Subject: Re: tc-list Text-Type of Old Syriac

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:44:18 -0500

Burkitt's position, in his edition of the Curetonian Syriac Ms of the
Gospels (one of the two Old Syriac manuscripts), was that it is an
inconsistent witness to the Western text form.  -Rod Mullen

At 08:22 AM 3/2/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I am concerned by a statement I recently read in Wikenhauser's, New
>Testament Introduction (ET, 1958) :
>
>"In recent times, however, competent textual critics (Burkitt, Lake,
>Kenyon, and others) have insisted that the Old Syriac Gospel text does not
>belong to the Western form" (p. 142).
>
>This is contrary to the usual discussions of the Western witnesses I am
>familiar with, e.g. most recently Eldon J. Epp listed the Old Syriac
>version as a witness in his article on "Western Text" in the Anchor Bible
>Dictionary.  My question to the list is:  Are there scholars today who
>_DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type.
>
>Doug Salmon
>[email-masked]
>

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:20:32 +0200

>_DON'T_ feel that the Old Syriac is a witness to the Western text-type.

The question is not a simple one.  It would be best to go back and see to
what from Burkitt, Lake and Kenyon, Wikenhauser is referring.

One problem is (as Bob Waltz pointed out) that there is no definition as to
what the "Western Text" is.  Is it Bezae?  Is it the Vetus Latina?  Is it
the Vetus Syra itself?  This lack of a definition makes any "tight"
categorization of the Vetus Syra difficult.

A second problem is:  even if one had such a definition ("the Western Text
= Codex Bezae"), then what would it take to "be" Western?  90% agreement?
50% agreement?  And agreement in what?  Variants?  Harmonizations?  All
readings?

A third problem is:  what part of the gospels are you talking about?
Certain pericopes are "more" in agreement with Bezae (if that is the
standard of reference), and others are less.

If one takes (as I do) agreements among at least two of the following (but
the more the better) as a "marker" (artificial designator of;  the point at
which I deem something worthy of a closer look) for the Western text--

-non-Alexandrian, non-Byzantine,
-deviating readings in Codex Bezae,
-deviating readings in the Vetus Latina,
-deviating readings in the Vetus Syra,
-deviating early Patristic readings (pre-250 or so),
-deviating readings from early apocryphal works (also roughly pre-250), and
-deviating readings in Diatessaronic witnesses

--then the Vetus Syra is obviously, by definition, "Western," for it has
significant agreements with all of these witnesses.

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