[textualcriticism] Re: Peshitta confluence with the GreekTR/Byzantine
- Hi Folks,
Wieland Willker -
I don't know if this discussion leads to anything.
That is a big question in itself. Personally I think having the basic data about
a major textline precedes the formulations of theories about the line. How the
data is used will really vary enormously.
We all know that Sy-P is about 75-80% Byzantine.
Thanks for confirming the results of my study.
I do wonder if your statement above will be considered "spin" ?
And since "we all know" (not sure who this "we" is, I surely had no fixed figure
available before the study) could you point me to any writings available where this
figure was previously given ? That would be very, very helpful. Not everybody
has your background, Wieland, however even among those that do, I would be
curious to see where this figure was given and known previously in the scholastics.
And perhaps a study that showed that the percent was greater in the Gospels
and Acts (and consistent in those books) and pointed out that 1 Timothy had
significantly greater Peshitta-Alexandrian confluence and that Revelation was c
lose to equal. ?
The dispute is about the DATE of the version.
And I did talk about that some, and consider it a fascinating topic.
When Burkitt moved the date to the 4th century he did it on a theory of Rabbula
as Peshitta author, and I think that gets less defence today than even the
Lucian recension theory.
On the other hand, the Peshitta Primacists appeal to Aphrahat as using a
Peshitta text, however it is not at all clear that their scholarship in this
regard is substantive.
If anyone feels they have managed to study these issues and can share and
can avoid the pitfalls, it would be a fascinating topic.
Let's keep in mind the possibility of Alexandrian circularity.
That could offer an argument that on careful analysis boils down to:
"The Peshitta was translated late because the Byzantine text was late
and the Peshitta is quite close to the Byzantine text."
I also wonder if anyone would attempt to unravel the curious issue about the
Harklean Acts supposedly being based on Codex Bezae. Am I the only
one who questions something like that when it is written ? (Whether or not
F. H. A. Scrivener was being accurately represented .. I do not know).
Isn't something like that rather major and fundamental in terms of our
ability to parse scholarship claims properly.
Unless you have something substantial to say about this, stop continue arguing on-list, please.
I'll try, however I think I have a responsibility to point out some incongruities and diversions
and lack of focus of most of the responses, other than that of Wieland.
Please remember; the issue started simply, Albion asked a few questions about
the Peshitta, and I simply tried to give him some substantive starting information
of value about the nature of the Peshitta text.
There were a couple of other posts that were really used my post to springboard to
totally different topics or avoid the substantive issues. And one somehow missed the
fact that I clearly indicated in the very post responded to that I have and claim no Syriac
language background ... and another that went into pre-canned one-dimensional flights
of confusion about the Vulgate and the King James Bible ... quite a different topic.
(Even in that discussion the real issue is the influence of the Vulgate, the Old Latin
and the early church writers combined upon the TR text with special attention on the
nature of such variants .. it is essentially the classic Byzantine/TR discussion
mixed up into a political direction).
So far nobody has offered a substantive argument why my study of the 180 variants
would be any different if done in the native languages, or any problems in my methodology.
Or explained why language expertise might be claimed as necessary for such a study
of major variants, especially those that are largely "include/omit" and where the variant
can be seen clearly in the target language.
However the buzz did spur me to consider one point I had omitted :
the "ultra-absurd" group of Alexandrian variants that do not make the NA text.
And therefore that could increase the amount of Peshitta-TR confluence.
However trying to quantify that has some problems.
First such variants are hidden from public view and rarely discussed.
Where are the missing straight-line translation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ?
Why is this not available after all these years and so many textcrit experts ?
And ultra-absurd variants would be more likely to be split within the two major Alexandrian
text manuscripts (in fact in general, the Alexandrian text is the only factor of the three
that has such issues of significant internal split). Sincer ultra-absurdities have a short
So there would be a fair amount of effort trying to fill these gaps and coming up with
a methodology. e.g. If Vaticanus is ultra-absurd but Sinaiticus goes in some other
direction, how would that be weighed ?
- I just counted the number of agreements between Byz and Syr-p using a
data matrix I made from the UBS4 apparatus of Hebrews. Of 31 places
where both have a well-defined state, 18 agree. According to this
sample, the amount of agreement between Byz ans Syr-p is 58%.
- Tim Finney wrote<< I just counted the number of agreements between Byz and Syr-p using a data matrix I made from the UBS4 apparatus of Hebrews. Of 31 places
where both have a well-defined state, 18 agree. According to this sample, the amount of agreement between Byz ans Syr-p is 58%.
>>Could you please do that same comparison for Codex Alexandrinus to Byzantine?Schmuel wanted more context for some of my quotations from Scrivener's book.Regarding interpolations, Page 8, second paragraph: "The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian Faith [the same thing Scrivener called Codex Sinaiticus by the way, in his collation of Sinaiticus] was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I.... This beautiful book, the different portions of which have separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jocobite Church lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, as was natural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage of John vii. 53--viii. 11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 35; Acts viii. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; I John v. 7,8. It omits Luke xxii. 17, 18, see Chap. XII on the passage. This editio princeps of the Peshitto New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone."On p. 10, "Bp. Walton's, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords us little more than a reprint of Sionita's Syriac text, with Trost's various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John vii. 53--viii. 11."David Robert Palmer
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David Robert Palmer"
> Could you please do that same comparison for Codex Alexandrinus to
>The Byz:A dissimilarity (simple matching) is 0.39, which translates to
a percentage agreement of 61%. You can see the data and dissimilarity
matrices I used to get these results here:
(Look for the table called "Example matrices (Hebrews).")