The Library

« first day (1121 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3456 days later) »

7:06 AM

In addition to not addressing the Greek text whatsoever as Susan noted (rather than treating the Syriac as an early translation that provides supplemental evidence for an argument from the Greek text), I also downvoted for what I believe to be erroneous information (commonly espoused by Aramaic primacists) in your dating of the Peshitta (had you said 'by the fifth century' rather than 'before the fourth century', it would be accurate). — maj nem ɪz dæn ♦ yesterday

^^ given that the OP does not mention Greek and many answers do not start from the Greek text but rather from the English, I see no reason why this answer is downvoted for starting from the Syriac translation apart from the whole emotive Peshitta primacy debate, which Joseph does not appear to be advocating anyway.

A: Date of appearance of the New Testament in Syriac (Peshitta)

This is controversial subject you're inquiring into. You must know that there seems to exist a strong bias among Western scholars toward proving that original texts of New Testament were written in Greek. This bias seems to be rooted partially in tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Churches and is...

^^ and this top-voted answer on the dating of the New Testament Peshitta claims that "One of the earliest complete manuscripts of Peshitta is Khabouris Codex (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaboris_Codex) [...] is carbon-dated to 4th century"

Susan

7:32 AM

@JackDouglas My trouble with omitting the Greek analysis was that there's kind of an elephant-in-the-room issue there that directly relates to the question, making the Syriac approach feel awkward to me. (I have no knowledge of or opinion about Peshitta primacy.)

However, I kind of re-wrote the question as it stands so probably had some pre-conceived notions about what an answer should address....so maybe I shouldn't get a vote. :-)

Jack Douglas

I'm not really au fait with the whole question, so I just read it as a normal textual issue: but maybe if there is an elephant in the room it needs mentioning in the question, at least in passing?

1 hour later…

Jack Douglas

8:35 AM

digging a bit deeper I see the Wikipedia article has been updated — Jack Douglas 10 secs ago

1 hour later…

Davïd

10:03 AM

@JackDouglas That's quite an update. And it might be worth noting, too, that the "top-voted" answer mentioned in this comment is, in fact, the only answer, with 2+/0-, so not exactly a vote-grabber in any case. ;)

4 hours later…

Jack Douglas

2:26 PM

@Davïd Yes, seriously in need of another answer

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453385/Peshitta

"Of the vernacular versions of the Bible, the Old Testament Peshitta is second only to the Greek Septuagint in antiquity, dating from probably the 1st and 2nd centuries ad."

^^^ is that referring to the Greek or Syriac?

1 hour later…

Paul Vargas

3:36 PM

Q: Two stories intertwined in Mark, a 12 year old daughter and woman with a 12 year sickness, both healed; is the number 12 more than coincidental?

Of all extenuating information that could have been included, Mark decides to tell us that the woman with the issue of blood had the problem for 12 years. This woman touches Jesus while he's on the way to heal a 12 year old girl. What's the reason for tellings us this correlative info if any? Se...