judge

Hi Yuri..yes you are right that the references I provided do not support some assertions I made. On one occaision I said if peshitta variants existed they were extremely small. but on at least two occaisions I said none existed.
I believe I can show you one or two very minor ones if you are interested but, if you can believe it I was deleiberstely provocative to try to see if anyone knows of any.
It is easy to look at the many many variants amongst greek mss as they have been studied to death in the west.
But the aramaic has been ignored by comparison.

The fact that the is no critical aparatus does not logically imply that the peshitta would contain anyhting like the variants we see in the greek mss.

I am still interested to see an example...just one but I realise this may be hard to provide as the texts have not been subject to the same scrutiny as the greek mss.

Again, should I assume that these variants exist in the absence of proof? I think not.

All the best

Peter Kirby

Obviously, someone needs to learn Aramaic, track down the individual physical manuscripts, and produce a critical edition with apparatus, supported with some kind of academic grant. Until that is done any statements on the extent, nature, or sigificance of the variations are groundless. Not groundless in the sense that we've looked for evidence and found none--groundless in the sense that nobody has put in the effort to conduct a proper search.

best,
Peter Kirby

jdmins

Hi Peter,

This has been done:Syriac (except Diatessaron)
General
Kiraz, George Anton, ed. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Old Syriac
Burkitt, F. C., ed. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Syriac Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904.

Lewis, Agnes Smith, ed. The Old Syriac Gospels, or, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: Being the Text of the Sinai or Syro-Antiochene Palimpsest, Including the Latest Additions and Emendations, with the Variants of the Curetonian Text, Corroborations from Many Other Ms. London : Williams and Norgate, 1910.

Peshitta
Gwilliam, George Henry, and Pusey, Philip Edward, eds. Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901.

Aland, Barbara, and Juckel, A., eds. Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung. Vol. 1: Die grossen katholischen Briefe. ANTF 7. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1986.

Aland, Barbara, and Juckel, A., eds. Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung. Vol. 2: Die Paulinischen Briefe. Part 1: Römer- und 1. Korintherbrief. ANTF 7. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1986.
Philoxenian

Gwynn, John, ed. The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown. Dublin: Dublin University Press, 1897.
Another version of Revelation appears in the Paris Polyglot, vol. 5.2, 1633.

Gwynn, John, ed. Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible: In two parts. Part 1: New Testament: The Four Minor Catholic Epistles in the Original Philoxenian Version of the Sixth Century, and the History of the Woman Taken in Adultery. London and Oxford: Williams and Norgate, for the Text and Translation Society, 1909.

Harklean
The Harklean version present in KirazÕs Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels (see above under Syriac: General) is a fresh collation, though without a critical apparatus.

Palestinian Syriac
Lewis, Agnes Smith, and Gibson, Margaret Dunlop. The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, Re-edited from Two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde's Edition of the "Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum." London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1899.


JD

Yuri Kuchinsky

But, judge, there is a critical aparatus of the Peshitta! The editors are Pusey and Gwilliam, and it was published in 1901 by Oxford.

Quote:

does not logically imply that the peshitta would contain anyhting like the variants we see in the greek mss. I am still interested to see an example...just one but I realise this may be hard to provide as the texts have not been subject to the same scrutiny as the greek mss. Again, should I assume that these variants exist in the absence of proof? I think not.

No, you should have assumed that some variants exist until there's proof to the contrary.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
Well, first it needs to be established that PNT (Peshitta NT) varies a lot from MT in its OT citations. Also, the Old Syriac gospels need to be compared with the Peshitta in this regard.

JD:
Why does it have to vary alot? If it follows the the LXX rather than the MT its a dead give away.

YURI NOW:
JD, I don't think this area is so simple. AFAIAC, there's just not enough hard evidence to come to any firm conclusions.

YURI:
Myself, I'm not really all that interested in the Peshitta, so I don't have that info handy.

JD:
I have a Peshitta as it is very near and dear to me. Keep in mind the GNT itself does not always quote the LXX either.
There are reasons for that.

There are also Aramaisms in basic Greek passages like John. Although this may not result from translations of text but of linguistic syntax.

[B]

YURI:
Please read my article "Tatian was the author?",
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/5832


Please email it to me. I went the the link and 6500 messages showed up. I appreciate your patience.

YURI NOW:
The message was #5832. But I will repost it here for everyone's benefit.

YURI:
This has quite a lot of evidence that Tatian didn't really write the Diatessaron.

Was there a "fifth gospel" that was the source of DT? I doubt it.

JD:
Keep in mind DT was originally referred to in Greek as the "diapente". (Zondervan-A Standard Reference Guide) A few commentators I read did believe the 5th was the "GOT".

YURI NOW:
This is all uncertain. We simply don't know when the title "diapente" was first used, and why it was used.

YURI:
Let me tell you something, JD. I've been studying the Diatessaron for quite some time now, and I can summarise the results of my research very briefly as follows. Basically, *nothing is known for sure about the Diatessaron*.

JD:
In theology school we learned to weigh the evidence by what we DO know for sure. Why is there only a Greek fragment? Simple, Tatian was considered a heretic in the west, Greek speaking communities, it would seem all Greek copies would have been destroyed. Doesn't it give more evidence that he was the editor.

YURI NOW:
No, this is just circular reasoning on your part. Just read my article, and then we can talk.

JD:
That is to say, considered by the Western fathers as a heretic (this we know for sure) Tatian's DT was banned in the west (this we know for sure). If he didn't write it the Western fathers have egg on their face. You ask why didn't the Greek fathers quote the DT? They considered him to be a heretic later when he went to extreme asceticism. So to find a fragment of Greek and have merely fragments in the mother tongue of Tatian is all the more support for the purity of the mss.

Keep in mind the PNT varies from the OS.

YURI NOW:
Yes, I know.

JD:
Some GNT variants are followed closely by the OS and others by PNT. Sometimes the PNT varies from all GNT variants and the OS. Keep in mind these are mostly only slight variants. The PNT varies little whereas the GNT varies more significantly. When you consider the corruption the Church has had to overcome it is undersdtandable.

YURI NOW:
Don't get your point now. Believe me, I've spent enough time with all these texts to know that there are complex relationships between them...

YURI:
And even those few things on which there's some sort of a consensus among scholars are usually highly doubtful, when one investigates them carefully. This whole area is the veritable Black Hole of NT scholarship.

JD:
That is why Christian doctrine cannot be based on the variances but the harmonies. The thread that runs from the Torah, through the Prophets and the writings continues to weave its way through-out the NT. Scripture itself states there must be two or more to bear witness. Faith is only the catalyst.

[snip]

YURI:
(But of course there's Justin who cites a pre-DT, i.e. a Harmony of sorts, but only of 3 gospels.)

He may have been the inspiration for such a project, huh?

YURI NOW:
That's for sure!

YURI:
I'm not disputing the purging theory...

Most "standard reference books" in this area are out to lunch. The Arabic DT isn't a very pure text -- it's been heavily Vulgatized (i.e. harmonised with the later canonical gospels).

JD:
So some citics say. I have seen copies of such fragments and the Arabic text pre-dates Qu'ran significantly.. The only way that cliam can be validated is by the Syrian Commentary varying significantly.

YURI NOW:
And it does!

JD:
I have never read anything by the late FF Bruce the previous foremost textual scholar, or Gordon Fee, the world's most prominent English textual scholar alive,

YURI NOW:
Really?

JD:
showing that the Arabic text has been corrupted. PLease refer me to this evidence if you would please induldge me.

YURI NOW:
Can you read French? Then this is what you've got to read, Boismard, ME, LE DIATESSARON: De Tatien a Justin, Gabalda, Paris, 1992.

YURI:
But of course, I have my own theory...

I would like to hear it, please.

YURI NOW:
Read my webpage and my book.

Cheers,

Yuri.

judge

Hi again Yuri...and thanks again for your time.

Yuri:
As to Peshitta coming after the Old Syriac, this is really quite a simple matter, but we can deal with this later.

Judge:
Would you be able to perhaps briefly explain why it is a simple matter?

Thanks again.

jdmins

Yuri,

Interesting theories. Have you considered the following?

In the literature of the Western church there is little testimony but in the Eastern church Eusebius is the only Greek author who offers any substantial information about the DT. For obvious reasons I stated previously there is no mention in the west..

Now keep in mind neither Eusebius nor Epiphanius (what a haughty name huh) wouldn't have know Aramaic from Hebrew much less Western and Eastern Syriac or Aramaic-Peshitto from Peshitta.

Testimony to the Diatessaron comes rather from the Syriac-Aramaic speaking CoE than from the Greek. Theodoret's comment "he (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies and such other passages as shew the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh. This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 200 such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists" (i. 20. Cf. Lightfoot, l.c.; Zahn, i. p. 35).

Since the diocese was Syriac-Aramaic speaking and the use of DT was wide spread for personal use, the copy in circulation then was Syriac-Aramaic. So this explains the terminology of Eusebius and the error of Epiphanius (saying the Gospel of The Hebrews). This is why Esuebius only "heard of it" and "did not know how it was synthesized" (using his Gr terminolgy). If it was originally written in Aramaic or as some say Jewish-Palestinian-Aramaic another statement of Eusebius would also be validated referencing Papias' claim that Matthew wrote the dialect of the Hebrewand everyone else translated as best they could. Dialect of the Hebrew=Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

This too is illustrated by the fact that the commentary on the DT was written by Ephrem the Syrian not Esuebius or some other Greek. Epiphanius's remark about Tatian 'to which rumour assigns the Diatessaron which some called "the Gospel according to the Hebrews".' Epiphanius confused two works so diverse he could have never read them. Per F. Zahn: "The report was current that there was a Syriac book of the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the Syrian churches, those of the diocese of Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there was another book of the Gospels, written in a kindred dialect and used in the neighbourhood of Cyrrhus, by the half-heretical Nazareans An outsider like Epiphanius might very easily confound them and even identify them (i. p. 25. See Wace, Expositor for 1882, p. 165). Eusebius had not actually seen Tatian's Diatessaron. His statements, "I have heard ..." and "I know not how" Tatian composed it, shews that he had not personally examined it, doubtless because of non-acquaintance or non-familiarity with Syriac."(I don't read German so I got this off of P Kirby's site.)

I believe Judge is correct. We are confusing Peshitto with Peshitta in some of the vairances. The West also accepts the minor gen epistles as well as the apocolypse which would be a huge variance in the Peshitta.

JD

Yuri Kuchinsky

You're welcome, judge.



Sure.

That the Peshitta came after the Old Syriac is quite clear by analogy with the Old Latin gospels, which are of course very similar to the Old Syriac gospels textually. After all, we know from good historical sources that Jerome was assigned to "standardise" the Latin gospels. Before Jerome, Latin textual tradition was rather unstable. So he's normally credited with standardising it.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Vulgate
http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml

"In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin translation of the Bible from the several divergent translations then in use. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels was delivered to the Pope in 384."

Thus, I'm arguing that the Old Syriac gospels stand to the Peshitta in the same type of a relationship as the Old Latin gospels stand to the Latin Vulgate.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks, JD.

Quote:

Have you considered the following? In the literature of the Western church there is little testimony but in the Eastern church Eusebius is the only Greek author who offers any substantial information about the DT. For obvious reasons I stated previously there is no mention in the west..

Why "obvious reasons"? After all, lots of scholars believe that DT was also current in the West. In fact we know that there were many copies of a Latin DT in the West...

Quote:

Now keep in mind neither Eusebius nor Epiphanius (what a haughty name huh) wouldn't have know Aramaic from Hebrew much less Western and Eastern Syriac or Aramaic-Peshitto from Peshitta. Testimony to the Diatessaron comes rather from the Syriac-Aramaic speaking CoE than from the Greek. Theodoret's comment "he (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies and such other passages as shew the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh. This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 200 such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists" (i. 20. Cf. Lightfoot, l.c.; Zahn, i. p. 35). Since the diocese was Syriac-Aramaic speaking and the use of DT was wide spread for personal use, the copy in circulation then was Syriac-Aramaic. So this explains the terminology of Eusebius and the error of Epiphanius (saying the Gospel of The Hebrews).

But how do you know he was in error?

Quote:

This is why Esuebius only "heard of it" and "did not know how it was synthesized" (using his Gr terminolgy).

Ah! And here you show you unfamiliarity with the _Syriac version_ of this quote! As well as with its Latin version... Because both these phrases are absent in the Syriac version. And the Latin version also supports the Syriac. See Petersen's book, where all 3 versions are provided and discussed in some detail. Also, my own book covers this matter (the Net version of this chapter had been much abridged).

Quote:

If it was originally written in Aramaic or as some say Jewish-Palestinian-Aramaic another statement of Eusebius would also be validated referencing Papias' claim that Matthew wrote the dialect of the Hebrewand everyone else translated as best they could. Dialect of the Hebrew=Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. This too is illustrated by the fact that the commentary on the DT was written by Ephrem the Syrian not Esuebius or some other Greek.

But what about he commentaries on DT by various Latin writers? Although they were later in date, still, they are very significant.

Quote:

Epiphanius's remark about Tatian 'to which rumour assigns the Diatessaron which some called "the Gospel according to the Hebrews".' Epiphanius confused two works so diverse he could have never read them.

But he said that _some others_ call it "the Gospel according to the Hebrews"! He didn't say "I call it so"... So what might his purported lack of linguistic competence have to do with it?

Quote:

Per F. Zahn: "The report was current that there was a Syriac book of the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the Syrian churches, those of the diocese of Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there was another book of the Gospels, written in a kindred dialect and used in the neighbourhood of Cyrrhus, by the half-heretical Nazareans An outsider like Epiphanius might very easily confound them and even identify them (i. p. 25. See Wace, Expositor for 1882, p. 165).

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me...

Quote:

Eusebius had not actually seen Tatian's Diatessaron. His statements, "I have heard ..." and "I know not how" Tatian composed it, shews that he had not personally examined it, doubtless because of non-acquaintance or non-familiarity with Syriac."(I don't read German so I got this off of P Kirby's site.)

Well, here the author of this critique seems to be unfamiliar with the big debate about whether or not Eusebius' statement suffered from later interpolations. (See above about the 3 versions of this quote.)

Quote:

I believe Judge is correct. We are confusing Peshitto with Peshitta in some of the vairances.

But I just don't see this purported confusion of Peshitto with Peshitta as an important issue. Again, I'm not so much interested in the Peshitto/Peshitta as in the Old Syriac gospels.

Quote:

The West also accepts the minor gen epistles as well as the apocolypse which would be a huge variance in the Peshitta. JD

At this time, I deal with the gospels only. It's big enough subject as it is, without also going into all that other stuff in the NT.

All the best,

Yuri.

jdmins

Why "obvious reasons"? After all, lots of scholars believe that DT was also current in the West. In fact we know that there were many copies of a Latin DT in the West...

Fair enough. As the Church shies from ascribing importance to whom it considers heretics, hence minor mention of Tatian in Gr. documents occur. The Eastern churches did not trash the DT because of Tatian's perceived heresy but only later upon the advent of PNT.


But how do you know he was in error?
Ah! And here you show you unfamiliarity with the _Syriac version_ of this quote!

Syriac & Latin would have been second hand since Eusebius wrote in Gr. 'sunafeian tina kai sunagwghn ouk oid' opwV tvn euaggeliwn sunqeiV' But you may be right about tampering. It seems to me that it is easier to omit than to add especially given the mother tongue of the author, Eusebius.BTW what is the exact Syriac phrase? Is it in serto or estrangela?

But what about he commentaries on DT by various Latin writers? Although they were later in date

EXACTLY as is the Latin MS, which by the way shows the SYR syntax underlying the text. Its pretty obvious where the Latin version is derived.

But he said that _some others_ call it "the Gospel according to the Hebrews"! He didn't say "I call it so"... So what might his purported lack of linguistic competence have to do with it?

Because of the "gospel written in a kindred dialect" he confused the two as the CONTENT is dissimilar. Like I said Eusebius reference to 'Hebrew dialect' or 'dialect of the Hebrew', however you want to translate his GREEK, was confused with JPA demonstrating that Gr. speakers wouldn't have known the difference. So the error of Epiphanius was he confuses two diverse texts based on "rumor".

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me...

I've read some broader stretches lately..

Well, here the author of this critique seems to be unfamiliar with the big debate about whether or not Eusebius' statement suffered from later interpolations. (See above about the 3 versions of this quote.)

Ah, the ole conspiracy theory of perhaps some redaction on the part of the Gr. editor?

But I just don't see this purported confusion of Peshitto with Peshitta as an important issue. Again, I'm not so much interested in the Peshitto/Peshitta as in the Old Syriac gospels.


Here is the importance. Peshitta/Peshitto many times don't seem to follow any Gr. ms, papyri, aleph, B C, etc., whereas OS tends to show the underlying Gr text.

JD