2nd century Peshitta supports Byzantine and Received Texts

[Steven Avery]

The missing books are similar to those in the Muratorian canon

A general survey of the history of the canon of the NT -p. 254-268
Brooke Westcott (1855)
http://books.google.com/books?id=E7ICAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA264

there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that the formation of the Peshitto Syriac was to be fixed within the first half of the second century. The very obscurity which hangs over its origin is proof of its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up spontaneously among Christian congregations...Had it been a work of later date, of the 3rd or 4th century it is scarcely possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is.
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott, The New Testament Canon, 1855

"Note: Westcott later changed his mind about the Peshitta, seeing how it often agreed with the Byzantine texts, against his beloved Alexandrian texts. He then concluded that the Peshitta must have been a revision of the Old Syriac (Introduction to the NT Greek, 1882). "

The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: Held at New College on May 6, 1897 ;
with a Preface Explanatory of the Rival Systems (1897)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nmNIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39
2nd century - yet no mention of the five missing books as an argument for the early Peshitta

Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (1999)
The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held at New College on May 6, 1897: An End, not a Beginning, for the Textus Receptus
J. L. North
https://books.google.com/books?id=XxJJGf1eBhgC&pg=PA8

The early dates of their few witnesses, which Burgon did not contest, was more than outweighed by the very early date of the Syp, second century if not earlier.20

For recent summaries of the materials for and. The study of the Syriac New Testament , which is an important element in the background to the Debate , cf. S.P. Brock , ' Versions , Ancient ( Syriac ) ' , Anchor Bible Dictionary ( New York etc. , 1992 ) , vi.796-9 , and J.H. Charlesworth ..Peterson….Baatda …Brock …Ehrman & Holmes

Discussion on contra forum - BVDB
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...tta-2nd-c-how-when-why-5th-c-theory-t756.html

 

[Steven Avery]

The original Peshitta was missing five books. That type of canon decision was very consistent with 2nd century viewpoints, like the Muratorian fragment, virtually impossible c. 400 AD. It is a puzzle to me why this is rarely pointed out.

 

[Steven Avery]

================================

writings.kennypearce.net/greekNT.txt
Kenny Pearce
It is universally acknowledged that the Peshitta is a translation of the Byzantine text and, according to church historians (Eusebius and others), the Peshitta dates from c AD 150. Terence H Brown confirms that "the Syriac version was older by two centuries than the Nestorian heresy (AD 431)". Naturally, Westcott and Hort were not happy with the ancient church tradition that the Peshitta dated from the second century, and so they maintained, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Peshitta dated from c AD 425.

===============================

rosetta.reltech.org/TC/do...-list.9701
David Washburn
It's my understanding from reading Metzger and several others that the Byzantine character of the Peshitta is the main reason eclectics concluded it couldn't be second century (I know this is grossly oversimplified). As I recall, and somebody correct me if necessary, during the WH age Burgon and others pointed to the Peshitta as evidence that the "Syrian" text couldn't be as late and secondary as WH said it was, and within about 20 years the Peshitta had been redated to the 5th century. That has always kinda made me wonder...

===================================

Oh, and here is Dean John Burgon

.
books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C

III.] AND OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONA.D. 350. 275
XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls ' Syrian ' or ' Antiochian,' is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era. ' It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,' (according to Bp. Ellicott,) ' to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.' [p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that 'the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is to suppose that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin ; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.' (p. 136.)

'A Revision of the old Syriac Version appears to have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.'-(Text, 552.) '

Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received by on evidently authoritative Revision,' a Syriac ' Vulgate' answering to the Latin' Vulgate.'(p. 84.) ' Historical antecedents render it tolerably certain that the locality of such an authoritative Revision' (which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)' would be either Edessa or Nisibis.'(p. 136.)

==================================

There really are two related yet distinct questions.
a) Is the history correct ? Was there a circular reasoning redating for the purposes of allowing the necessary but strange Hort 'Lucian recension' theories to fester away in textcrit land.
(Basically nobody buys into the recension any more and the fact that the theory is a necessary component for Hort's theories is blithely ignored.. a bit like dealing with evolutionists ).

b) What is sensible current scholarship on the Peshitta ?
ie. Excluding any theory or argument that the Peshitta must or should be a late translation because the Byzantine text is late. ... ie. excluding any modern version alexandrian circular attempts.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church (1900)
Julius August Bewer
https://books.google.com/books?id=RlAVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49

Now about the Peshitto. Suppose it had come into existence about his time (340 A. I).). As bishop he must have become at once familiar with the new work, be it that he met it on his visits in his diocese, where perhaps the priests might use it here or there, or be it that the translation was at once shown to him, the bishop, when it was completed. However that may be, his extensive use of it favors rather an earlier date for the origin of the Peshitto. We have, then, in Aphraates nothing else than this: a man who faithfully studies the Bible in the Diatessaron as well as in the three versions existing in his time, writes some homilies, and here, in quoting from memory (there is no doubt that he did that), quotes now from this, now from that text, apparently without being conscious that he is doing something extraordinary.

 

[Steven Avery]

BCHF
The New Testament Peshitta and the Nomina Sacra - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124931#p124931

Until the late 1800s the Peshitta NT was considered a 2nd century text. That did not fit well with the Westcott-Hort theory so an attempt was made to change that to be as late as the 5th century. Note that Hort also had absurd theories of a Syriac recension, to go along with his Greek (Syrian) recension theories.

The lack of the five books in the original Peshitta would tend to fit better with an earlier date. Also the fact that there was a Peshitta OT would be a spur to the NT edition.

The Peshitta Primacists try to argue for the Peshitta being the original NT. While that is a failure, their arguments can help the earlier dating scenario.

The Peshitta is far closer to the Greek Byzantine text than to the Vaticanus/Alexandrian reader's digest abbreviated text. However, there are many important spots where it does not match the Greek. Starting with the lack of the Pericope Adultera and not having "God was manifest in the flesh.." in 1 Timothy 3:16, the word God is instead a pronoun, and God instead of Son in John 1:18.

Overall my studies have shown the Peshitta to match about 75% to the Greek Byzantine and 25% to the Alexandrian, in a 3-way study.

Johann David Michaelis wrote an interesting section on the antiquity of the Syriac NT.

Introduction to the New Testament (1793 in German, 1823 in English)
Antiquity of the Syriac Version
https://books.google.com/books?id=9WAUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29
p. 29-32 and more around p. 71-74

The question of the dating of the Peshitta was a major element in the Oxford Debate of 1897.

The Oxford debate on the textual criticism of the New Testament ... 1897
edited by Edward Miller
https://books.google.com/books?id=9fAOAAAAQAAJ

Background on the debate, with spin.

Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (1999)
The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held at New College on May 6, 1897
James L. North
https://books.google.com/books?id=XxJJGf1eBhgC&pg=PA1

The later Philoxenian and Harklean editions (c. 500 to 650 AD) are closer to the Byzantine Greek.

 

[Steven Avery]

BCHF
The New Testament Peshitta and the Nomina Sacra
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124931#p124931

Until the late 1800s the Peshitta NT was considered a 2nd century text. That did not fit well with the Westcott-Hort theory so an attempt was made to change that to be as late as the 5th century. Note that Hort also had absurd theories of a Syriac recension, to go along with his Greek (Syrian) recension theories.

The lack of the five books in the original Peshitta would tend to fit better with an earlier date. Also the fact that there was a Peshitta OT would be a spur to the NT edition.

The Peshitta Primacists try to argue for the Peshitta being the original NT. While that is a failure, their arguments can help the earlier dating scenario.

The Peshitta is far closer to the Greek Byzantine text than to the Vaticanus/Alexandrian reader's digest abbreviated text. However, there are many important spots where it does not match the Greek. Starting with the lack of the Pericope Adultera and not having "God was manifest in the flesh.." in 1 Timothy 3:16, the word God is instead a pronoun, and God instead of Son in John 1:18.

Overall my studies have shown the Peshitta to match about 75% to the Greek Byzantine and 25% to the Alexandrian, in a 3-way study.

Johann David Michaelis wrote an interesting section on the antiquity of the Syriac NT.

Introduction to the New Testament (1793 in German, 1823 in English)
Antiquity of the Syriac Version
https://books.google.com/books?id=9WAUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29
p. 29-32 and more around p. 71-74

The question of the dating of the Peshitta was a major element in the Oxford Debate of 1897.

The Oxford debate on the textual criticism of the New Testament ... 1897
edited by Edward Miller
https://books.google.com/books?id=9fAOAAAAQAAJ

Background on the debate, with spin.

Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (1999)
The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held at New College on May 6, 1897
James L. North
https://books.google.com/books?id=XxJJGf1eBhgC&pg=PA1

The later Philoxenian and Harklean editions (c. 500 to 650 AD) are closer to the Byzantine Greek.

 

[Steven Avery]

Eusebius - five books - compare to Peshitta
Thus, in his most considered statement,9 he classes 2 Peter with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as (Greek). He then goes on to speak of (Greek),
uncanonical books.10
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/2peter_green.pdf

The same five books not in the Peshitta, so the translation could have been that late.

====================================

Introduction to II Peter

C. Eusebius used three categories to describe Christian writings:

1. accepted

2. disputed

3. spurious

He included 2 Peter along with James, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John in category 2 (i.e., disputed). Eusebius accepted 1 Peter; had doubts about 2 Peter, and rejected as spurious other supposed writings of Peter (1) the Acts of Peter; (2) the Gospel of Peter; (3) the Preaching of Peter; and (4) the Apocalypse of Peter.

===========================================

After the time of Origen, Eusebius (c. 265–339) also registers doubts regarding 2 Peter, noting that the letter was not quoted by the “ancient presbyters” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.1). Furthermore, he lists 2 Peter, along with James, 2–3 John, and Jude, among the “disputed books” (antilegomenoi) yet at the same time acknowledges that these books were “nevertheless … known to most” (Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–4). Church Fathers coming after Origen, including Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus, and Augustine, all acknowledged the canonical status of 2 Peter.
https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

===========================================

https://books.google.com/books?id=BnZyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR21

more of the same

"eusebius" "2 Peter" "james" "jude" - Google Search

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM - Rick Norris
https://forums.carm.org/threads/unt...in-kjv-only-argumentation.23136/#post-1747691

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible and Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude.

At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, and the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock has “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders.” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock and Lamsa have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These three English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.


Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.


In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV.

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible and Bauscher’s translation do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.” Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108). In Edward Miller's Textual Commentary, the Peshitta, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions are listed as not having this clause along with many Greek manuscripts (p. 75). Edward F. Hills listed this clause "raise the dead" in his list of readings where Erasmus followed the Latin Vulgate, and he also noted that this clause "is omitted by the majority of Greek manuscripts" (KJV Defended, p. 200).

PBF - Xenforo -
2nd century Peshitta supports Byzantine and Received Texts - #08

Acts 18:7 John 6:11 Luke 8:12 John 1:18 Mark 1:2 John 1:28 John 3:25 John 19:38 Matthew 11:19 Luke 7:35 Acts 12:24 Acts 13:13 1 Corinthians 11:20 Galatians 1:18 Philippians 1:1 Revelation 1:8 Revelation 4:11 Revelation 8:13 Revelation 14:4 Revelation 22:19 Matthew 27:9 Mark 12:32 Matthew 27:35 Matthew 5:27 Matthew 25:13 Matthew 28:9 Mark 9:45 Mark 11:20 Acts 9:6 Acts 28:16 Romans 13:9 Colossians 1:14 Revelation 1:11 Revelation 1:17 Matthew 3:6 Luke 24:36 John 20:16 Acts 7:18 Acts 12:1 Acts 12:25 Acts 14:25 Acts 16:7 Rp,ams 3:22 Hebrews 4:8 Revelation 8:7 Matthew 28:18 Acts 14:10 Matthew 10:8