Old Syriac? Or Greek in Aramaic Dress?

Old Syriac? Or Greek in Aramaic Dress? Part 2
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

As I stated in the previous example, under the heading 'To settle the debate', there is no substitute for comparing the 3 texts together.

Consider the following example. Here is the comparison of the Peshitta and "Old-Syriac" of Mark 5:26 (courtesy, George Kiraz - Comparitive Edition of the Syriac Gospels):

Again, the Sinaitic Palimpset of the "Old-Syriac" is designated 'S', Peshitta is designated 'P' and the Harklean is designated 'H'.

Notice the difference in the first line:

1. "Old-Syriac" - And many things had suffered of many physicians......
   
2. Peshitta - Whom had suffered many things of many physicians.....
   

Now, how does the Greek read? (courtesy of www.crosswalk.com)

kai; polla; paqou'sa uJpo; pollw'n ijatrw'n kai

Translation - "And had suffered many things of many physicians...."

Consider the implications of this example very carefully.

1. The Peshitta cannot be translated from the Greek
   
2. The Peshitta cannot be a revision of the "Old-Syriac" in favor of the Greek
   
3. The "Old-Syriac" must be a translation from the Greek (specifically, the Bezan Text of the 'Western' family), whose word-order it follows almost exactly
   

I can literally supply hundreds of examples of this very thing. And I will, if you allow.

The Peshitta stands alone, it resembles nothing else.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #0
 
This is something of a weak example. You may well have found a place where the Peshitta reflects the original Aramaic and where the Greek "and" was translted from The Old Syriac.

This can be explained in a number of ways. Either the Peshitta reading or the Old Syriac reading could have been the result of a damaged manuscript for example. Certainly the reading in the Old Syriac is the one the Greek translator had in front of him.

To complicate matters lets look at the synoptic parallel in Luke 8:43.

Here the Peshitta reads:

tqp0 hnynq hlk 0tws0 tybd yh
"she whom among physicians all her wealth had been spent"

While the Old Syriac has:

0tws0 l9 tqp0 hnynq hlwkw

"and all her wealth had been spent on phsicians"

Again the Old Syriac has "and" but this time the Greek does not. Thus we cannot conclude for certain that the presence of "and" in the Old Syriac of Mark 5:26 is due to a translation from the Greek (since that is certainly not the case in Lk. 8:43).

There are other passages I would like to look at.

Can you agree that the Peshitta and the Old Syriac are related to each other directly (regardless of which has priority) ?

Trimm

In reply to message #1
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-2001 AT 08:29 PM (CST)

Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

The other point of the post was, the Peshitta could not be a revision of the "Old-Syriac" in favor of the Greek reading of Mark 5:26.

I cannot even fathom a direct relationship between the Peshitta and OS, unless the translators of the "Old-Syriac" had referenced the Peshitta. That's about the only relationship I an even imagine.

The supposed revisers of the Peshitta had no reason to include 0dy0 and change the Proclitic w to a Proclitic d

Look at this example through Occam's Razor.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #2
 
There are many ways this can happen.
A Scribe could have miscoppied a d for a w Then a later scribe may have added 0dy0 to make sense of the passage. There are other ways this can happen. A scribe could have had a damaged manuscript and attempted to reconstruct the first few letters of this verse from context.

It could also be that the Peshitta gives the original reading and that the OS presents the scribal error. In that case a scribe might have worked ahead from memory and wrongly recalled the reading of the verse as it appears in Luke where w occurs in the Old Syriac.

Trimm

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

Notice also the second difference in the first line, which I forgot to mention in the original post.

The OS has trbys (#13856) which is closer to the Greek 'Pas-kho' (meaning 'Endure'), whereas the Peshitta has tlbs, (#13687) which means 'Suffer.'

How can the Peshitta be a revision of the OS in favor of the Greek, if the OS is closer to the Greek than the Peshitta is?

Can you, at a minimum, agree that examples like this one and Mattay 23:1 just don't make sense within the currently accepted Western framework?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #4
 

The currently accepted Western framework is that the Old Syriac is a translation from Greek and that thge Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac.

1. I reject that model (as do you)

2. Actually OS = G <> P examples would support the commonly accepted theory that the OS was translated from Greek and that the Peshitta was the result of its revision (since that theory would predict a closer agreement between the OS and G than between P and G.

One problem I have had with your reasoning is the assumtion that the less a text agrees with the Greek, the more original it must be. Howard does the same thing with DuTillet and Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew. He concludes that because DuTillet agrees more closely with the Greek than Shem Tob that Shem Tob a more primitive text. I point outh that this could also mean that it is not a more primitive text, but a more corrupt text.

From the examples you give one could argue that the Old Syriac is the Older more primitive text on the very basis that agrees with the Greek. One could aregue based on these examples that the Aramaic copy which the Greek translator was working from in the first century must have agreed with the reading of the Old Syriac rather than the Peshitta.

Trimm

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Yaqub,

>The currently accepted Western framework is
>that the Old Syriac is
>a translation from Greek and
>that thge Peshitta is a
>revision of the Old Syriac.
>
>
>1. I reject that model
>(as do you)

Absolutely.

>2. Actually OS = G <> P examples would support >the commonly accepted theory that the OS was >translated from Greek and that the Peshitta was >the result of its revision (since that theory >would predict a closer agreement between the OS >and G than between P and G."

I believe the commonly accepted theory that the OS was translated from the Greek.

You're right, the Greek primacists would come back and argue, then, that since the Peshitta is a "revision" (I say that biting my tongue) of the OS....it would play into their hands.

Unless we show, of course, that the Peshitta is not a result of an OS revision.

For every example they can give, I can give 10 like the two I've given so far that would refute their theory, along with an explanation of their 1 example.

">One problem I have had with
>your reasoning is the assumtion
>that the less a text
>agrees with the Greek, the
>more original it must be. "

That's not my reasoning at all. I'm showing how the Peshitta is far from both the OS and the Greek, to refute both misconceptions (viz,
Peshitta translated from Greek, or revised from OS in favor of the Greek.)

I may have given you that impression because I, so far, have been concentrating on how close the OS is to the Greek, while the Peshitta ignores both.

I have other methodologies by which we can demonstrate the total independence of the Peshitta, which will be used later.

">From the examples you give one
>could argue that the Old
>Syriac is the Older more
>primitive text on the very
>basis that agrees with the
>Greek."

You right.

Or that the OS was a 4th-century translation from the Greek, which was translated from the Peshitta in the 1st or early 2nd century.

>One could aregue
>based on these examples that
>the Aramaic copy which the
>Greek translator was working from
>in the first century must
>have agreed with the reading
>of the Old Syriac rather
>than the Peshitta.

True.

One could also argue that the Aramaic copy the Greek translator was working from in the first century was the Peshitta, and the mistakes he made carried over into the 4th-5th century attempt to Hellenize the Semitic Scriptures - also known as the OS.

I think the evidence points to the latter, and I also think I can prove it without a shadow of a doubt. I've given 2 examples so far.....after a few more, a pattern will emerge that is undeniable.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4