In reply to message #1
But it is not the nail you thought: Codex Bezae is known as the primary example of the Greek Western text type. I am willing to agree that the Old Syriac has substantial agreement with Codex Bezae more so than with Alexandrian or Byzantine manuscripts. The Western type of text is key to recognizing the Semitic origin to the Greek New Testament. The following are just a few reasons for concluding that the Western text holds such a key: The Western text contains more Semitisms than other types. The New Testament quotes by the Syriac church father Ephraim, who wrote in Aramaic, generally agree with the Western text, and more particularly with the Old Syriac. The only Western mss. of the non-Peshitta epistles (2Pt.,2Jn.,3Jn.and Jude) are of the Old Latin, and no Western text contains Revelation (which is also a non-Peshitta book). Both Charles Cutler Torrey and Matthew Black have theorized that the Greek Western text of at least some books is a translation from Aramaic. Furthermore, as Bruce Metzger states: Adalbert Marx devoted three learned volumes to the attempt to prove that the Western text is closest to the original, and that its best representative is the Sinaitic Syriac palimpset . Until fairly recent times it was assumed that the Alexandrian text is the oldest. This is because the oldest New Testament fragments called papyrus fragments, all appeared to be of the Alexandrian type. More recently, however, the discovery of such papyrus framents as P29, P38, P45 and P48 have established an equal age for the Western type of text. In fact even the famous John Ryland's fragment, the Oldest fragment of any NT book, is a Western text! The two Hebrew versions of Matthew which have come to our attention are the DuTillet and Shem Tob versions. These two versions bear a close relationship, often agreeing with each other against all other versions. Scholars have often mistakenly confused these versions with each other .
The DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew is essentially a Western type of text, as Schonfield concludes:
The internal evidence seems to point to an unknown text of slightly "Western" tendencies, and of uncertain date and language, as the source... the support afforded to some readings by western authorities such as the Old Latin and Old Syriac Gospels, and Justin Martyr,...suggest the second century. And as George Howard writes: The Du Tillet text is not a translation of the Latin Vulgate, although a close relationship exists between the Hebrew and the text type reflected by the Vulgate. There are a number of instances where Du Tillet's text agrees with the Old Latin against the Vulgate, or with other texts and versions, especially in combinations involving the Old Syriac. The Shem Tob version of Matthew is a most unusual text type. It holds several important relationships with the Old Syriac and the Peshitta as well as the Old Latin and the Vulgate. There are also several readings which agree with the Old Syriac against all other versions. As George Howard has stated: By far the most prominent agreements of Shem Tob's text are with the Old Syriac, the Old Latin, and combinations of them, sometimes accompanied by other witnesses that are usually considered to belong to the "Western" tradition. The Old Syriac has been identified by both Metzger and Kenyon as a Western text. Morevover, in her translation of the Old Syriac, Agnes Smith Lewis lists dozens of agreements between the Old Syriac and Greek Codex Bezae , primary example of the Greek Western text. Additionally, Fredreric Henry Chase in the late nineteenth century made a good case that the
|
