Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the prominence of the Veta Syra I
#1
Peace and Blessings,

It has been said that Veta Syra was not highly regarded in the Syriac-speaking church. If that is true, then we will rarely find traces of it in Syriac documents. With this in mind, let us examine these claims.

When ancient "Syriac Christian" scribes translated a work, usually from Greek, they translated the entire work, save the OT/NT quotations. These were carefully supplanted by the familiar readings known to the translators. If we examine the works of Greek theologians that interested these scribes, the aforementioned process will guide us to what the "familiar" readings were. Arthur Voobus observes:


.....a systematic screening of the great mass of Syriac literature created during the centuries after the ultimate separation of the religious factions, yields a rich harvest. Many of these documents come from the sphere of the Old Syriac dominance and bear the sign of its influence. Many priests, bishops and other prominent clerics, as well as teachers, and other known and unknown writers, have used the Old Syriac Gospels, and quoted from them, some sparingly, but some abundantly; some negligently, but some very carefully....the works of John Chrysostom in the Syriac translation are an outstanding example. His great series of exegetical homilies and commentaries was translated into Syriac, and fortunately the transmission of the manuscripts can be traced even into the middle of the 6th century. Almost all this literature contains the inserted New Testament text and - be it noted - it is taken from the Old Syriac text type. The importance of these monuments surpasses that of all the other documents of translated literature. First, it is well known how often John Chrysostom quotes Scripture; and, second, it is evident that in the commentaries the Bible text is more carefully inserted....But that is not all. The richness of this field and the rewards reasonably to be expected from its cultivation are attested by the following fact: almost every document I have perused has brought me into contact with the inserted New Testament text taken from the Old Syriac version. Samples taken at random from Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Macarius, Cyril of Alexandria, Jesaja of Scete, John the Monk, and many, many authors translated in later centuries, even under Umayyads and Abbasids, show that they present the Old Syriac text type.


What is most interesting here is that the "Old Syriac text type" was even preferred centuries after the Peshitta.

Bibliography

V????bus, Arthur. "A CRITICAL APPARATUS FOR THE VETUS SYRA." Journal of Biblical Literature 70.2 (1951): n. pag. 30 Mar 2010.
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhan Kevin.

Following is a multiple choice question.

Voobus mentioned the split into factions (monophysite/duophysite) of the "Syriac" speaking "Christians", and the body of literature produced afterward of translations of Cyril of Alexandria, et al.

He mentions that this body of literature including translations of Greek authors substituted "Old Syriac" readings for the original Greek of, take for example, Cyril of Alexandria.

The answer to this question is very important so think carefully before responding.

Of the two factions he alluded to in the beginning of the quote, which one (Monophysite or Duophysite) would be translating the Greek compositions of Cyril of Alexandria?

Which one, the monophysites in Byzantium....or the duophysites in Persia, translated Gregory or Basil or any of the other Greek Byzantine fathers mentioned by Voobus?

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#3
See akhi this is how they play with your head because they are counting on that the average person is unaware of these things, and sad to say they are right most of the time.

I would venture to bet that if it were announced on television that Osama bin Laden was influenced by Imam Moussa al-Kadhim while growing up, or that he celebrates Newruz or whips his body on Ashoura... that ninety nine percent of people wouldn't know any better..

It's sad but true and Voobus knew better and could've/should've been more specific but then again he would not have made this apparently wonderful discovery now would he?

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#4
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhan Kevin.

Following is a multiple choice question.

Voobus mentioned the split into factions (monophysite/duophysite) of the "Syriac" speaking "Christians", and the body of literature produced afterward of translations of Cyril of Alexandria, et al.

He mentions that this body of literature including translations of Greek authors substituted "Old Syriac" readings for the original Greek of, take for example, Cyril of Alexandria.

The answer to this question is very important so think carefully before responding.

Of the two factions he alluded to in the beginning of the quote, which one (Monophysite or Duophysite) would be translating the Greek compositions of Cyril of Alexandria?

Which one, the monophysites in Byzantium....or the duophysites in Persia, translated Gregory or Basil or any of the other Greek Byzantine fathers mentioned by Voobus?

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

Peace and Blessings,

The answer is all of the above


The Nestorian heresy, as we have already remarked, spread rapidly in Syria before the middle of the V century, and a great part of the learned and literary men of the school of Edessa embraced it, and were the agents for the conversion of the Persians to its doctrines. The foremost among them were Barsauma, Narsi, and Abraham and John of Beth-Rabban; who, when exiled from Syria, were made bishops in Persia, and founded there the famous Nestorian schools, from which went forth the swarms of mission- aries to found in Hindustan, Tartary, China, Africa and Arabia colonies which flourished for many centuries, and some even down to modern times. Connected with Nestorianism is the change which studies under- went in Syria during the V century. The national Eastern spirit came more and more under the influence of Greek learning; a change which widened the scope of Syrian studies and brought them into connection with the classic world of thought, as they gradually became acquainted with the entire Greek encyclopaedia. .....This school of the Persians obtained a world-wide reputation, and contained in its teaching body the ablest of Syrian "litterati." When the Nestorian heresy broke out, the leaders of the school were the strong supporters of Nestorius and Theodore of Mop- suestia and the bitterest opponents of Cyrill. Bishop Rabulas was obliged to expel them from Syria; but, when in 435 Ibas, one of their own party, succeeded Rabulas, they were recalled from Persia. They circulated syriac versions of the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, to whose authority they appealed.


As we can see, the "nestorians" enjoyed their Greeks also. But what is it now, Paul? Is this author wrong too?

Bibliography

Frothingham Jr, A.L. "Historical Sketch of Syriac Literature and Culture." American Journal of Philology 5.2 (1884): 31 Mar 2010
Reply
#5
So the quotes in diodore and Theodore's writings....please provide examples where old Syriac quotes were used.

We had three Greeks yes, centuries after they died.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#6
Paul Younan Wrote:So the quotes in diodore and Theodore's writings....please provide examples where old Syriac quotes were used.

We had three Greeks yes, centuries after they died.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

Paul Younan Wrote:So the quotes in diodore and Theodore's writings....please provide examples where old Syriac quotes were used.

We had three Greeks yes, centuries after they died.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

Peace and Blessings,

Paul, with all due respect, I need you to stop switching points. First you want me to face the "fact" that only monophysites would consult the Greek Fathers, now you've switched to demanding proof for Veta Syra quotes in the translations of the two above writings. Going from A to B, when A is still in discussion, is a typical case of the red herring fallacy.

Perhaps your strategy is to exhaust me by remaining elusive.

The point here is that although "Nestorians" and "monophysites" disagreed about the nature of Jesus, they engaged in many of the same activities, such as translating every Greek in sight:

A large portion of extant Syrian literature consists of translations of Greek Christian writings???almost all important Christian authors and documents written in Greek were translated by Syrians. This mass of Greco-Syrian translated literature is an essential source for works of Greek Christian literature that have not survived in their original language. Many secular works also were translated into Syriac, including most of the works of Aristotle and other ancient Greek philosophers, as well as the writings of the chief medical and scientific authors of ancient Greece. These translations were critical to the rise of Islamic civilization, since most Greek works were translated from Syriac into Arabic rather than directly from Greek. For instance, to take the works of Galen alone, 130 were translated into Arabic from Syriac but only 9 directly from Greek originals. It was through the medium of Syriac that many works of Greek learning exerted their influence on the Islamic world.

After all, most of the Islamic philosophical activity would not be possible without the help of the School of Nisibis, which was well-acquainted with the works of Aristotle and the like.

But you know this.

The question that interests you most is whether your side of the Syriac-speaking church ever employed the Old Syriac. But before the fifth century, there was no side; the Church was united. So the burden is on you to show that in a united Church, "the Assyrians" alone possessed and regularly used the Peshitta while "everybody else" used the Diatessaron and Old Syriac.

Anyway, we know that this same united church evangelized the Armenian and Georgian nations before the Great Split and provided them scriptures before it; in doing so, they chose the Old Syriac (alongside fresh Greek codices). Moreover, the Diatessaron was also widely used in this united Church and as we expect, there is an Armenian translation thereof. If the CoE, since the beginning, possessed and regarded the Peshitta as the original, God-breathed, Apostle-given text, then we would (1) expect a continuous, strong resistance to the Old Syriac and Diatessaron from clergyman (which would probably be large enough to cause an early "Great text-schism") and (2) expect multiple translations of the Peshitta into other languages, especially into those of nations that the CoE evangelized. But we do not find either.

As a sidenote, we must consider what is in the margins of the Harklean version. Therein, Thomas of Harkel writes that he adopted words that are not in "that old Syriac." We must assume that "that old Syriac" was highly regarded and widely used since his readers understood this (now) vague expression. Here, he is referring to Matt 27:35, 28:8, Mark 8:17, and Luke 20:34. If the Peshitta was "that old Syriac," then in all cases, it would be in disagreement with Harkel's readings. But Luke 20:34 reads the same in both versions. Therefore, the Peshitta cannot be "that old Syriac." However, the Old Syriac manscripts (sin) fulfills this requirement. Interestingly enough, this is the same manuscript that was heavily employed for in the Armenian Bible, unlike the Peshitta.

I know that you're tempted to focus only on Thomas of Harqel's theological position. The point of the sidenote is to strengthen the argument that the Old Syriac was, at least, highly regarded enough to be referred to in Syriac literature. Other than Aphraates and Ephrem' pre-peshitta readings, which many scholars theorized to be archaic readings stemming from the original Old Syriac mss, you are hard pressed to find a single reference to the Peshitta before the fifth century.

For the "Nestorian" Church to have supposedly received the Peshitta from the Apostles themselves, does this not strike you as odd?

Bibliography

"Syriac literature." Encyclop??dia Britannica. 2010. Encyclop??dia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578980/Syriac-literature>.

H.P. Hatch, William. "To What Syriac Version or Versions of the Gospels Did Thomas of Harqel Refer in His Margin?." Journal of Biblical Literature, 65.4 (1946): 31 Mar 2010.
Reply
#7
Don't bother Akhan Rafa. Apparentely we are to explain the actions of the Syriacs as well.

I don't know Kevin. You will need to ask the Syriacs these questions. I can't speak for Syriacs. I've never met any. As far as I can tell they are Greek primacist so you should have an easy time.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#8
Rather than "argument from authority" why dont you show us these Vetus Syra type quotes?

Have you yourself actually looked at them?
In a recent thread you when I asked you a question you directed me to a book by G Kiraz (IIRC). When I asked you if you had read it you ignored me. Leading me to suspect you had not.

Let me ask you plainly , have you yourself examined this evidence? Have you ytourself looked at these quotes?
If so can you post some here so we can see?

thanks
Reply
#9
judge Wrote:Rather than "argument from authority" why dont you show us these Vetus Syra type quotes?

Have you yourself actually looked at them?
In a recent thread you when I asked you a question you directed me to a book by G Kiraz (IIRC). When I asked you if you had read it you ignored me. Leading me to suspect you had not.

Let me ask you plainly , have you yourself examined this evidence? Have you ytourself looked at these quotes?
If so can you post some here so we can see?

thanks

Peace and Blessings,

Judge, let me get this straight: you're asking me to sacrifice hours from my limited days to somehow access ancient Syriac translations of the Greek Fathers and circle out Old Syriac quotations for your pleasure without payment? If you paid me enough, I'll even throw in solving the Da Vinci code and untie the Gorgian knot for you. Regardless, whether I've personally read the Old Syriac text in these works or not is irrelevant to my argument.
Reply
#10
Kara Wrote:Regardless, whether I've personally read the Old Syriac text in these works or not is irrelevant to my argument.

All you have done is set up a straw man then knocked it down. Do you know what a strawman is Kevin?
Reply
#11
Rafa Wrote:What? Everybody is doing that here Kevin. But don't worry, you won't find any (I'll save you time), except maybe with the Jacobites who were on the other side of the border and couldn't talk with the COE which was in Persia (Nisibis) not Antioch . And they themselves rejected old Syriac. They are also Greek primacists even though they use the Western peshitta.

Peace and Blessings,

You and Paul repeatedly mention this centuries-old feud. I am ill-acquainted with the enmity between Jacobites and Nestorians. I understand that the underlying problem between the two groups is theological. Do you know what happens to a house divided?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)