03-30-2010, 10:57 PM
Peace and Blessings,
A.P. proponents argue that there is irrefutable proof that the Peshitta existed before the fifth century. They cite Aphraates' NT quotations, found in his Demonstrations, as evidence; many of these readings correspond exactly to the passages in the Peshitta. Since he was one of the most prominent members of the Persian church, to them, it follows that the Peshitta must have been widely used before the fifth century. However, what A.P. proponents fail to consider is the difference between individual readings in the Peshitta, which turn up in the fourth century, and the Peshitta as a whole (a revision of the Veta Syra completed in the fifth century). First, the original Veta Syra mss have not descended to us and the two mss that are in our possession (sin and cur) were revised. That being said, because the Peshitta-as-a-whole did not yet exist, these "pre-peshitta" readings originate from a transmission of readings that belonged to the original Veta Syra. Hence, it is not a surprise that the Syriac-speaking church would finally incorporate some of these archaic readings into the Peshitta-as-a-whole, as known to Aphraates and St. Ephraem.
Considering these archaic readings, T.J. Baarda, after examining the gospel text in Rabbula's biography (436 CE), concludes:
We have found nine quotations in the biography. Two of them were in full harmony with the Pesitta text. But in both cases we found the same reading also attested by Diatessaron and Old Syriac evidence, cf. nos. 10 and 17. In seven other cases the quotations differed from Pesitta, but were akin to a text of the Old Syriac type. However, we never meet a text that is in full accordance with that of the extant Old Syriac manuscripts. If we want to fix the character of the text more precisely, we must look at those elements in the quotations in which the Syriac traditions differ from each other. I counted twenty such elements: 1. In six cases our biographer agrees with Ssc against SP, where the latter has clearly a revised text. In seven cases our biographer has a text different from what we find in SSCP; but in all these cases the text of SscP is a revised one, whereas the biographer's text has preserved a Tatianic reading or a Western variant. In seven other cases the text of the biographer goes with SP. In one case their common reading was clearly a revised text; but this revised text also appeared in Ss, so that the revision seems to be old. In two cases the agreement of the biographer's text with SP seems to preserve the Old Syriac reading against Ssc which have a revised text. In four cases - all found in John - the agreement with SP shows a revised text against the archaic text preserved in Ss and Sc. From this classification we have to conclude that the biographer's text on the whole was less revised and contained more archaic elements than both SP [Peshitta] and SCS [Sin/Cur] have preserved. This general con- clusion, however, cannot be applied to all the Gospels in the same measure....this state of affairs shows clearly that the text of John used by the author of Rabbula's life was a more revised one than that of the extant Old Syriac manuscripts, although not yet the very same text that we have in the collated manuscripts of the Pesitta.
This is the most likely explanation to these "aphraates readings."
Read:
" Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels" by Andreas Juckel, "
The Growth of the Peshitt ?? Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions by F.C Conybeare
Bibliography
Baarda, T.J. "The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula." Vigiliae Christianae 14.2 (1960): 30 Mar 2010.
A.P. proponents argue that there is irrefutable proof that the Peshitta existed before the fifth century. They cite Aphraates' NT quotations, found in his Demonstrations, as evidence; many of these readings correspond exactly to the passages in the Peshitta. Since he was one of the most prominent members of the Persian church, to them, it follows that the Peshitta must have been widely used before the fifth century. However, what A.P. proponents fail to consider is the difference between individual readings in the Peshitta, which turn up in the fourth century, and the Peshitta as a whole (a revision of the Veta Syra completed in the fifth century). First, the original Veta Syra mss have not descended to us and the two mss that are in our possession (sin and cur) were revised. That being said, because the Peshitta-as-a-whole did not yet exist, these "pre-peshitta" readings originate from a transmission of readings that belonged to the original Veta Syra. Hence, it is not a surprise that the Syriac-speaking church would finally incorporate some of these archaic readings into the Peshitta-as-a-whole, as known to Aphraates and St. Ephraem.
Considering these archaic readings, T.J. Baarda, after examining the gospel text in Rabbula's biography (436 CE), concludes:
We have found nine quotations in the biography. Two of them were in full harmony with the Pesitta text. But in both cases we found the same reading also attested by Diatessaron and Old Syriac evidence, cf. nos. 10 and 17. In seven other cases the quotations differed from Pesitta, but were akin to a text of the Old Syriac type. However, we never meet a text that is in full accordance with that of the extant Old Syriac manuscripts. If we want to fix the character of the text more precisely, we must look at those elements in the quotations in which the Syriac traditions differ from each other. I counted twenty such elements: 1. In six cases our biographer agrees with Ssc against SP, where the latter has clearly a revised text. In seven cases our biographer has a text different from what we find in SSCP; but in all these cases the text of SscP is a revised one, whereas the biographer's text has preserved a Tatianic reading or a Western variant. In seven other cases the text of the biographer goes with SP. In one case their common reading was clearly a revised text; but this revised text also appeared in Ss, so that the revision seems to be old. In two cases the agreement of the biographer's text with SP seems to preserve the Old Syriac reading against Ssc which have a revised text. In four cases - all found in John - the agreement with SP shows a revised text against the archaic text preserved in Ss and Sc. From this classification we have to conclude that the biographer's text on the whole was less revised and contained more archaic elements than both SP [Peshitta] and SCS [Sin/Cur] have preserved. This general con- clusion, however, cannot be applied to all the Gospels in the same measure....this state of affairs shows clearly that the text of John used by the author of Rabbula's life was a more revised one than that of the extant Old Syriac manuscripts, although not yet the very same text that we have in the collated manuscripts of the Pesitta.
This is the most likely explanation to these "aphraates readings."
Read:
" Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels" by Andreas Juckel, "
The Growth of the Peshitt ?? Version of the New Testament. Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions by F.C Conybeare
Bibliography
Baarda, T.J. "The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula." Vigiliae Christianae 14.2 (1960): 30 Mar 2010.
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="
tupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="