Against the Khaburs (the identity of the ancient Syriac text) 2
The identity of the ancient Syriac text
numbers
What is the script family that was prevalent in Syria in the first four centuries?
The benefit of answering this question is to determine the date of the Peshitta. The Peshitta is an anonymous copy of the New Testament in Syriac, dating back to the fifth century AD according to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of textual critics.
The benefit of determining the date of the Peshitta is to prove the presence or absence of any early witness to the Byzantine text (the Byzantine family). The Byzantine family is one of the families of New Testament manuscripts, as the New Testament manuscripts differed from each other in many deep-rooted differences such that each region had its own text. The manuscripts are divided into four families (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean).
The printed text widely used by Eastern Christians is the Vandyke version, a translation of the Greek version prepared by Erasmus in the sixteenth century, called the Received Text. Erasmus relied on five manuscripts from the Kr block of the Byzantine family.
Accordingly, if it is proven that the Byzantine family is of a later date, that is, invented at a later time - which is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of manuscript scholars, “universal consensus” - then the current text of the New Testament becomes a forged and invented forgery.
The defenders of the Byzantine text, despite their small number, are divided into two parts. The first part is composed of textual criticism scholars, and the second part is composed of enthusiastic young people or theologians, but they are not specialists, they are not textual critics.
As for the first section, there is no one among them who defends the current received text. Although it is based on the Byzantine text, the Byzantines themselves see them as worse and more degraded than to represent the Byzantine text - which is itself the worst of the textual families. When the supporters of the Byzantine text defend it, they recommend the necessity of setting the current text aside and adopting another text called the Byzantine majority text.
This section does not use the Peshitta in defense of the Byzantine text, but those who use it are the popular section, if that is permissible, of the defenders. The Peshitta is a Byzantine text in the four Gospels, but it is a Western text in the remaining 22 books of the New Testament, so the Peshitta omits five books.
In the late nineteenth century, a famous theory emerged that swept the entire field of textual criticism, called the “Westcott and Hort Theory.” The summary of this theory is that the Byzantine family is the worst of the textual families and was formed late in the fourth century by Lucian of Antioch. There are five pieces of evidence for this matter, four of which were mentioned by Westcott and Hort, and the fifth is cited by them. The most important of these pieces of evidence is:
There is not a single manuscript containing the Byzantine text before the fifth-century Alexandrian Codex, while the rest of the text families have manuscripts attested to before the fifth century.
So if the Peshitta is from the second century, then the Westcott and Hort theory falls away, and the originality of the current text in its broad outlines would go back in the four Gospels at least to the second century - not the rest of the books - but if it is from the fifth century, which it is, then the Westcott and Hort theory remains, and the poor quality of the Byzantine family remains constant.
The late dating of the Peshitta has been agreed upon since the beginning of the twentieth century with the discovery of more manuscripts and the development of textual criticism.
For example, George Lamsa, the author of one of the most famous printed versions of the Peshitta, the Lamsa version, who adopts the old view held by nineteenth-century scholars that the Peshitta dates back to the second century, states that there is scholarly consensus that the Peshitta dates back to the fifth century, saying:
"I will add salt to the wound, the scholarly consensus is that the Peshitta ... was translated from the Greek by Rabbiola, Bishop of Edessa between 412-435 AD ."
"To add insult to injury, scholarly consensus holds that the Peshitta …was translated from the Greek by Rabulla, the bishop of Edessa from 412-435 AD."
Bruce Metzger says:
]Concerning the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta from Old Syriac began perhaps in the late fourth century, and it seems to have continued at the latest until the time of Rabbiola, Bishop of Edessa (411-435 AD).[
[As for the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta version from the Old Syriac probably began before the end of the fourth century and seems to have been completed no later than the time of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (A.D. 411–35)]
The Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism says:
(The date of the Peshitta is unknown, but it was probably written in the fourth century, and it is difficult to believe it was written after that.)
The earliest Greek witness to the Byzantine text is the uncial A, of the fifth century. The Peshitta Syriac is also largely (though not overwhelmingly) Byzantine; its date is uncertain though it is usually ascribed to the fourth century (and can hardly be later than this).
Among the evidence of the late history of the Peshitta is:
( All the Peshitta manuscripts discovered, which number more than 300 manuscripts, are all from after the fifth century. There is not a single Peshitta manuscript from before the fifth century .)
This is a very large number. It cannot be a coincidence that all of these manuscripts are from after the fifth century.
These are several lists of the names of Peshitta manuscripts and their dates from five sources, including the famous critical edition of the Peshitta by J. William, the famous book of translations of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger, and others. Then there is a table in which I summarized the names and dates of the manuscripts:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1stNdSaOrnuWPX-OXIjsmyArwd--nQygB
You will not find any manuscript in any list dating back to before the fifth century.
The famous critical version of the Peshitta by J. William, called “The Four Gospels of the Holy Peshitta, Tetraevangelium Sanctum iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem,” says the authors, speaking of the text of the version:
The text is based on a huge number of manuscripts from different eras and different places, ranging from the fifth century ... to the Jacobite version par excellence, called the Lord Crawford manuscript, written at Tur Abdin in the twelfth century .
"The Text is based on the evidence of a large number of MSS., of various ages and different localities. They range from copies of the fifth century… to such a distinctly Jacobite copy as Lord Crawford's MS., written in Tur'abdin in the twelfth century."
The current study aims to provide further evidence proving the lateness of the Peshitta, which is:
( All the Syriac fathers and writers of that period, “the first four centuries,” when they quoted from the New Testament, their quotations were in agreement with the ancient Syriac manuscripts, not the Peshitta. If the Peshitta had been early, their quotations would have been in agreement with it .)
UBS committee says:
Another Eastern text, in Antioch and near it, is preserved today in ancient Syriac vignettes, namely the Codex Sinaiticus and the Curitonianus of the Gospels (written in the critical system as syr s and syr c ) and in biblical quotations in the writings of the fourth-century Syriac church leaders Ephrahat and Ephraim .
Another Eastern type of text, current in and near Antioch, is preserved today chiefly in Old Syriac witnesses, namely the Sinaitic and the Curetonian manuscripts of the Gospels (cited in the critical apparatus as syrs and syrc) and in the quotations of Scripture contained in the works of the Syriac Church leaders Aphraates and Ephraem in the fourth century.
The currently available manuscripts of the New Testament written in Syriac are divided into 6 sections, each of which has its own readings that differ from and distinguish it from the other section. They are:
1- Diatessaron
2- The ancient Syriac manuscripts vetus syra
3- Al-Bashita
4- Syriac Phloxenian
5-Heraclean Syriac
6- Palestinian Syriac
The oldest manuscripts currently available in the Syriac language of the New Testament are number 2 (Old Syriac), and they are two manuscripts that represent this section:
The 4th-century Syriac Sinaitic manuscript
The Syriac Curitonianus manuscript from the 5th century
The number of Syriac fathers and writers available from the period of the first four centuries is very small, and they are specifically three: “Tatian represented by the Diatessaron, Ephraim the Syrian, and Ephrahat the Syrian.” When scholars looked at the quotations of these scholars,
From the early Syriac evidence of the Diatessaron, we note that when the ancient Syriac manuscripts differed with the Peshitta in a reading, the Diatessaron often took the side of the ancient Syriac manuscripts, which means that the Diatessaron was using the readings of these manuscripts, and did not quote from the Peshitta. The same is true of Ephraim and Ephrahat, which means that the text that was widespread and dominant in Syria in the first four centuries was the ancient Syriac text and not the Peshitta.
The following table shows the readings in which the ancient Syriac manuscripts (Vetus Syra) differed from the Peshitta manuscripts, and the position of the Diatessaron on them.
The numbers (1, 2, 3) refer to “first reading, second reading, third reading”, where each reading is different from the second.
Always read the Diatessaron, do not take number 1.
When you find two numbers written together in the same box, such as (2, 1), this means that there is a division in the manuscripts, as some read according to the first reading and others according to the second. In the box of ancient Syriac manuscripts specifically, the order has a meaning, as (2, 1) the first number means the reading of the Syriac Sinaitic manuscript, and the second number means the reading of the Syriac Curiatonian manuscripts.
Blue color:
It represents the reading in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac, and this reading is in favor of the antiquity of the Peshitta.
Orange color:
It represents the reading in which the Peshitta + the Syriac Sinaiticus (Q4) agreed against the Diatessaron + the Syriac Curiatonianus, i.e. the readings in which the Peshitta preserved the oldest form available in the Syriac manuscripts. It also supports the antiquity of the Peshitta.
Red color:
It is the reading in which the Diatessaron agreed with the ancient Syriac manuscripts against the Peshitta, and it is a reading in favor of the antiquity of the ancient Syriac manuscripts.
Green color:
It is the reading in which the Diatessaron + Sinaiticus Syriac agreed against the Peshitta + Curiatonianus Syriac, that is, the readings in which the ancient Syriac manuscripts preserved the oldest form of the reading represented in the Diatessaron, and it is a reading in favor of the antiquity of the ancient Syriac manuscripts.
The total number of readings in which the Diatessaron agrees with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac = 11 readings
The total number of readings in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta = 19 readings
So the readings of the Syriac Diatessaron are 64% readings of an ancient West Syriac text.
This table is based on the monetary system of the famous International Monetary Commission UBS in their latest monetary version of the New Testament GNT5 th
Aland , B. , Aland , K. , Karavidopoulos , J. , Martini , CM , & Metzger , B. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Fifth Revised Edition). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies.
Of course, there is currently no Syriac version of the Diatessaron available, so all scholars rely on Ephraim the Syrian’s interpretation of the Diatessaron.
So the text of the Diatessaron adopted here is the text that is supposed to represent the Syriac version of Tatian the Syrian's Diatessaron, which is "The Syriac version of Ephraim the Syrian's commentary on the Diatessaron" from the fifth century, since the Armenian version of the aforementioned commentary of Ephraim dates back to the tenth century! There are many differences between it and the Syriac version that indicate the modification that took place in the text over time in order to convert it at the hands of copyists from a Western text to a Byzantine text, so the readings mentioned were limited to:
1- The readings supported by the agreement of the Syriac and Armenian versions of Ephraim’s commentary
2- If the two versions differ, the chosen reading is the Syriac version, as it is approximately five centuries older.
No attention was paid to the text of the Italian, Dutch, or Latin Diatessaron, because they are late, on the one hand, and not in the Syriac language, on the other hand. The subject of the research is to study the text of the Syriac version of the Diatessaron specifically.
Perhaps someone might say that the ratio of 65% to 35% does not mean absolute seniority of one version over the other, but I would say to him that textual critics consider the number 69% to be a sufficient number to classify the manuscript. If a manuscript agrees with the readings of the Alexandrian manuscript family, for example, by a percentage of 69% or more, this is sufficient to consider it an Alexandrian manuscript, and so on. In other words, you will not find a clear, unified Syriac text in the early period, in Syria or elsewhere. The text in the early period is characterized by being fluid, gelatinous, and uncontrolled. So do not expect to find a pure ancient Syriac text or a pure Peshtauian text, as the overlap in readings is the dominant feature. Therefore, textual critics are satisfied with an estimated percentage such as 69%.
Another point is that these figures are based on the monetary device of the famous UBS monetary version, which has the shortest monetary device, meaning that if it were possible to perform it using a larger monetary device, the results would be more in favor of the ancient Syriac text.
Accordingly, this is new evidence added to the series of evidence proving the late date of the Khabur manuscript. It is one of the Peshitta manuscripts, and the Peshitta is not before the fifth century.
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment