Subject: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text....

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:34:10 +0100

Robert Waltz now writes:

>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.

This is quite different that your earlier statement:

>Also usually dated to the fourth century
>(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on
>the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac...

It is sometimes beneficial to consult sources *before* zipping off a reply...

As you now indicate, the consensus date is early fifth cent., not "the
fourth century," as in your earlier post today (pardon my grumpiness, but
while a century here..., a century there..., may not seem much to some, to
others a mistake of about 25% of the possible range [100-500 CE] is not a
minor matter...).

Your remark that "where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and
early V is slight" is absurd.  There is evidence, and it is in the studies
of Voeoebus (esp. his "Investigations into the Text of the New Testament
used by Rabbula" in *Contributions of the Baltic University [Pinneburg]* 59
[1947]), and many others (e.g., M. Black in *Die alten Uebersetzungen des
Neuen Testaments,* ed. K. Aland;  Baarda in *VigChr* 14 [1960];  etc.).
Just because your are unfamilar with the evidence does not mean that it
does not exist.

Regarding the list of experts Waltz consulted ("UBS4, Methger, Souter,
Greenlee"), I (1) restore "Metzger" for "Methger" (pedant that I am), (2)
toss out UBS, for Metzger essentially = UBS, and (3) note that of this
list--to the best of my knowledge--only Metzger knows Syriac, and even he
would never describe himself an expert on the Syriac versions.  The novice
would be well advised to go to the sources, rather than rely on second-hand
opinions in Metzger--passed on third-hand, and incorrectly, at that.

>As far as the text goes, I found statements to the effect that
>the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger (_Early Versions_ 61)
>and Vaganay/Amphoux (p. 34).

I have Metzger's *Early Versions* open in front of me to p. 61, and no
statement even remotely suggesting that the Peshitta has a Byzantine type
of text is found on that page.  In fact, the only place the word
"Byzantine" even appears on the page is in the following quotation:

"It has been frequently stated that the type of text represented by the
Peshitta is what Hort designated the Syrian text and Ropes the
Antiochian--a form of text which also appears in the writings of John
Chrysostom and which eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus
Receptus."  Metzger footnotes von Soden for this analysis.

Anyone who can read English should be able to understand that (1) "the type
of text represented by the Peshitta is...a form...which *eventually
developed* into the Byzantine Textus Receptus" does not mean that the
Peshitta's text *is* Byzantine (Waltz: "I found statements to the effect
that the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger [_Early Versions_ 61]");  and (2)
Metzger's lead-in ("It has been frequently stated...") does *not* imply
that this is so;  indeed, it is often a rhetorical set-up for an inversion
(for example:  "It has been frequently stated that..., but as we now
know...").

Indeed, in the next sentence on the same page (p. 61), Metzger states:

"*Nevertheless,* in a considerable number of readings the Peshitta agrees
with one or other of *the pre-Syrian* Greek texts, *against the Antiochian
Fathers and the late Greek text.*"

His "Nevertheless" suggests exactly the opposite of the "It has been
frequently stated..." intro, and for his "the late Greek text," I presume
he is thinking of the Byzantine Text.

Metzger again, and on p. 61 again:

"In a detailed examination of Matt. chaps. i-xiv, Gwilliam [who edited the
Peshitta] found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times
and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it
differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the
Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances (almost one-fourth of the whole
number) it stands alone."

Or again (pp. 61f.):

"In a similar examination of the Peshitta text of Mark, Mrs. Downs
collected all significant readings in that Gospel where the Sinaitic Syriac
(the Curetonian manuscript fails almost completely for Mark) and the
Peshitta are identical, but where all other witnesses disagree.  Seventy
unique agreements were found.  She also drew up a list of agreements
between the Siani palimpsest and the Peshitta in Mark having some support
in Greek manuscripts or in other versions or both.  An analysis of the 135
reading of this list shows that 'in no case is the Neutral, Caesarean, or
Western the prime factor...Obviously Rabbula used a copy of the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe as the basis of his translation.'"

In short, not only does Metzger NOT say "the Peshitta is Byzantine" (to
quote Waltz's characterization of Metzger), Metzger three times, quoting
three separate studies STATES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

Ladies and gentlemen:  the net is free.  Anyone can say anything they want.
They can claim anything they want.  They can mischaracterize scholars like
Metzger at will, and without blushing.  They can say pigs fly.  But that
does not make it so, and that has nothing to do with scholarship.  I find
it incredible that, when one obviously cannot read a page of contemporary
English prose accurately, one would then presume to practise textual
criticism on ancient Greek texts.  It simply boggles the mind....

>I concede that the studies Metzger
>cites appear to be badly flawed methodologically. The results,
>however, seem to be solid. The table below shows the rate of
>agreement of the Peshitta with certain major witnesses to the
>Gospels. This is based on a sample of 811 readings
>
>Aleph 40%
>A     68%
>B     36%
>D     42%
>E     70%
>K     70%
>Gamma 68%
>Theta 57%
>Omega 69%
>fam 1 56%
>f 13  62%

Would you be so kind as to tell me how these statistics were derived?  Who
selected the variation units, what editions were used, and who decided on
the translation equivalencies between Greek and Syriac?  For example:  Is
the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*?

>It is obvious that the Peshitta is not purely Byzantine; in fact
>it has a long way to go. But it is much closer to that type than
>to any other.

This statement is simply not true.  It not only directly contradicts all
the studies cited second-hand by Metzger;  it is also inconsistent with the
direct experience of anyone who has *read* the Peshitta.  Its closest
textual relative is, as one might expect, the Old Syriac--hardly a
"Byzantine" Text.

I find this little episode illustrative of the type of information
frequently disseminated on this list. To describe it as grossly inaccurate
is to be charitable.  A self-described novice (Mr. Carson-Rowland) asks a
simple question;  he receives an answer which (1) deviates from the topic
(neither Carson-Rowland nor I raised the matter of the date of the
Peshitta;  Waltz volunteered it), (2) misdates the Peshitta (on the basis
of secondary literature, compiled from three named sources--two-thirds of
whom don't read Syriac) by a one-quarter of the possible range, and (3)
then repeatedly mischaracterizes its text ("Byzantine"), by displaying (4)
an inability to read simple English.

The net is free, folks, and you certainly get what you pay for.

--Petersen, Penn State University,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:03:57 -0500 (CDT)

On  Wed, 22 Oct 1997, [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
wrote:

(To the best of my ability, I will reply without sarcasm. I hope
the Christians on this list will pardon what I expect will be
occasional failings in that regard.)

>It is sometimes beneficial to consult sources *before* zipping off a reply...

I admit that I did not remember every source. I will also admit
that I tried to apply a little logic: If we have manuscripts
(plural) from the fifth century, that seems to imply a date
somewhat earlier.

I still don't think the difference between "IV" and "early V" is of
great importance here. It *would* be of importance if we could assign
an exact date -- but so far I haven't seen any firm evidence
on the subject. The difference, as I see it, falls within our
margin for error.

BTW -- do you (Petersen) have more information on the subject, or
has anyone else something to add? Is there evidence not cited
which *does* reflect on the date of the Peshitta? It still sounds
to me as if we cannot assign a minimum date.

[ ... ]

>opinions in Metzger--passed on third-hand, and incorrectly, at that.

I agree that Metzger is responsible for much of the information here.
Obviously that does not automatically mean he's right. But on the other
hand, his are the most important manuals on the subject available to
beginners. This makes it reasonable to consult them -- and
reasonable to correct them if wrong.

>Receptus."  Metzger footnotes von Soden for this analysis.

To my mind, this is saying that the sources Metzger consulted called
the text Byzantine. 

>that the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger [_Early Versions_ 61]");

This is incomprehensible to me. I understand the words, but I simply
do not see the point. The Byzantine Text is not a unity -- 2500 or
so manuscripts that all have exactly identical wording. The obvious
reading of Metzger's words is that the Peshitta possesses a text
similar to the early form of the Byzantine text.

>and (2)

This, frankly, is irrelevant.

In reading the following paragraphs in Metzger, he *draws no
conclusions.* He makes no attempt to rebut the various studies.
He merely summarizes their results. The statement at the top
of the page (paraphrased) is that many have said the Peshitta
is Byzantine.

Unless, perhaps, Petersen is objecting that Hort's Syrian text
is not the Byzantine text?

>Fathers and the late Greek text.*"

I believe that is what *I* said. The Peshitta approaches the Byzantine
text; it is not identical.

>number) it stands alone."

Observations: First, this is bad methodology (as one would expect
in 1903 :-). But note that P agrees with the TR more than with B.
Subtracting the 31 instances where P stands alone, and it is closer
to the TR than anything else.

>da-Mepharreshe as the basis of his translation.'"

I can't see that this says *anything* about the Byzantine text.

[ ... ] 

>Metzger at will, and without blushing.

As we see when Petersen mischaracterizes me.

[ ... ]

>the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*?

As for the reading base, we've been over this before. (Wasn't it Petersen
who referred us to earlier discussions on the list about the Byzantine
text? Remember, that's what we're SUPPOSED to be talking about.)

I don't claim any knowledge of Syriac. I simply took the data from
UBS and NA26.  If that data is inaccurate, is there a source which
offers corrections?

>textual relative is, as one might expect, the Old Syriac--hardly a

Textual relative or linguistic relative? There is a difference. I am
willing to believe that the Peshitta "reads like" the Old Syriac. But the
same could be said, e.g., of the relationship between the King James
Version and the English Revised Version. The ERV sounded like the
KJV. But at textually significant points, the two differ strongly.

It seems to me this could also be true of the Peshitta.

>Peshitta;  Waltz volunteered it),

In connection with the date of the Byzantine text -- in connection
with which it is significant. There was even a debate around the turn
of the century in which the date of the Peshitta was the crucial
evidence.

Enough. I would love to respond to this post in the tone it was
offered, but that is not the purpose of this list.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:41:39 -0500

> the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*?

    This reminds me of an interesting question that has crossed my mind
a
number of times as it relates to TC.  <aram>m$twt) is a synonym for
"Wedding" and "Banquet" *only* in the Aramaic and this has led to Greek
variants from the synonymous choices.  Since only the single Aramaic
synomym encompasses the Greek variants, and the context of the Aramaic
leads to "Banquet" as the preferred reading.....perhaps probative of the

Lukan use of an Aramaic source....does TC consider this type of
apparatus
in the quest for the original reading?

    A similar parallel could be the Aramaic xowbyn/Greek OFEILEIMATA
in the Matthean LP as "Debts" where only the Aramaic is also an idiom
for "sin."  Luke seems to know this since he renders AMARTIAJ in the
first half of the petition and returns to OFEILONTI (participial) in the

second half...another hint that Luke was competent in Aramaic and saw
fit
to "explain" the idiom.  This would indicate that "sin/sinners" is the
preferred reading.  Another clue for the original reading?

    I realize that TC can only utilize the extant GREEK witnesses in
determination of preferred readings but surely some weight should be
given to Greek variants that converge to one single reading in Aramaic
which could weigh in favor of a "preferred reading."

Comments?

Jack

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon ([email-masked])

 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Oct 1997 20:15:36 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Without going into the date of the Peshitta, I would like to
nuance the discussion of its textual affinities.

[email-masked] wrote:
> Peshitta's text *is* Byzantine

What I read Metzger reporting as "frequently stated" is that the Peshitta
was of the Alpha text type, in its 4th-6th century form (or forms).
The fact that this text type only *developed* into the Byzantine TR later on
doesn't mean that it isn't Byzantine because it isn't the TR.
Equating the Alpha text with the TR instead of Chrysostom+A(evv.)+Gothic is
a frequently seen confusion, (missing the date by 80% of the possible range).
A millenium here, a millenium there, pretty soon it adds up to real money!
                                                                       :-)

> that this is so;  indeed, it is often a rhetorical set-up for an inversion...

Perhaps often, but in this case it looks like Metzger is balancing or
moderating the force of the assertion.  Summarized conclusions such as:

   "The Peshitta [of Galatians] contains several readings that cannot
    be traced entirely to a Greek original represented by the Textus Receptus."

are not resounding denials.  The results from Gwilliam and Downs are
disappointingly slanted in how they report their numbers (not sure where
they fall in the spectrum of lies ... statistics), but what they do establish
is that the Peshitta Gospels exhibit a substantial number of unusual readings
shared with the Old Syriac, along with an affinity to the Alpha text type.
The Alands' summary is appropriate:

   "The very presence of Old Syriac readings in the Peshitta proves
   that it was not a new version but the result of a revision (or revisions)
   of a form of the Old Syriac text following an exemplar of a
   (mainly) Koine type text."        (Text of the NT, p. 197)

> not only does Metzger NOT say "the Peshitta is Byzantine"...
>                               ...Metzger three times, quoting

Perhaps one reason this impression could have been formed is the
older view that textual affinity is determinable from a modest number of
shared unusual readings.  This is particularly striking to
"anyone who has *read* the Peshitta" because the unusual readings
jump out to the eye.  In the presence of mixture, this kind of evidence
is problematic, and these days more convincing results are often
obtained working from Colwell's requirement that affinity be proved
by agreement in a large majority of *all* readings.

I'd be interested in learning the relative preponderance of the Old Syriac
and Alpha text ingredients in the Peshitta mixture, as determined by
modern methods.  The Gwilliam study I'll try to find, but I shouldn't
build up my hopes for what it will prove.
Any other suggested sources in print?

> frequently disseminated on this list.

Another thing you'll frequently notice on the net is the
itchy trigger finger on the flamethrower.

Vincent Broman                                       San Diego, California, USA
Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home)       or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work)
Phone: +1 619 284 3775                       Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W
=== PGP protected mail preferred.   For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil ===