Peter Williams conjecture on Old Syriac and Peshitta connection

Steven Avery

Administrator
This led to the Greg Lanier nonsens.

Peter Williams
https://books.google.com/books?id=YVwzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA151
1719370228380.png


33 On the affinity of Peshitta Mark, see Downs, “The Peshitto as a Revision,” 151-157.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

The Significance of the Peshiṭta Text of Mark Although the Peshiṭta text of Mark does not contain the original text of the Gospel, it supplies scholars with immensely helpful points of comparison as they seek to discern an Aramaic substratum to Mark’s Gospel. It also provides important information about the early Greek texts from which the Syriac version was translated and by which it was revised to produce the Peshiṭta. Past scholarship tended to see the Peshiṭta text as simply a translation of a Byzantine Greek type of text (i.e. the Textus Receptus of the KJV). Yet in an important study of its textual affinities, Hope Broome Downs found that in Mark the Peshiṭta text shares a number of distinctive readings with the Sinaitic Old Syriac manuscript, revealing the Peshiṭta’s pedigree as a revised heir to the Old Syriac. Furthermore, where the shared

XX

Introduction to the Translation

readings agree with existing Greek manuscripts, the Syriac text answers to the Byzantine Greek type of text somewhat less than half the time. Nearly one-third of the time, it manifests readings that agree with witnesses that have been commonly designated “Western” instead. More refined methods of analysis, applied to better current editions, might yield slightly different results than Mrs Downs’ early study, but do not change the overall picture. Also, more recent research shows that some of the distinctive Peshiṭta readings in Mark are due to the influences of translation technique and perhaps interpretive traditions. Yet some of them undoubtedly attest to lost forms of the Greek text. Consequently, the Peshiṭta text is not easy to characterize. This intriguingly complex textual character underscores the importance of the Peshiṭta text of Mark as a witness to the primitive Greek text of the Gospel and the history of the New Testament textual tradition. In addition to its significance for New Testament textual criticism, the Peshiṭta text of Mark opens a fascinating window onto an important moment of cross-cultural contact between Greek- and Syriac-speaking Christians. Long recognized as a “bridge culture,” Syriac Christianity links the western religious and intellectual heritage and the cultures of the Middle East and Asia. The reception of the Greek Gospel text into a Syriac milieu stands as a seminal piece of the dynamic and ongoing interchange between different ancient Christian communities. The pre-Peshiṭta Syriac translators inevitably refashioned the Greek texts before them, negotiating differences in language, religion, theology, and culture to address the needs of their own environments. After them, revisors continued the dialogue, editing the Syriac text in conversation not only with the Greek Gospel text and the Greek communities that used it, but also in response to the changing shape and contemporary priorities of their own, Syriac contexts. The resulting Peshiṭta text of the New Testament became the fundamental classic of Syriac-speaking Christianity, boasting an unparalleled influence on the Syriac Christian tradition. Consequently, the Peshiṭta text of Mark is not merely a remarkable subject of academic study—though it is that. From the beginning of its existence, its primary purpose has been to serve the basic needs of ecclesial communities who worship God in the Syriac language. As part of the standard Bible of the Syriac churches, the Peshiṭta version of Mark has nourished individual and corporate spirituality for many centuries. Early exegetes such as Aphrahaṭ and Ephrem employ the Diatessaron and other pre-Peshiṭta recensions (e.g. the Old Syriac), yet it is the Peshiṭta that subsequent Syriac interpreters normally use, from the early fifth century until today. Though not as popular as Matthew or Luke, “the difficult ܳ ‫̣̱ܶ̈ܪ‬ meanings that are in the Gospel of the Blessed Mark the Evangelist” (‫ܥܝܢܶܐ‬
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Peshitta scholars Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Glenn David Bauscher, Janet Magiera, and the late William Norton hold the Peshitta to predate the Old Syriac Versions.
Aramaic scholars ... Steve Caruso, and George Anton Kiraz follow the mainstream belief that the Old Syriac predates the Peshitta,

As stated before, Francis Crawford Burkitt and Agnes Smith Lewis published translations of the Old Syriac Gospels. George Anton Kiraz of Gorgias Press published A Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, which contains the Aramaic text of the Western Peshitto, Harklean, Curetonian, and Sinaitic Palimpsest. Another Gorgias Press affiliate, E. Jan Wilson, published The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations in two volumes. Wilson's publication includes the Aramaic text of both the Curetonian and Sinaitic Gospels, with translations of both verse-by-verse in a format perfect for easy comparison.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Four-Gospel canon was definitely settled in the time of Rabbula by a thorough revision of the Old Syriac textual traditions, which resulted in the Peshitta.

Quotations of the Old Syriac type are in the writings of Aphrahaṭ, Ephrem, in the ‘Book of Steps’, and in a few additional documents; they are collected by Burkitt, Leloir, and Kerschensteiner. Here the qualification ‘Old Syriac’ refers to the pre-Peshitta origin of the texts. In the Gospels comparison with C, S, and the Peshitta is possible; outside of the Gospels, where there is no direct attestation in Old Syriac mss., solely the Peshitta can be compared. It is not certain whether these quotations reflect an established Old Syriac Version or individual attempts of translation. In the Gospels the Diatessaron is quoted side by side with the Separate Gospels (labelled as ‘the Greek’ by Ephrem); this may reflect the dominance of the Diatessaron and the circulation of Old Syriac textual traditions in the 4th cent. According to Ephrem’s commentary on the Pauline epistles (preserved in Armenian), an additional (3rd) epistle to the Corinthians was part of the Old Syriac NT canon. The Catholic Epistles probably were not included in the canon; although 1 Pet and 1 Jn are known, they are never qualified as ‘Scripture.’

The Old Syriac heritage of early Peshitta mss. is a minor source of the Old Syriac Version and still awaiting exploitation. This heritage derives from the Old Syriac prehistory of the Peshitta and was set out in some detail by A.  Allgeier (1932) and A. Juckel (2003). M. Black launched the hypothesis of a ‘Pre-Peshitta’ (1952), produced by Rabbula and closer to the Old Syriac than the definitive Peshitta. From this Pre-Peshitta remaining Old Syriac elements were successively (though insufficiently) eliminated by further revision. Whatever the role of Rabbula in this context may be, the agreement of the definitively revised Peshitta with the Old Syriac is striking. Majority readings as well as minority readings (represented by single or several mss. only) of the definitive Peshitta participate in this agreement. Access to this source of the Old Syriac Version is given by the collation of Peshitta mss. presented in the Gospel volume prepared by Ph. E.  Pusey / G. H. Gwilliam (1901). Among these mss. Codex Phillipps 1388 (5th/6th cent.) is the most prominent witness. Further collations are necessary to exploit this source of the Old Syriac Version sufficiently in order to reconstruct the pre-Peshitta as far as possible.
 
Top