persisted well into the Byz dominated period and therefore say very little about its age. I have also shown that old readings were about in many places, including Syria. It is also clear that the 'byzantine crawl' started fairly early and we do see hybrid texts extant in all the ages. In order for a text to be shown to have affinity with a particular family it must be demonstrated to contain a significant correspondence with a representative archetype. It will take me a little while to rig up a program that will give us a rough idea and I am short on time these days. Yet I am working on just such a program for other reasons. Maybe this would make a good text for test purposes? I also suspect that such an effort has already been done. Anyone? Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.