Subject: Syr Peshita

From: [email-masked] (William Petersen)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:24:10 -0500

On the date of the Peshitta, see:

A. Voeoebus, _Early Versions of the NT_, PETSE 6 (Stockholm 1954), pp.
88-104, or his article
"Investigations into the Text of the NT Used by Rabbula," in _Contributions
of Baltic University_ (sic!), 59 (1947), pp. 1-39.  Voeoebus was the modern
master of the Syriac versions.  (Rabbula figures large in this issue, for
Burkitt suggested that Rabbula translated the Peshitta--a view which is now
rejected, because of the empirical textual evidence in Rabbula's own
writings, and in his biography [see below].)

See also Tj. Baarda, "The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula," _VigChr_
14 (1960), pp. 102-127 (also in his first collection of collected articles,
_Early Transmission of the Words of Jesus_, pp. 11-36).  Using Baarda's
textual leg-work, M. Black wrote a good over-view of the Syriac versions in
K. Aland's _Die alten Uebersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die
Kirchenvaeterzitate und Lektionare_ , ANTT 5 (1972), pp. 120-159.  Metzger's
_The Early Versions of the NT_ gives a (second-hand) summary of findings, as
of the date of that book (1977).

B. Aland and the team working on _Das neue Testament in syrischer
Ueberlieferung_ have, in the second volume especially, come to conclusions
about the genesis of the Peshitta (II. Die Paulinischen Briefe, Teil 1...
[1991]):  see pp. 48-52.  (I summarized the findings in my review of the
volume in JBL 111 [1992], pp. 555-558:  the Peshitta of the Paulines does
not seem to have gone through [the usual, expected] period of development
normally associated with a version;  there is a high degree of uniformity
among the MSS;  the form of the Peshitta was settled in the beginning of the
fifth century).  Baarda's findings generally corroborate these results:  in
Rabbula's biography (mid-fifth cent. [probably between 436 and 457]), the
author used a text which was NOT the Peshitta.  Baarda concludes, therefore,
that "the Peshitta was not the official text of Edessa before the end of the
fifth century" (p. 34 in the book version of the piece).  The actual date of
translation is unknown.  As some other list member noted, the Diatessaron
(c. 172) is generally accepted as the first translation of the gospels into
Syriac;  the two Old Syriac MSS seem to represent two separate attempts to
render the separate gospels in Syriac;  the Peshitta was a still later
attempt (which built on these earlier translations), and is often called the
Syriac Vulgate.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

>I am no expert on the ancient versions.  I have read a little as to whether 
>the date of the Peshita is c.175 or 425.  Everyone seems to disagree.  
>Can someone help me in this matter?
>
>
>--
>Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
>Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
>
>
>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:04:49 -0700

William Petersen ([email-masked]) 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
                         [email-masked]

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)