Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Aramaic Primacists and the Peshitta

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Dear Albion, My view is that all of the books of the NT were originally written in Greek. However, research into Aramaic and Syriac forms of the text are
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Albion,

      My view is that all of the books of the NT were originally written in
      Greek. However, research into Aramaic and Syriac forms of the text
      are valuable, especially in the Gospels and Acts and wherever else
      Aramaic oral traditions and/or Aramaic source-literature may have
      existed before the Biblical books were composed.

      If one were to adjust the Aramaic Primacists' approach so as to argue
      for the existence of Aramaic source-materials, instead of Aramaic
      originals of the books themselves, their arguments would be better
      received. As a whole, I think that what the Aramaic Primacists have
      noticed and misinterpreted amount to the following:

      (1) relics of an Aramaic Sayings-source used by Matthew (which was
      translated into Greek, and then used in its Greek form by Luke).
      (2) Relics of the Diatessaron.
      (3) Syriasms in Western witnesses.
      (4) Places where Greek copyists and Syriac translators both desired
      to "improve" perceived difficulties in the Greek text.

      Basically, when I attempt to connect the dots, as identified by
      Matthew Black and others, it seems a lot easier to form a picture of
      what I've just described than to form a picture of Aramaic originals
      of the books.

      Which, again, is not to say that it is not worthwhile to explore the
      possible impact of Aramaic and Syriac material on the production and
      transmission of the text. Some variant-units seem to have origins
      which are opaque except for where the impact of Aramaic or Syriac
      seems to shine through. Mark 8:10 might be one example of this.
      Here's what J. Rendel Harris had to say about it, in "A Study of
      Codex Bezae" (1893), in a chapter titled, "Does the Codex Bezae
      Syriacize?" --

      "Those who have, like ourselves, sought to explain the perplexing
      textual anomalies of the Western readings, have generally fallen back
      either upon the hypothesis of reflex Latinism or upon reflex
      Syriasm. And it has usually happened that the Syriac hypothesis has
      been taken up, because the Latinizing theiry was supposed to be no
      longer tenable. Certainly it is not a theory against which we ought
      to be prejudiced in advance. There are some things in the New
      Testament that perhaps will never yield to any other mode of
      elucidation. Take for example Mark viii. 10, which in Cod. D reads
      [Greek:] KAI HLQEN EIS TA ORIA MELEGADA
      [Latin:] ET VENIT IN PERTES MAGIDAN.

      Here most early texts give us [Greek:] DALMANOUQA, so as to read
      [Greek:] HLQEN EIS TA MERH DALMANOUQA.

      But since the letters [Greek:] LMANOUQA are an almost exact
      transcript of the Syriac for [Greek:] EIS TA MERH, we have a text
      which is equivalent to
      [Syriac, which I can't replicate here]
      and it is clear that the text is dittographed and that the real name
      has dropped out.
      If this explanation be the right one, we have lighted upon a case in
      which all Greek MSS. except D have a Syriac error! An astonishing
      thing, but not an impossibility. Let this instance suffice to shew
      that it is by no means an unreasonable thing to look for Syriac
      corruptions in the New Testament."

      That's just one of the interesting things that can be uncovered by
      the study of Aramaic and Syriac texts. It's a fine shovel, but the
      Aramaic Primacists, especially the Peshitta Primacists, are digging
      in the wrong place.

      AA: "And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T.
      text?"

      I'm not a Syriac specialist, but an estimate of 80% agreement, maybe
      a bit higher, in the Gospels, is probably about right. I don't know
      about the rest.

      This should raise a question: if the Peshitta was based on the work
      of Lucian, then shouldn't the Syriac OT closely agree with the
      Lucianic OT text? Lucian is *known* to have worked on the OT.
      Metzger mentioned (in "The Lucianic recension of the Greek Bible," p.
      33) that Stockmayer (in a work published in 1892) "found more than a
      score of readings in I Samuel where Lucian agrees with the Peshitta
      against the Masoretic text and the current Septuagint text." More
      than 20 readings is evidence of something, yes, but in a book the
      size of First Samuel I think a lot more is necessary to indicate a
      very close relationship. Metzger proceeded to say, "Although the
      exact date of the translation of the Old Testament Peshitta is not
      known, most scholars believe that it was made in the second or third
      century of the Christian era. Thus, at least in the Books of Samuel,
      it too affords evidence of Ur-Lucianic readings."

      If the producer(s) of the Peshitta incorporated into the text of
      First Samuel only something like 20 or 30 uniquely Lucianic readings -
      - preserving, everywhere else, readings older than Lucian -- then why
      wouldn't a similar approach have been employed in the NT text of the
      Peshitta, with the result that a small stratum of young readings
      rests upon an otherwise more ancient text?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
      Tipton, Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.