Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook NTTextual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/694285793991757
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/694285793991757
Facebook NTTextual Criticism thread on Peshitta date
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
James E. Snapp Jr
Here's a little point of interest that I stumbled across when reading an 1897 article by F. C. Conybeare. (The full article is among the materials placed online by the Armenian specialist Robert Bedrosian at http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/conybeare.html .
The URL is http://rbedrosian.com/Cony/Cony_1897_AJT_Peshitta.pdf .)
Conybeare stated on page 888 (of the journal in which his article appeared; in the digital file this = page 7):
"Anyone who takes a Peshitta text and the Armenian text of Ephrem can mark hundreds of passages where Ephrem even in his Armenian dress reproduces the characteristic idioms and turns of the Peshitta. It is certain, therefore, that in the main Ephrem's Pauline text was the same as the Peshitta."
And on page 892, referring to a reading in Romans 4:12: "Ephrem had the Peshitta text."
And on page 894: "The Syriac Peshitta is constantly recognizable under the Armenian text of Ephrem's commentary on the Paulines."
Page 902: "Ephrem for his commentary used a Syriac text closely similar to but not identical with our Peshitta."
=================================
Steven Avery
Hi,
James, I think, partly because of the confusion of starting with the Epistles (mistakenly considering them earlier than the gospels) where we do not have an Old Syriac ms text, you have not really gotten the gist of the Conybeare position. Which is that the Armenian and Georgian are from what we would call a pre-Peshitta text., and the Peshitta revision was 4th century, before Armenian and Georgian revisions 400 AD, maybe later on the Georgian.
.
Again, this does not come through in his language as clearly in the Epistle section, which can sound (as per your extracts) like it is saying that Ephrem sort of had our current Peshitta (the one with extant mss from about the 5th and 6th century) in hand.
.
=================
.
Thus, those taking the position for a late Peshitta against the Peshitta primacists (we can ignore their position of an original Peshitta and for our purposes simply look at them as arguing an active 2nd or 3rd century Peshitta text) do use the Conybeare article, as you can see in these two references.
.
Peshitta.org
rival conjecture of "aphraates readings"
Kara (Kevin) - March, 2010
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2376
.
"Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels" by Andreas Juckel, "
.
The Growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions by F.C Conybeare
.
=================
.
Note: I'm not saying that there can not be other interpretations of the Conybeare data. Here is an example, discussing the Armenian.
=====
.
Peshitta.org
The Peshitta, the Armenian Bible & the "Caesarean" Text
Christina - April 2009
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2146
.
.quoting Bob Waltz
.
Armenian
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Versions.html...
.
Joseph M. Alexanian, states that the initial Armenian translation (Arm 1) was made from the Old Syriac in 406-414 C.E. This was followed by a revised translation (Arm 2) made from the Greek after the Council of Ephesus in 431. He suggests that further revisions followed....
Despite Alexanian, the basis of the version remains in dispute. Good scholars have argued both for Syriac and for Greek. There are passages where the wording seems to argue for a Syriac original -- but others that argue equally forceably for a Greek base.
At least three explanations are possible for this. One is that the Armenian was translated from the Greek, but that the translator was intimately familiar with a Syriac rendering. An alternate proposal is that the Armenian was translated in several stages. The earliest stage was probably a translation from one or another Old Syriac versions, or perhaps from the Syriac Diatessaron. This was then revised toward the Greek, perhaps from a "Cæsarean" witness. Further revisions may have increased the number of Byzantine readings. Finally, there may have been two separate translations (Conybeare suggests that Mesrop translated from the Greek and Sahak from the Syriac) which were eventually combined.
.
=================
.
btw, for those who prefer google books or Archive.org (e.g. better page bookmarking that a PDF) you have these urls.
.
The American Journal of Theology - (1897)
The Growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament
Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
http://books.google.com/books?id=VmQhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA883
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3153282/3153282...
p. 833-912
.
Also, Conybeare was responding (in addition to the 1897 debate) to this review of two Sinaiticus Syriac books. I'm not sure of the author. Conybeare quotes it in 1897 in the conclusion on p. 912 about the TR and ECW quote. And it is on p. 131 in the CQR 1895 article.
.
Church Quarterly Review - (1895)
The Text of the Syriac Gospels
http://books.google.com/books?id=i3w3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102
.
And I will conjecture Edward Miller as the review author, as he references the work here:
.
The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established (1895)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127
.
============
.
Here you can see the 1897 Conybeare paper referenced in a 2014 review of Armenian Bible scholarship.
.
Armenian Philology in the Modern Era
http://books.google.com/books?id=ekz3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA242
Claude Cox p. 242, bibliography p. 244
.
"F. C. Conybeare long ago provided a list of instances where he believed the Peshitta stands behind the Armenian text."
.
============
.
Steven Avery
Chas Ellis
:
There were never any "old syriac" version of the Epistles. The "Old Syriac" version is called The Evangeliaun d'Mepharreshe. The Gospel of the separated.
You can see this title on the MSS themselves.
Chas Ellis
:
And what MSS were used to make the 5th century extant MSS? Much older ones of course, as copies were made when the older ones wore out.
The Church of the East has had the New Testament in Aramaic, as they have it today, and have had it since the 1st century when they got their 1st copy from the Apostles....they have always used it in their liturgy every week, which always has included The Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of James, Peter, and John (1st), and Paul (14 including Hebrews).
Some folks seem to think The Church of the East just came out of nowhere in the 2nd century... not so, it came into existence soon after The Resurrection of Christ.
Steven Avery
Hi,
.
And I tend to agree that the idea of a significant gap before the Gospels were in Syriac does not make a lot of sense. At least one gospel should have been subject to almost immediate distribution.
.
However, we do not have much in Syriac church history in the first centuries, so the theories of what texts were in existence up to 400 AD are made based on a combination of analysis, conjecture and presuppositions.
.
With Ephraem being the key 300s figure and much of the material stuff like hymns, and a key exegetical writing extant in Armenian. And the Diatessaron similarly working through other languages. Making analysis rather loosey-goosey with only a limited number of scholars fluent in the languages involved.
.
One of the goals (and likely James and I are on the same page here) is simply to lay out the theories and analysis in a wheat-chaff manner. We are very skeptical of the late dating that was claimed by Hort. Since it seems like the presupposition of Vaticanus primacy influenced virtually every Hortian venture and theory. (It is little known that Hort even claimed Syriac recension(s), akin to the phantom Lucian recension.)
.
From my Bible text apologetic position, it would be wonderful if the Peshitta, virtually identical to the extant mss from the 5th century on, could be demonstrated to be circulating in the 2nd and 3rd century. This is not easy to demonstrate, although appeals to church attitudes and history and personalities should be part of the analysis mix.
.
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
.
From those who see a late Peshitta, updating the earlier Old Syriac, I would like to hear how they see the Epistles, and the Ephraem usage. Was this based on a non-extant text, would he be reading in another language (difficult per the Conybeare paper) or what?
.
Maybe we can get Steve Caruso (who has worked with George Kiraz) to weigh in on the question.
.
Ok, Steve says he will try to share a bit later today.
.
Steven Avery
Here's a little point of interest that I stumbled across when reading an 1897 article by F. C. Conybeare. (The full article is among the materials placed online by the Armenian specialist Robert Bedrosian at http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/conybeare.html .
The URL is http://rbedrosian.com/Cony/Cony_1897_AJT_Peshitta.pdf .)
Conybeare stated on page 888 (of the journal in which his article appeared; in the digital file this = page 7):
"Anyone who takes a Peshitta text and the Armenian text of Ephrem can mark hundreds of passages where Ephrem even in his Armenian dress reproduces the characteristic idioms and turns of the Peshitta. It is certain, therefore, that in the main Ephrem's Pauline text was the same as the Peshitta."
And on page 892, referring to a reading in Romans 4:12: "Ephrem had the Peshitta text."
And on page 894: "The Syriac Peshitta is constantly recognizable under the Armenian text of Ephrem's commentary on the Paulines."
Page 902: "Ephrem for his commentary used a Syriac text closely similar to but not identical with our Peshitta."
=================================
Steven Avery
Hi,
James, I think, partly because of the confusion of starting with the Epistles (mistakenly considering them earlier than the gospels) where we do not have an Old Syriac ms text, you have not really gotten the gist of the Conybeare position. Which is that the Armenian and Georgian are from what we would call a pre-Peshitta text., and the Peshitta revision was 4th century, before Armenian and Georgian revisions 400 AD, maybe later on the Georgian.
.
Again, this does not come through in his language as clearly in the Epistle section, which can sound (as per your extracts) like it is saying that Ephrem sort of had our current Peshitta (the one with extant mss from about the 5th and 6th century) in hand.
.
=================
.
Thus, those taking the position for a late Peshitta against the Peshitta primacists (we can ignore their position of an original Peshitta and for our purposes simply look at them as arguing an active 2nd or 3rd century Peshitta text) do use the Conybeare article, as you can see in these two references.
.
Peshitta.org
rival conjecture of "aphraates readings"
Kara (Kevin) - March, 2010
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2376
.
"Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels" by Andreas Juckel, "
.
The Growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions by F.C Conybeare
.
=================
.
Note: I'm not saying that there can not be other interpretations of the Conybeare data. Here is an example, discussing the Armenian.
=====
.
Peshitta.org
The Peshitta, the Armenian Bible & the "Caesarean" Text
Christina - April 2009
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2146
.
.quoting Bob Waltz
.
Armenian
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Versions.html...
.
Joseph M. Alexanian, states that the initial Armenian translation (Arm 1) was made from the Old Syriac in 406-414 C.E. This was followed by a revised translation (Arm 2) made from the Greek after the Council of Ephesus in 431. He suggests that further revisions followed....
Despite Alexanian, the basis of the version remains in dispute. Good scholars have argued both for Syriac and for Greek. There are passages where the wording seems to argue for a Syriac original -- but others that argue equally forceably for a Greek base.
At least three explanations are possible for this. One is that the Armenian was translated from the Greek, but that the translator was intimately familiar with a Syriac rendering. An alternate proposal is that the Armenian was translated in several stages. The earliest stage was probably a translation from one or another Old Syriac versions, or perhaps from the Syriac Diatessaron. This was then revised toward the Greek, perhaps from a "Cæsarean" witness. Further revisions may have increased the number of Byzantine readings. Finally, there may have been two separate translations (Conybeare suggests that Mesrop translated from the Greek and Sahak from the Syriac) which were eventually combined.
.
=================
.
btw, for those who prefer google books or Archive.org (e.g. better page bookmarking that a PDF) you have these urls.
.
The American Journal of Theology - (1897)
The Growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament
Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
http://books.google.com/books?id=VmQhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA883
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3153282/3153282...
p. 833-912
.
Also, Conybeare was responding (in addition to the 1897 debate) to this review of two Sinaiticus Syriac books. I'm not sure of the author. Conybeare quotes it in 1897 in the conclusion on p. 912 about the TR and ECW quote. And it is on p. 131 in the CQR 1895 article.
.
Church Quarterly Review - (1895)
The Text of the Syriac Gospels
http://books.google.com/books?id=i3w3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102
.
And I will conjecture Edward Miller as the review author, as he references the work here:
.
The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established (1895)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Be5JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127
.
============
.
Here you can see the 1897 Conybeare paper referenced in a 2014 review of Armenian Bible scholarship.
.
Armenian Philology in the Modern Era
http://books.google.com/books?id=ekz3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA242
Claude Cox p. 242, bibliography p. 244
.
"F. C. Conybeare long ago provided a list of instances where he believed the Peshitta stands behind the Armenian text."
.
============
.
Steven Avery
Chas Ellis
:
There were never any "old syriac" version of the Epistles. The "Old Syriac" version is called The Evangeliaun d'Mepharreshe. The Gospel of the separated.
You can see this title on the MSS themselves.
Chas Ellis
:
And what MSS were used to make the 5th century extant MSS? Much older ones of course, as copies were made when the older ones wore out.
The Church of the East has had the New Testament in Aramaic, as they have it today, and have had it since the 1st century when they got their 1st copy from the Apostles....they have always used it in their liturgy every week, which always has included The Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of James, Peter, and John (1st), and Paul (14 including Hebrews).
Some folks seem to think The Church of the East just came out of nowhere in the 2nd century... not so, it came into existence soon after The Resurrection of Christ.
Steven Avery
Hi,
.
And I tend to agree that the idea of a significant gap before the Gospels were in Syriac does not make a lot of sense. At least one gospel should have been subject to almost immediate distribution.
.
However, we do not have much in Syriac church history in the first centuries, so the theories of what texts were in existence up to 400 AD are made based on a combination of analysis, conjecture and presuppositions.
.
With Ephraem being the key 300s figure and much of the material stuff like hymns, and a key exegetical writing extant in Armenian. And the Diatessaron similarly working through other languages. Making analysis rather loosey-goosey with only a limited number of scholars fluent in the languages involved.
.
One of the goals (and likely James and I are on the same page here) is simply to lay out the theories and analysis in a wheat-chaff manner. We are very skeptical of the late dating that was claimed by Hort. Since it seems like the presupposition of Vaticanus primacy influenced virtually every Hortian venture and theory. (It is little known that Hort even claimed Syriac recension(s), akin to the phantom Lucian recension.)
.
From my Bible text apologetic position, it would be wonderful if the Peshitta, virtually identical to the extant mss from the 5th century on, could be demonstrated to be circulating in the 2nd and 3rd century. This is not easy to demonstrate, although appeals to church attitudes and history and personalities should be part of the analysis mix.
.
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
.
From those who see a late Peshitta, updating the earlier Old Syriac, I would like to hear how they see the Epistles, and the Ephraem usage. Was this based on a non-extant text, would he be reading in another language (difficult per the Conybeare paper) or what?
.
Maybe we can get Steve Caruso (who has worked with George Kiraz) to weigh in on the question.
.
Ok, Steve says he will try to share a bit later today.
.
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Administrator
Here is a later thread
www.facebook.com
NT Textual Criticism | I was somehow under the impression that there were no extant Greek Mss of the Diatesseron, but while looking for something else ran into GA212 | Facebook
I was somehow under the impression that there were no extant Greek Mss of the Diatesseron, but while looking for something else ran into GA212. It was apparently discovered in 1933. The so called...
www.facebook.com