03-30-2010, 10:12 PM
Peace and Blessings,
If the Peshitta NT was the principal text of the Syriac-speaking church, since the beginning, then it would have been introduced to the Armenian and Georgian nations after their conversion.
The Armenian and Georgian versions of the NT are largely based on the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus):
G and A, now one, now the other, often both, contain readings found in Syr (sin), but not in Sch. But they give next to no readings from Sch which are not in Syr (sin) as well. Moreover, in a considerable number of cases Syr (sin) is the only extant source which contains the readings of G and A, and these readings are often literal renderings of the tricks of translation of Syr (sin). It follows that a Syriac version of the same type as Syr (sin) was used by the first translators of A and G, and not a Peshitta text. The only path from the latter to either A or G lies through Syr (sin) or Syr (cur)....the Georgian and Armenian churches were offshoots of the Syrian, and must have used for translation that form of Syriac text which was accredited and commonly used in Syriac churches and by the Syriac missionaries. Since they both used a text akin to Syr (sin), it follows that that was the accredited text, and that the Peshitta text was not yet in vogue; probably because-as its contents suggest-it was not yet in existence.
Therefore, the Peshitta was not always the Syriac-speaking church's principal text
Bibliography
Conybeare, F.C. "The Growth of the Peshitt ?? Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions." American Journal of Theology 1.4 (1897): 910. 30 Mar 2010.
If the Peshitta NT was the principal text of the Syriac-speaking church, since the beginning, then it would have been introduced to the Armenian and Georgian nations after their conversion.
The Armenian and Georgian versions of the NT are largely based on the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus):
G and A, now one, now the other, often both, contain readings found in Syr (sin), but not in Sch. But they give next to no readings from Sch which are not in Syr (sin) as well. Moreover, in a considerable number of cases Syr (sin) is the only extant source which contains the readings of G and A, and these readings are often literal renderings of the tricks of translation of Syr (sin). It follows that a Syriac version of the same type as Syr (sin) was used by the first translators of A and G, and not a Peshitta text. The only path from the latter to either A or G lies through Syr (sin) or Syr (cur)....the Georgian and Armenian churches were offshoots of the Syrian, and must have used for translation that form of Syriac text which was accredited and commonly used in Syriac churches and by the Syriac missionaries. Since they both used a text akin to Syr (sin), it follows that that was the accredited text, and that the Peshitta text was not yet in vogue; probably because-as its contents suggest-it was not yet in existence.
Therefore, the Peshitta was not always the Syriac-speaking church's principal text
Bibliography
Conybeare, F.C. "The Growth of the Peshitt ?? Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions." American Journal of Theology 1.4 (1897): 910. 30 Mar 2010.