Tue Jan 28 15:06:54 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 28 15:06:54 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA24113; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:06:02 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <199701281924.OAA107200@f01n05.cac.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:04:49 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1350

William Petersen (wlp1@psu.edu) gave a useful summary of literature on
the date of the Peshitta, but I don't see how it helps much. None
of it gives us any evidence that we didn't already have: That the
version was in existence in the fifth century, and that there
don't seem to have been any traces of it (for the NT, anyway) before
that.

This seems to put us in the situation of the Oxford Debate of a
century ago, where the question of Byzantine authority rested largely
on the date of the Peshitta -- placed c. 175 by some and c. 425
by others. To me, this is a fairly crucial question -- if good grounds
can be adduced for an early date for the Peshitta, then the question
of the Byzantine text of the gospels will need to be seriously
rethought. (It won't affect, say, the Paulines as much, since there
the Peshitta is not as heavily Byzantine.)

So I would ask again: Is there any evidence available which actually
fixes the date of the Peshitta, other than the date of the earliest
manuscripts?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back