Subject: tc-list Date of the Peshitta (My last word....)

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:02:18 -0500 (CDT)

Given the all-too-personal level of the debate on the date of the
Peshitta (to which I know I have contributed -- my apologies), I am
going to bow out of the discussion. I would like, however, to make
a last statement. I then leave last words to others. :-)

I went through eleven sources last night, checking their dates for
the Peshitta. The earliest (Hort, Scrivener; also references in
Metzger) give early dates. The nine who wrote in the twentieth
century all give dates in the fourth or (more usually) fifth
century.

Several, however, are more particular, and they all mention the
same three dates:

* 373 - Death of Ephraem, who did not use the Peshitta
* 411 - Consecration of Rabbula, sometimes credited with creating
        and/or promulgating the Peshitta (Voobus, however, gives
        evidence that Rabulla did not produce the Peshitta)
* 431 - Schism in the Syriac church.

The most specific sources all date the Peshitta between 373 and 431.
The reason for the latter date is obvious. Since both sides in the
schism used the Peshitta, it must have been in use by then.

The early date is based on Ephraem's writings. Ephraem did not
use the Peshitta (preferring the Diatessaron and the Old Syriac).
Thus it follows that the Peshitta was not the official version
in his time.

So the consensus is that the Peshitta dates from the late fourth or
early fifth century. And certainly it must predate 431.

Does the fact that Ephraem does not use it mean it must be later
than 373? I don't think that is certain, though it is likely enough.
Ephraem may have been conservative, or the Peshitta may simply not
have reached him in his lifetime. After all, I never quote the
King James Version, yet it is demonstrably 350 years older than
I am. :-)

I would also argue that the widespread acceptance of the Peshitta in
431 argues that it is considerably older than that date.

Note that none of this constitutes proof. A fifth century date is
certainly possible. But so is a fourth century date.

And with that I am done. I don't have the expertise to say more.

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

                        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)