Subject: Re: tc-list A query: the date of the Peshitta

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:59:33 -7000

Bob Waltz wrote:
> >Would you be kind enough to name the sources which describe the Peshitta as
> >"fourth cent." and "Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence of
> >the [text] type"?
> 
> As for the Peshitta, the consensus of the texts I checked (UBS4,
> Methger _Introduction_ and _Early Versions_, Souter, Greenlee,
> etc.) gives a date of IV or early V (my spot check surprised me
> by revealing more support for "early V" than I thought, but
> where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and
> early V is slight). It cannot be later than V, as we have
> manuscripts from that era.
> 
> If anyone has other evidence as to the date, I would
> welcome it.

Up to the days of Westcott and Hort, the Peshitta was thought to be 
second-century, and in fact Burgon and others used it as evidence 
that the Byzantine text-type was just as old as the "Neutral."  I 
don't remember who it was that proposed the later date - Streeter 
comes to mind, but don't quote me on that - but I do remember that it 
looked (and at times still looks) suspiciously like redating in order 
to accomodate the WH theory of the time.  I'm not saying it is or it 
isn't, so I won't don my flame-proof suit at this time, I'm just 
saying that the accusation was made from various quarters, and the 
accusation may not be totally without merit.
Dave Washburn
[email-masked]
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:29:22 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, [email-masked] wrote:

[ ... ]

>accusation may not be totally without merit.

Just for the record, Metzger says that it was Burkett who proposed
the more recent date for the Peshitta. And I agree -- it *does*
look suspiciously like redating to fit the textual theory.
Which is why I mentioned the point. :-)

Of course, we should acknowledge that the Sinai Syriac was
discovered after the time of W&H.

Again, if someone has solid *evidence* as to the date of the
Peshitta (except for the fact that it's from before 450),
I'd love to hear about it.

[email-masked] also wrote:

>It's been a while since I've seen this come up: what's the current 
>state of Harry Sturz' research, in which he found numerous 
>"Byzantine" readings in very early papyri?  As I recall he wasn't 
>arguing for Byzantine priority, but was saying that the presence of 
>readings that have been considered purely Byzantine in the early 
>papyri means that Byzantine readings should be given equal 
>consideration with other text-types for application of internal 
>evidence.  Do his conclusions about such readings in the papyri still 
>stand, or have they been disproven?

The problem with Sturz is that his methodology is bad. It does no
good to prove that certain Byzantine readings are old. (The
simple fact is that the vast majority of Byzantine readings are
old, because they are places where there is no variation in the
text. :-)

What Sturz did was provide a list of Byzantine readings that are
older than we thought. But he could not offer any evidence of
a manuscript prior to those mentioned which was *purely Byzantine.*
Thus his work did nothing to advance the theoretical discussion.
(Except, perhaps, to prove that the Byzantine text is more
conservative than we thought: Almost all its readings are
derived from earlier materials.)

We can't prove Sturz wrong; we can't prove the Majority Text
advocates wrong. You can't prove that something doesn't exist,
only that it *does* exist.  But I, at least, do not find his
arguments convincing.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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