Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Irenaeus and Peshitta?
#1
In the past few weeks I started to read a little about Irenaeus and then I found an interesting note in the preface of this book:

Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus haereses (Volume 1 Volume 2)

Quote:A point of some interest will be found of frequent recurrence in the notes; which is, the repeated instances that Scriptural quotations afford, of having being made by one who was as familiar with some Syriac version of the New Testament, as with the Greek originals. Strange variae lectiones occur, wich can only be explained by referring to the Syriac version. It will not be forgotten that S. Irenaeus resided in early life at Smyrna; and it is by no means improbable that he may have been of Syrian extraction, and instructed from his earliest infancy in some Syriac version of Scripture. (editor's preface pag. v)

I know just a little bit of Aramaic, and nothing of Greek, and now I'm wondering if it can be shown that this syriac version is really the Peshitta.

Shlama
Reply
#2
Hello my friend

It's the Greeks who called Aramaic 'Syriac' and in the West, Syriac is mistaken as the 'Syrian' language, however, Syriac is just Aramaic and the Syrian language was not just limited to Syria <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The confusion is because of the difference in terms: Mesapotamia (Greek; between the rivers) the Aramaic term was 'Aram Nahrayn'

However, the language, historically, was spread between Egypt and Babylon. So, after all, it's origin might have been 'between rivers' but finally, it was spread out to China and Inda.
Reply
#3
distazo Wrote:Hello my friend

It's the Greeks who called Aramaic 'Syriac' and in the West, Syriac is mistaken as the 'Syrian' language, however, Syriac is just Aramaic and the Syrian language was not just limited to Syria <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The confusion is because of the difference in terms: Mesapotamia (Greek; between the rivers) the Aramaic term was 'Aram Nahrayn'

However, the language, historically, was spread between Egypt and Babylon. So, after all, it's origin might have been 'between rivers' but finally, it was spread out to China and Inda.

Shlama AkhiDistazo:
A small correction. Beyt Naharain is the equivalent of Mesopotamia (Place between the rivers: the rivers being the Euphrates and the Tigris). The word "beyt" can mean "house, home, establishment or a designated abode. As an example, Abraham was an Aramayan from Ur in Beyt Naharain and this means that he spoke Aramaic as his mother tongue.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#4
distazo and Stephen,

Thank you both for answers. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

distazo Wrote:It's the Greeks who called Aramaic 'Syriac'

Yes, I am aware of it. Paul Younan explained this many times here in the forum.

The question is: is it possible to know if the syriac/aramaic version used by Irenaeus is the Peshitta? (I'm very sorry dear distazo, English is not my first language, then I must have expressed myself badly in the first post).
Reply
#5
Phil Wrote:distazo and Stephen,

Thank you both for answers. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

distazo Wrote:It's the Greeks who called Aramaic 'Syriac'

Yes, I am aware of it. Paul Younan explained this many times here in the forum.

The question is: is it possible to know if the syriac/aramaic version used by Irenaeus is the Peshitta? (I'm very sorry dear distazo, English is not my first language, then I must have expressed myself badly in the first post).

I suppose we would have to see the variants. The OS only containd material from the 4 gospels and some of Acts, so material from say th Pauline epistles might tend to point to the peshitta.
The problem here is that scholars and laymen alike are pretty much closed to the idea that the peshitta existed at that time and so people like Barbara Aland go to quite convoluted and unnecesarily complicated arguments to explain evidence of , asy. Pauline epistles at an early time.
Get this! Rather than look to the simplest explanation. That the peshitta is the origin of early syriac/aramaic versions of Pauline epistles, they hypothesise the existence of an "Old Syriac" version of Paul epistles which was somehow lost... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
They would rather fantasise that a Vetus Syra (old Syriac) version existed and was lost than just accept they used the peshitta (which we know exists,,,,cos we still use it to ths day).
Peshitta priority is the future.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)