Tue Jan 28 13:12:55 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 28 13:12:55 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA22446; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:12:13 -0500
From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us
Message-Id: <199701281810.LAA07639@wavecom.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:05:55 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1345

Robert Waltz wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, "David G.K. Taylor"  wrote:
> 
> >The first date given, 175, is an approximate date for the completion of 
> >the OT Peshitta (although different books / groups of books were 
> >translated by different people at different dates) and 425 is an 
> >approximate date for the completion of the NT Peshitta. 
> 
> Just to play devil's advocate here, I think we need to take this as
> slightly less than certain. I'd like to ask a few questions, since
> the date of the Peshitta could affect our assessment of the Byzantine
> text.
[snip]

It's my understanding from reading Metzger and several others that 
the Byzantine character of the Peshitta is the main reason eclectics 
concluded it couldn't be second century (I know this is grossly 
oversimplified).  As I recall, and somebody correct me if necessary, 
during the WH age Burgon and others pointed to the Peshitta as 
evidence that the "Syrian" text couldn't be as late and secondary as 
WH said it was, and within about 20 years the Peshitta had been 
redated to the 5th century.  That has always kinda made me wonder...

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"One of the things I've learned during my short
sojourn on this planet is that I am underqualified
to stay serious very long."  -Phil Callaway

Back