Subject: Re: Syr Peshitta

From: "David G.K. Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:16:29 GMT

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. 

You might want to look at:

P.B. Dirksen, "The OT Peshitta", in M.J. Mulder, ed 'Mikra: Text, 
Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible', 1988 
pp.255-97.

B.M. Metzger, 'The Early Versions of the New Testament' (Oxford 
1977) pp.48-63.

Yours,

David Taylor

*********************************************************************
Dr David G.K.Taylor               email: [email-masked]
Department of Theology,       tel:   0121-414 5666
University of Birmingham,    fax:   0121-414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT,
U.K.
*********************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:41:28 -0700

>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.

It's clear that the Peshitta can't be much later than 425, since both
halves of the Syriac church (which split not long after that) used
it.

The same is implied by the fact that the Peshitta omits the shorter
Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, which were more and more widely
accepted as the fifth century proceeded.

But, in fact, that latter argument would imply a date somewhat
earlier for the NT Peshitta. By 425, the current canon seems to
have been universally accepted; the only questions lay about a
few apocryphal works such as Barnabas and Hermas.

It's true that scholars such as Ephraim did not use the Peshitta --
but they didn't always use the Old Syriac, either, and we *know*
that was in existence by their time. All the evidence of Ephraim
shows is that the Peshitta had not overtaken the Diatessaron by
his time.

So what firm evidence is there that the Peshitta is from the
early fifth century? The fact that the "manuscript trail" begins
then? That's hardly proof -- our earliest manuscript of the letters
to Timothy is fourth century, but no one that I know of would say
they were written then!

Is there any evidence, other than that of text-type and manuscripts,
to date the Peshitta to the fifth century? (And is the evidence
such that someone who has no syriac can understand it? :-)

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

                            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)