the PeshittA confluence with the PeshittO and Old Scratch manuscripts

ebion

Member
The differences between the Eastern PeshittA and Western PeshittO manuscripts that have been translated into English are highlighted, with an eye on what we call Old Scratch, the Sinaiatic Palimpsest found by Agnes Smith, right around the same time and the same place as the Codex Simondes/Sinaticus. So as this thread mentions the Greek texts in passing, it is a followup to the thread:

The aim is to see:
  • is Old Scratch is as old as it claims to be,
  • do the differences between it and the PeshittA somehow play into the Vaticanus+Sinaticus
  • does it look like an 19 c. production like the Codex Simondes/Sinaticus
  • can we exclude Old Scratch from further consideration
The Eastern PeshittA does not include the 5 books: Revelation, Jude, 2Peter, 2John, 3John. These books were marked by Eusebius as "disputed writings", except for Revelation of John which he says the "opinions of most men are divided". It could be the Church of the East canon was closed before they were in general use and hence they were not known rather than refused, or were considered disputed as they were later in Eusebius' time.
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
For the definitive on Old Scratch, I'll defer to
Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan


Now the real mystery is the so-called "Old-Syriac", which we of course​
refer to as "Old Scratch."​
My personal opinion?​
I was the result of a student at the monastery in Egypt. He was​
practicing copying, or perhaps more likely he was conforming the Peshitta​
to the current Alexandrian family of Greek texts.​
Otherwise, why would someone have scratched off the text (of Holy​
Scripture!) only to write the story of the life of a saint over it? What?​
They ran out of paper? The story of the saint was THAT important?​
Does that make sense to anybody? Why would someone do that to the Holy​
Bible?​
Have you ever seen anyone erase the text of the Torah or the Quran and​
write the life stories of Alan Greenspan or Osama bin Laden over​
the top of the scratched-off text? :)
 

ebion

Member
Here is a list of other differences between the two manuscript families compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).

**1: Matthew 4:21**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "and Eshu' called them" The Ashael Grant, The
Mingana, The 1886 Mosul, and the Paul Younan Interlinear text, all have “and
Eshu called them”. The Curetonian has "and Eshu called them'", but the
Sinaitic has "and he called them". English translations that have the
Khabouris or Eastern Peshitta reading: Paul Younan, Andrew Roth, James
Murdock, John Etheridge, George Lamsa, Joseph Pashka, Lonnie Martin, Victor
Alexander.

UBS Peshitto: has "and He called them", as does ADD MSS 14470 (5th-6th
century) and the Sinaitic (Old Scratch) version. English translations that
go with the Western Peshitto version: David Bauscher, Janet Magiera, The Way
International, Herb Jahn, Francis A. Werner.

**2: Matthew 6:32**
Khabouris Peshitta: The Khabouris, in it's secondary script (East Adiabene),
which is a later scribal replacement page, has “the Nations of the World.”
as does Younan's Interlinear, Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Magiera, Alexander,
Pashka, and Lamsa. The Curetonian text reads as The Khabouris Peshitta text
does here. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. text in its extant 10th century
Arabic translation from an 8th century Aramaic Ms. has the Khabouris
Peshitta reading. Neither the Latin or any of the Greek versions have "of
the World".

UBS Peshitto: has “the Nations", as does Bauscher, Jahn, and A. Frances
Werner. Lon Martin has "the heathen" and The Way International's ANT & MS.
ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) doesn't have "d'Alma" (of the World) in that
Aramaic MS. The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the UBS text and the 1199 A.D.
"Asahel Grant" Ms. does too, both being clearly Eastern Peshitta Ms, also
the 1886 Mosul Edition Peshitta text does not have "of the world"....which
begs the question...is the reading "of the World" actually an Eastern
Peshitta reading?

**3: Matthew 21:4**
Khabouris Peshitta: has “all this happened” as does Younan, Etheridge,
Murdock, Alexander, Pashka, and Lamsa. Martin has "This all took place". The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the Peshitta reading. The Byzantine Greek
(Greek Orthodox Church, Majority Greek Text, and the Textus Receptus) and
The Latin Vulgate text has the Eastern Peshitta reading. The Mingana Ms.
reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: has “this happened” as does *Younan's interlinear (see note),
Bauscher, Magiera, *Roth, Jahn, and Werner.
The Curetonian text reads the same as the Western Peshitto does here. The
Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) does not have
"K'uleh" (all) in it's text. The Alexandrian Greek text has the Western
Peshitto reading.

* Note: Paul Younan has said that this is a mistake in his interlinear
readings, and should have the Eastern reading of The Peshitta.
* Roth follows Paul Younan's mistaken Interlinear reading, as it was his
base text.

**4: Mark 14:31**
Khabouris Peshitta: has “all the Disciples said” as does Younan, Etheridge,
Murdock, Roth, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, and Martin. The Way International's
ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) has "T'almiyd'e" (the Disciples). The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the Peshitta reading. Neither the Latin
Vulgate or any Greek version has "the Disciples", nor do they have "my Lord"
in this verse, as does both the Eastern and Western forms of the Aramaic NT.
The Diatessaron though, has the Peshitta text's reading "my Lord". The
Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: has "they all said" as does Bauscher, Magiera, Jahn, and
Werner, lacking "the Disciples". The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest
(Old Scratch)
and The Curetonian versions have "and so all of them also said".

**5: Luke 22:17**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have this
verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the
Curetonian. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century)
does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The
Mingana Codex doesn't have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Etheridge, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa,
Jahn, and Werner, has it. All Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate has this verse.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.

**6: Luke 22:18**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have this
verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the
Curetonian. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century)
does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The
Mingana Ms. doesn't have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Etheridge, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa,
Jahn, and Werner, has it. All Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate has this verse.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.

**7: John 7:53**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, and Roth, don't have it. Neither does
the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The Mingana does not have
it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, Jahn,
Werner, and Martin (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's "The Aramaic New Testament" which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th
century) for the Gospel of John, shows this verse in [brackets]. The old
Latin and the Latin Vulgate has it, as do the standard Greek texts, which
the translations use, though many Greek Ms copies lack it.

**8: John 8:1-11 (The story of the Woman caught in adultery)**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge and Roth, does not have it. Neither
does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian
versions. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Many Greek Ms
copies lack it, and some have the passage in other places, such as John
chapter 21 . The Mingana Ms. does not have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, *Jahn,
Werner, and Martin, (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's ANT which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) for the Gospel
of John, shows these verses in [brackets].

* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.) The old Latin and the Latin Vulgate has this passage,
some Greek Ms copies have it.

**9: John 16:27**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "from the presence of The Father" as does Younan,
Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Alexander and Martin. The Diatessaron of
165 A.D. has "from my Father". Alexandrian Greek versions have "from The
Father". The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: has "from the presence of God" as does Magiera, Bauscher,
Pashka, Jahn, and Werner, who has "from next-to God". The Curetonian version
has "from God" as does The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th
century). Byzantine Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate text, have "from God".

**10: Acts 3:6**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads, "...of our Lord Eshu' M'Shikha..." Etheridge,
Murdock, Lamsa, Pashka (and shows the variant in brackets), Martin, and
Alexander, have the Eastern Peshitta reading. The 1199 Ashael Grant Mss has
the Khabouris reading, as does the Mingana Codex, and the 1886 Mosul
Peshitta.

UBS Peshitto: reads, "...of Eshu' M'Shikha..." Roth, Bauscher, Werner, The
Way, Magiera, and Jahn, and MSS 14473 (Jacobite), have the Western reading.
Paul Younan's Interlinear text shows the Western reading for some reason.

**11: Acts 8:37**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have
it. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not
have it. The Mingana does not have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.

**12: Acts 15:34**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have
it. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not
have it. The Mingana Ms. does not have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Murdoch has this note: “this verse is removed to the margin in the
editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society.”
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic",
yet he has it translated.

**13: Acts 18:23**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...in the regions of Phrygia and of Galatia." as
does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Pashka, Alexander, and Lamsa. Also, the 1199
(Ashael Grant MS.), the Mingana MS., the 1846 Urmia printed Peshitta text,
and the 1886 printed Peshitta text has the same reading as the Khabouris
does here.

UBS Peshitto: reads "...in the regions of Galatia and of Phrygia." as does
Bauscher, Magiera, The Way International, Werner, Martin, and Jahn. Also,
MS. 14473 has this reading, which seems to be the source for the UBS text,
as I have seen it match up many times against the Eastern text's readings.
It is a Western "Jacobite" text, not the Eastern Peshitta text.

**14: Acts 20:28**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...the Church of M'shikha... as does Etheridge,
Roth, *Alexander, Lamsa, and Martin, have the Eastern reading. The Mingana
reads as the Khabouris does.

UBS Peshitto: reads "...the Church of Alaha..." as does Bauscher, Magiera,
Pashka, Murdock, Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading. The Way
International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) has the Western
reading.
* Victor Alexander has this reading “…to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ,
that which he established by his blood.”

**15: Acts 21:13**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...Eshu' M'shikha." at the end of the verse.
Etheridge, Murdock, *Roth, Pashka, Alexander Martin, and Lamsa have it as
the Khabouris does. Also The 1199 Ashael Grant MS, The Mingana MS, The 1886
printed Peshitta text, and The 1846 Urmia printed Peshitta text has it as
The Khabouris MS does.

* Roth has the same Eastern Peshitta reading here as Murdock, since he
revised Murdock's translation, but, his Aramaic text to the right in his
editions have the UBS reading, since he revised the UBS Peshitto text, while
leaving a number of Western readings in...like this one. His note says as
much.
* Pashka has the Eastern Peshitta reading in his translation, but, his
Aramaic text, which I believe is the UBS edited to some degree, has the
Western Peshitto reading.

UBS Peshitto: reads "...Eshu'." at the end of the verse. Bauscher, Magiera,
The Way International, Werner, and Jahn, have it as the UBS does. Also MSS
14473 (Jacobite) has the UBS reading. The Greek texts match the UBS Peshitto
text.

**16: Acts 26:28**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...King Agrippa said..." as does Etheridge,
Murdock, Lamsa, Martin, Alexander, *Roth, **Pashka. The 1199 Grant MS, The
Mingana MS, the 1846 Urmia Peshitta, and the 1886 Peshitta, all agree with
the Khabouris.

* Roth has the same reading as Murdock here, though his interlinear (UBS
with edits) has the Western Peshitto reading still there.
* Pashka has the Eastern Peshitta reading in his translation, while his
Aramaic text has the UBS reading.

UBS Peshitto: reads ..."Agrippa said..." as does Bauscher, Magiera, The Way
International, Werner, and Jahn. The UBS follows MS 14473, which is a
Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church) MS. The Way International's Aramaic text
is taken from the same MS 14473.

**17: Acts 28:29**
Khabouris Peshitta: Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have it. The
Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) doesn't have it.
The Mingana Ms. does not have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, *Murdock, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Murdoch notes, “this verse 29 is not in the MS., nor in any of the earlier
editions: and the later editions place it in the margin.”
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.

**18: 1 Corinthians 16:24**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...in M’shikha Eshu’ Amiyn." the same as the
Byzantine Greek text form, as does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Norton,
Alexander, Martin. Also The Mingana Codex has the same reading as the
Khabouris, and the other Eastern Peshitta Manuscript I can see, from 1199,
given to the English Protestant Missionary Asahel Grant, by Mar Abraham, The
Patriarch/Catholicos of The Church of the East, has the same reading as the
Khabouris.

UBS Peshitto: reads "...in M’shikha Eshu’." the same as the Alexandrian
Greek text form, as does Bauscher, Magiera, Werner, Jahn, Also, MS ADD.
14475 (5th-6th century), as well as The Way International's translation of
it's text has this reading.

**19: 2nd Corinthians 13:1**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...three times that I'm ready to come unto you."
as does Roth, Murdock, Etheridge, Lamsa, Norton, Alexander, and Martin
* Victor Alexander's version reads "...three seasons that I have desired to
come to you." The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text.
* Lonnie Martin's version reads "...the third time that I have prepared to
come to you. As does Roth's and Murdock's version.

UBS Peshitto: reads "...three times that I come unto you." as does Bauscher,
Jahn, Werner, Magiera, and The Way International

**20: Galatians 6:17**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "Our Lord Eshu' M'shikha" as does Roth, Etheridge,
Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Martin, and Lamsa. The Mingana reads the same as
the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: reads "Our Lord Eshu' " as does Magiera, Bauscher, Jahn, and
Werner. The Way International's translation and MS. ADD. 14475 (5th-6th
century) has the Peshitto reading.

**21: Ephesians 1:8**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "of The Spirit" at the end of the verse, as does
Etheridge; where Roth, Murdock, Lamsa, and Martin, all have ("Spiritual")
and Norton has ("the Spirit's") and Alexander has ("of Spirit"). The Mingana
reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: doesn't have any mention of "Spirit" or "Spiritual" in the
text, nor does Magiera, Bauscher, Jahn, and Werner. The Way International's
ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century) doesn't have it.

**22: Ephesians: 1:15**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "all the Holy Ones" as does Etheridge, Murdock,
Roth, Lamsa, Norton, Alexander, Martin, and even Bauscher (though his
Interlinear Aramaic text and word for word translation has the Western
Peshitto reading). The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: reads "the Holy Ones" as does Magiera, Jahn, and Werner. The
Way International's TANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), have the Western
reading.

**23: 2nd Thessalonians 3:18**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "all of you, my brothers; Amen." as does Roth,
Etheridge, Alexander, Norton, and Murdock. The Way International's TANT &
MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the Eastern reading. The Mingana has
the same reading as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: reads “all of you; Amen." as does Lamsa, Bauscher, Magiera,
Jahn, Martin, and Werner.

**24: Philemon 1:25**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "be with your spirit, my brothers; Amen." as does
Roth, Etheridge, Murdock, Norton, and Alexander. The Mingana reads the same
as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: has "be with your spirit; Amen." as does Magiera, Bauscher,
Lamsa, Jahn, Martin, and Werner. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475
(5th-6th century), which doesn't have "my Brothers".

**25: Hebrews 2:9**
Khabouris Peshitta: Roth, Lamsa, and *Martin, have the Eastern reading. The
Mingana Ms. has the Eastern reading. "who independently from God, for all
men tasted death".

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, *Alexander, Norton, Etheridge,
Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading. While The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the Western reading, it's odd that the text agrees with the Khabouris readings
in the other places in the verse where the Khabouris varies with the UBS
text.
* Victor Alexander has this reading: “He is, then, very little like the
angels, for we have seen that He is Eashoa because of the Passion of His
death, and the glory and honor that was consecrated on His head is,
therefore, imposed by God in tasting death on behalf of every human being.”)
* Lonnie Martin has a strange reading here, which doesn't line up with what
is actually in the text itself. "9 But now we see Someone who was made
slightly inferior to the spirit messengers, ‘namely’ Yeshua Himself, crowned
with majesty and honor, because He suffered death. Due to YHVH’s mercy, He
could ‘experience’ death for everyone."

**26: Hebrews 2:16**
Khabouris Peshitta: Etheridge, Roth, Murdock, Magiera, Alexander, Norton,
Lamsa, and Martin, all have the Eastern reading. The Mingana has the Eastern
reading.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading. The Way
International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the Western
reading, exactly as the UBS text reads.

**27: James 3:10**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "curses and blessings" as does Etheridge, Roth,
Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Lamsa, and Martin, which is a unique reading
only found in the Eastern Aramaic text. The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text.

UBS Peshitto: has "blessings and curses" as does Bauscher, Magiera, Jahn,
and Werner, which aligns with the Greek and Latin reading. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century), has the Western reading.

These are the basis for the 29 readings Eastern/Western comparison in:

NB: the Easterners define Old Scratch as the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest and equivilance that to
"Old-Syriac": "which we of course refer to as 'Old Scratch.'" As the Easterners hold that the PeshittA was brought by the Apostles Thomas and/or Bartholomew, there is nothing older.
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
In a thread on peshitta.org, Mattai 20 28, Bezae and Old Scratch Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan notes:

The Bezan text is an odd Greek version that contains many variant
readings when compared to both the Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek
texts. Interestingly, the Old Syriac (which we jokingly refer to as
Old Scratch") also contains many of the same variants.

He cites a spurious reading in Old Scratch which is **only** found in Codex Bezae - not the PeshittA or TR

Paul Younan's Translation:

"But you should seek to increase from that which is small, and to
become less from that which is greater. When you enter into a house and
are summoned to dine, do not sit down in the highest places, lest
perchance a more honorable man than you come in afterwards, and he who
invited you to come should say to you, go down lower; and you be
ashamed. But if you sit down in the worst place, and one worse than you
should come in afterwards, then he that invited you will say to you, go
up higher; and this will be advantageous for you."​

Sure enough, it's in Whiston's Primitive NT 1745 Bible, which is an English translation based on Codex Bezae:


Matt. 20:28 " Even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. But do you
seek to increase from a little, and to be diminished from what is
greater. However, when you are come and are desired to sup, do not you
sit in the most eminent places, lest more honourable than thou come,
and he that invited thee to supper come upon thee and say to thee, Go
down still lower; and thou be put to confusion. But if thou sittest in
a lower place, and one inferior to thee comes, he that invited thee
will say to thee, Go and sit higher. For this will be to thy
advantage. "​
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is a list of other differences between the two manuscript families compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).


**7: John 7:53**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, and Roth, don't have it. Neither does
the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The Mingana does not have
it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, Jahn,
Werner, and Martin (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's "The Aramaic New Testament" which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th
century) for the Gospel of John, shows this verse in [brackets]. The old
Latin and the Latin Vulgate has it, as do the standard Greek texts, which
the translations use, though many Greek Ms copies lack it.

**8: John 8:1-11 (The story of the Woman caught in adultery)**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge and Roth, does not have it. Neither
does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian
versions. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Many Greek Ms
copies lack it, and some have the passage in other places, such as John
chapter 21 . The Mingana Ms. does not have it.

UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, *Jahn,
Werner, and Martin, (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's ANT which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) for the Gospel
of John, shows these verses in [brackets].

* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.) The old Latin and the Latin Vulgate has this passage,
some Greek Ms copies have it.

Just checking two in Murdock.

Murdock (1851)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZaXs4W2zvMwC&pg=PA181

Pericope Adulterae
* This 53d verse is wanting in many early editions of the Syriac N. Testament.
So also the whole story of the adulteress, in the following chapter, v. 1-11.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZaXs4W2zvMwC&pg=PA230
Acts 8:37 - brackets and asterik
* This 37th verse is not in any of the earlier editions, and is excluded from
the text of the London editions of 1816 and 1826.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
In a thread on peshitta.org, Mattai 20 28, Bezae and Old Scratch Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan notes:

The Bezan text is an odd Greek version that contains many variant
readings when compared to both the Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek
texts. Interestingly, the Old Syriac (which we jokingly refer to as
Old Scratch") also contains many of the same variants.

He cites a spurious reading in Old Scratch which is **only** found in Codex Bezae - not the PeshittA or TR

Paul Younan's Translation:
"But you should seek to increase from that which is small, and to​
become less from that which is greater. When you enter into a house and​
are summoned to dine, do not sit down in the highest places, lest​
perchance a more honorable man than you come in afterwards, and he who​
invited you to come should say to you, go down lower; and you be​
ashamed. But if you sit down in the worst place, and one worse than you​
should come in afterwards, then he that invited you will say to you, go​
up higher; and this will be advantageous for you."​

Sure enough, it's in Whiston's Primitive NT 1745 Bible, which is an English translation based on Codex Bezae:
Matt. 20:28 " Even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto,​
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. But do you​
seek to increase from a little, and to be diminished from what is​
greater. However, when you are come and are desired to sup, do not you​
sit in the most eminent places, lest more honourable than thou come,​
and he that invited thee to supper come upon thee and say to thee, Go​
down still lower; and thou be put to confusion. But if thou sittest in​
a lower place, and one inferior to thee comes, he that invited thee​
will say to thee, Go and sit higher. For this will be to thy​
advantage. "​


LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=20:28

It is a common reading in the Old Latin lines, and some Syriac traditions.

Bezae is a diglot, so they made the Greek equivalent to the Latin, it is unlikely that the text came from Greek transmission, unless it was simply copied from an earlier diglot.

This apparatus seems to show the Curetonian, not the Syriacus, and some limited Peshitta mss and then the margin in the Harklean. They may be using a wide definition of Peshitta.

1696822859607.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is a list of other differences between the two manuscript families compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).

These are the basis for the 29 readings Eastern/Western comparison in:
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...he-greek-byzantine-manuscripts.935/post-14314

Nope, the large list probably is a comparison that includes the later Harklean edition. I was bringing here information posted by others who may not know the distinctions.

My understanding is that the Eastern and Western Peshitta/Peshitto differences are only a handful, maybe five to ten variants, no full verses, although a couple may be doctrinally important. I think you can find that list in the Aramaic Peshitta Primacist writing.

The point is that you need Eastern-Western differences from before the Philoxenian and Harklean editions. (The manuscripts themselves do not have to be before, but their texts have to be uninfluenced.)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sure enough, it's in Whiston's Primitive NT 1745 Bible, which is an English translation based on Codex Bezae:
Matt. 20:28 " Even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto,​
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. But do you​
seek to increase from a little, and to be diminished from what is​
greater. However, when you are come and are desired to sup, do not you​
sit in the most eminent places, lest more honourable than thou come,​
and he that invited thee to supper come upon thee and say to thee, Go​
down still lower; and thou be put to confusion. But if thou sittest in​
a lower place, and one inferior to thee comes, he that invited thee​
will say to thee, Go and sit higher. For this will be to thy​
advantage. "​

Easier source in Archive.org

Primitive New Testament (1745)
https://archive.org/details/primitivenewtest00whisuoft/page/n33/mode/1up
https://studybible.info/Whiston/Matthew 20

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

18th Century English Versions
https://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib8.html

1745. William Whiston, The Primitive New Testament. Stamford and London, 1745. In this revision of the KJV Whiston adopts the readings of the three earliest (“primitive”) manuscripts which were then known to scholars. The Gospels and Acts are revised according to the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, the Pauline epistles according to Codex Claromontanus, and the rest according to Codex Alexandrinus. Whiston’s source of information for the readings of these manuscripts was the apparatus of Mill 1707.

W
https://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-w.html
Whiston, 1745. William Whiston, The Primitive New Testament. Stamford, 1745.

Remarkable as a very early translation of two of the oldest manuscripts, and part of third. The Gospels and Acts are translated from the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, the Pauline epistles from Codex Claromontanus, and the remainder from Codex Alexandrinus, "according to the collations in Dr. Mills, corrected."
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
NB: the Easterners define Old Scratch as the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest and equivilance that to "Old-Syriac": "which we of course refer to as 'Old Scratch.'" As the Easterners hold that the PeshittA was brought by the Apostles Thomas and/or Bartholomew, there is nothing older.

Old Scratch refers to the one palimpsest manuscript, Syriacus.

Old Syriac is a more general term, non-Peshitta, and includes the Syriacus and the Curetonian, despite their differences, and it may also try to include the DIatessaron and certain early church writer quotes like Ephraem. There is also a lectionary, Palestinian, but I don't know where they place that one.
 

ebion

Member
Nope, the large list probably is a comparison that includes the later Harklean edition. I was bringing here information posted by others who may not know the distinctions.

My understanding is that the Eastern and Western Peshitta/Peshitto differences are only a handful, maybe five to ten variants, no full verses, although a couple may be doctrinally important. I think you can find that list in the Aramaic Peshitta Primacist writing.

The point is that you need Eastern-Western differences from before the Philoxenian and Harklean editions. (The manuscripts themselves do not have to be before, but their texts have to be uninfluenced.)

No - there are 27 variants in the list, and on his revised list it's 29; they're both from the Peshitta Primacist website.

None of them are Harklean - the major comparison is between the Eastern PeshittA translations which all basically agree, and the UBS Peshitto and its related/derived versions, or Gwilliam's Peshito which is sorta a BL critical text mashup.

Depending on how you count, there are at least 3 deleted verses in that list.

Plus the Periscope John 8:1-11.

Plus 5 books: Revelations, Jude, 3John, 2John, 2Pet..

Some of the changes are significant doctrinally.
 

ebion

Member
And when it comes to the differences between the Peshitto (translated from the Greek ) and the Crawford Codex book of Revelations, there are very big differences: I counted 43.

Torrey said:
Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and that the Greek translation, is a remarkably close rendering … of the original." -
C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church 1941; p. 160
The Crawford Codex in Aramaic is said to be beautiful Aramaic, and seems to read as if one were reading the Peshitta; the grammar is near perfect. It may be the original Revelations.

Greg Lasser has a very detailed comparison between the Peshitto and Crawford Codex Revelations:
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
I'm not following, are you saying the Pericope is in the early Western Peshitto (we know it is often in the Harklean.)

Same question on the five books.

For clarity - I use Eastern to be a synonym of PeshittA, and Western for PeshittO. The differences are also important because different branches of the churches of the east adopted different ones versions of different bibles, that changed with time; bible changes sometimes came with reconciliations.

The PeshittA:
  • Has at least 29 differences with the PeshittO, including and and deleted verses (see above)
  • Has 5 less NT books than the PeshittO, listed above,
  • Lacks the PA which is almost the definition of Western
  • Lacks the Johannine Comma
In addition the PeshittA easy to define: the text seems unchanged across 4 or 5 complete codices that span hundreds of years, with not one substantial difference (occasional scriptural errors as they are handwitten.) None of this Greek families of manuscripts nonsense.

I'm not sure what the definition of the Western/PeshittO is - it's one of those "I know it when I see it" type things. (I'm ignoring Old Scratch and the Curetonian). The PeshittO lack-of-a-tradition is not to take the sacred say harklean and faithfully translate it; they're more "critical western text" amalgams like UBS and Gwilliams, so I can't define Western, except that they usually have all the stuff listed above.

So I cling to the Eastern like I cling to Matthew because it's a (very) well defined target and are without question the earliest.

Now for the edge case I've just started looking at. My conjecture is that the W5 books were not excluded, but the canon formed before they were in wide circulation in Persia/India. AFAIK, no one has a copy of the Philoxian. The edge case is the Crawford codex which is word-for-word the Eastern PeshittA (with 3 scribal typos and 1 slightly changed verse in Hebrews) WITH the W5 books. And the W5 books include a fluid-lyrical-wordplayed perfect-syriac-grammar Revelations that has lots of differences, some theological significant, to the full of ungrammatical and unlexical usages Greek TR Revelations. Some are arguing it is the original Revelations. Some are arguing the Philoxian is just the PeshittA with syriac orginal, not from the greek, W5.

And I've been having fun with Lassater/Lancaster's compilation of KJV abominations that should make every KjvOnlyist ashamed. The fun thing is how Tyndale pussy-foots to euphamize around some of the abominations - would you use chaste to avoid using eunuch when the TR word is eunoukkos?! Granted they're likely to be chaste, but really.... And we're talking about Jesus speaking, in Matthew!!!
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
ove,
  • Lacks the PA which is almost the definition of Western

Just focus on this for now.

And I friendly challenge you to show the Pericope in a Jacobite (Western) manuscript that is not considered as from the later Philoxenian or Harklean recensions.

My point is that I believe that the original western Peshitta did not have these verses. And that the Eastern-Western differences have been exaggerated by the AD 550 to 600s recensions.
 
Last edited:

ebion

Member
Just focus on this for now.
I agree. I'm really into tiny baby steps in this, and I appreciate your pulling-tugging.
And I challenge you to show the Pericope in a Jacobite (or Western) manuscript that is not considered as from the later Philoxenian or Harklean recensions

I politely demur until you can find me a manuscript from the Philoxenian recension to compare. AFAIK - and I don't know anything I just surf - there arent any: The Philoxenian version did not find favor among the Syriac Christians; as a result, not a single manuscript survives. (And that's without the Romans and Greeks and Latins trying to destroy it.) So I can't show the PA in a manuscript that doesn't exist. So I'll remove Philoxenian from all conversation (except for what I called the edge case above).

You may be right; if so, I don't know, and I don't care (IDKaIDC®), but I speculated above that it seemed to me that perhaps the Harklean manuscripts were not rigoursly maintained, so I challenge you to show me a Harklean manuscript with a chain of curatorship that goes back to Thomas. AFAIK there is no such thing as a mother-lode Harklean codex, so I can't define what is considered from Harklean recensions.

When the Aramaicists talk about the Differences between The Peshitta/o Text, (This post was last modified: 05-04-2021, 12:04 AM by Thirdwoe.) they compare:
  • a) as witnessed in The Khabouris Codex, The Asahel Grant Codex, and The Mingana Codex, and other standard Eastern copies of The Peshitta) & Houghton
  • b) The Western PeshittO version (as edited in the BFBS/UBS 1905/1920 printed edition), showing most of the available English translations compared with each other
I have never seen them point to a Jacobite codex, so I feel safe in defying you to produce a Harklean manuscript that has primacy. But on my own ground, I feel safe in conjecturing that if Thomas of Harqel put for a magnificent opus in Egypt, it would be scrupulously ignored in Persia/India/China where the Eastern churches were biggest, and very splintered. (Except of course by the enemies in Persia/India/China of the churches that were ignoring it.) And the 2 most common PeshittO English families are based on the UBS/Heinz 70? varieties amalgam, or the Gwilliam, really messy ?? varieties amalgam from the BL - because AFAIK he doesn't say what he used "from the BL". So there are probably Harkleans in there but IDKaIDC because many of the BL ones are undefined. (The recencions were church-by-church driven adhoc so there's probably a non-Harklean Western one somewhere. And don't forget - we are the wrong people to ask; ask in Syria or Persia or India, in Syriac, writing LTR. Or make the Aramaicists welcome on PBF now that it looks like peshitta.org is dead.)

There's only one branch of one church of the Nestorian Eastern Church tradition that curated and conserved the PeshittA over 1600 years. And all 4+ complete codices of it are in letter perfect agreement. It stuns me when I go to https://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/ type in a verse number
and get every word agreeing between all of the codices, with links to every variant of the word to CAL.

So I'll happily concede anything you like on the Westerns/Jacobites/Amalgams/PA. But when I look at the abominations in the English translations from the Greek like the KJV, or the former love-of-my-life Matthew's, I won't spend another minute outside the PeshittA. I defy you to rebut those examples...

As you know, I consider KingJamesOnlyism to be an evil attack to destroy the minds of Christians. I am at a lost for words for how to describe the new malady I've identified: TextusReceptusOnlyism :-,)

My point is that I believe that the original western Peshitta did not have these verses. And that the Eastern-Western differences have been exaggerated by the AD 550 to 600s recensions.

My point is that I don't know how I would go about defining "the original western Peshitta" so you may be right. Were I to speculate I'd agree with you. When you find an original curated PeshittO manuscript let me know and we'll try to get it up on dukhrana - they'll take anything there, they have the KJV.

(As for whether the Eastern-Western differences have been exaggerated by the AD 550 to 600s recensions, I'll leave that for another day as I may argue under-exaggerated for novel reasons.)

Now for my main point: when that day comes and we approach dukhrana with your original western PeshittO, I wonder if anyone will be there, and if there will be any backup of the content or software. That scares me, because t looks to me like the Peshitta Primacists were right all along.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:

ebion

Member
It is definite that not only BOTH Eastern and Western Peshitta do not have the Pericope, but just about definite that even the earliest Harklean did not have it.

It is definite that ALL of the Western PeshittO translations have the PA (Mageira, Murdoch, UBS* and derivs) and NONE of the Eastern PeshittA translations (HAS, Younan, Etheridge) have the Pericope.

IDKaIDC: the PA is of no importance theologically; Hebrews 2:9 is the important difference.
All other differences are mere trifles.

Why would anybody waste their time on trifles when there are KJV howlers to be excorcised? Unless...
 
Top