andrewcriddle

According to Metzger's textual commentary for Acts
Ephraem supports these 'Western' readings in the early
chapters of Acts.

In Acts 1:5 Ephraem adds a specific reference to Pentecost
as the time when the Spirit will be received.

In Acts 2:16 the name Joel is omitted by Ephraem

In Acts 2:24 Ephraem reads Hades instead of death

In Acts 4:31 Ephraem adds 'to every one who wished to
believe' to the end of the verse

In Acts 8:39 Ephraem reads 'the Holy Spirit fell on the Eunuch
and an angel of the Lord caught up Philip.'

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I gave an example earlier in the thread where Aphrahat refers to Romans 5:12 but omits 'death' in the phrase ''and so death passed to all men'

This might possibly be a loose citation of the Peshitta but agrees with various 'Western' texts of Romans (Greek and Latin.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Another example of the use of a non-Peshitta text of Paul by Aphrahat is 1 Corinthians 15:51

Aphrahat persistently quotes it as 'We shall all sleep but we shall not all be changed' an ancient variant found in the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and other ancient manuscripts.

This is instead of the original reading found in most Greek manuscripts and the Peshitta 'We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed'

Andrew Criddle

judge

Thanks andrew, do you know where this occurs in Aphrahats works?

andrewcriddle

Twice in Demonstration VIII and once with slightly different wording in Demonstration VI

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's a very interesting variant, Andrew!

There's no question here that Aphrahat is NOT using the Peshitta in this case.

I looked into my UBS, and there are many patristic witnesses listed there in support of this variant, besides Aphrahat. And this is a verse with some important theological implications...

In Greek, this is the difference between,

panteV ou koimhqhsomeqa, panteV de allaghsomeqa
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed

and,

panteV koimhqhsomeqa, ou panteV de allaghsomeqa
We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed

Besides, here's also yet another version, as found in the Latin Vulgate, that is also supported by various other witnesses,

1 Cor 15:51 ecce, mysterium vobis dico. omnes quidem resurgemus: sed non omnes inmutabimur.
Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.

And we also have two more minor variants for this verse that I will not quote here.

It seems like the old Fathers really had fun with this verse, changing it every which way!

Actually, I wouldn't be as certain as you as to which reading should be seen as the "original" in this case. It's quite possible that Aphrahat et al do preserve the original reading. Or maybe even the VG?

Best,

Yur

Yuri Kuchinsky

And why not?



Not really...



There's no contradiction.



Not really... _Their_ common source (i.e. the common source of Greek Mt and Mk) could have been Greek.

Of course you did... What I'm saying is that the original "M", quite short, was produced in Jerusalem. In such a case, it would have been in a Semitic tongue. But an early Greek translation of this could have also been a common source of our Greek Mt and Mk.

This whole area is extremely complex. This is a puzzle with a thousand pieces, scattered in hundreds of old manuscripts in many languages. You cannot solve this puzzle brandishing one piece only as a hammer, the way you seem to...

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yuri:
"In my view, both Mt and Mk depend on a common source, that was produced in Jerusalem ca. 100 CE, perhaps a bit earlier than 100 CE. This common source "M" was produced by the Jerusalem Church."

Hello, Amaleq,

The big difficulty here is to distinguish between the original source document (hypothetical) and the expanded version. What we have now, the canonical versions of the gospels, are clearly heavily expanded documents. Of all mainstream NT scholars, only Loisy has been honest enough to say this. He was quite clear that the canonical gospels had been tampered with for centuries before acquiring their present shape.

So, I would say, the original "M" was rather short, and did not yet depict the "pillars" in a poor light. Such negative anti-Judaic depictions were added ca 135 CE, after the Gentiles hijacked the gospels.

______________


Yuri: "But the earliest gospel probably was produced in Syria, and is best preserved by Lk.

Again, the same problem. I don't think the current intro to Lk belonged to the original proto-Lk.

(Loisy thought that only a part of the intro belonged to the proto-Lk, and the rest was added up. But I think the whole thing was added up, perhaps in two stages, to give to the canonical Lk the flavour of an accomplished literary composition in a classical Hellenistic style.)

So I don't think that the opening of proto-Lk really referred to "many" earlier versions of the story. When one re-edits any document, the opening part is usually re-edited the heaviest (as well as the ending).

IMO Lk could have been influenced by Josephus, at any of the stages of its editing. The reverse is more difficult to imagine.

Best,

Yuri.

spin

I didn't notice you saying that earlier in the thread.

Now that you have, what would ever make you postukate such a pair of theses which apparently have no support at all, unless it's trying to cater to Eusebius's Papias.

But at this level of speculation it could have been passing Chinese monks who wrote it in Cantonese, which was then poorly translated into a common source for Mk and Mt.

I'm not averse to puzzles, but to speculations which have neither tangible evidence to support it nor solid means of testing it, I do develop an aversion.


spin

judge

Yes seems so, as preterism and universlism were abandoned one could see how this verse would perhaps need altering.