KJV v. pre-1611 English Translations

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
No, from the late 4th-early 5th C. We know this because (1) no Syriac Father before the late 4th C. used the Peshitta, and (2) the most ancient Syriac MSS we have show a pre-Peshitta Old Syriac text.

Most scholars covered it up by saying that the Peshitta is from 4th Century because they ignored the fact.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
You are mistaken. Lk. 17:36 is absent from the *majority* of Greek copies. Where are you getting your information? What's your source?

A manuscript digest of 356 doctrinal passages will tell you what MSS contained and did not contain these passages. </font>[/QUOTE]Which "manuscript digest?" What is the title? Who is the author/editor/publisher?

On the other hand, the critical apparatus of the NA27th GNT, UBS 4th GNT, the IGNTP's second volume on Luke, and Swanson's "NT Greek Manuscripts: Luke" all indicate that the majority of Greek copies do *not* have this verse. Even the KJV translators knew this, which is why they included a marginal note in the 1611 KJV which read, "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

 

[skanwmatos]

I think your problem may be that you are calling two different textual traditions by the same name. The word "Peshitta" means "straight" or "sincere" in Aramaic. In 431 and 451 respectively, following the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the "Churches of the East" also called "Monophysites" found themselves inundated with a new and different bible text in Aramaic. The Churches of the East brought out the Peshitta to counter this trend away from the "straight" (in the sense of correct, or original) text toward a revisionist text based on later manuscripts and lately translated from the Greek.

There are many today who confuse the 5th century Syrian text for the Peshitta, including some publishing houses which have published the 5th century text under the title "Peshitta."

The modern definition of the "Syriac" text is simply the combined testimony of several rather recent editions of the New Testament in Aramaic. For the most part these texts would include the Syriac manuscripts sy/s (1910), sy/c (1904), syP(1920), sy/ph (1909, sy/h (1788, reprinted in 1803 and 1899).

Don't confuse the cite "Syriac" as found in the textual apparatus with "Peshitta" or vice versa. They are often interchanged, but (at least in the textual apparatus of UBS) refer to texts dating from 1788 through 1920.

Finding an authentic ancient Aramaic bible is very difficult, at best.

The Peshitta should not be confused with the 5th century Aramaic revisions which are being published under that name.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
No, from the late 4th-early 5th C. We know this because (1) no Syriac Father before the late 4th C. used the Peshitta, and (2) the most ancient Syriac MSS we have show a pre-Peshitta Old Syriac text.

Most scholars covered it up by saying that the Peshitta is from 4th Century because they ignored the fact. </font>[/QUOTE]What "fact?" The fact is that there's not a single shred of hard evidence for the existence of the Peshitta before the late 4th-early 5th C. The fact is that all the evidence we have from the earliest Syriac MSS and the Gospel quotations in the early Syriac Fathers tell us they did *not* use a Peshitta text. How can that be if the Peshitta was THE text of the Syriac church from the 2nd C. on?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
What "fact?" The fact is that there's not a single shred of hard evidence for the existence of the Peshitta before the late 4th-early 5th C.

Aphraates, also know as the "Persian Sage," quoted the Peshitta about 337 AD.

Mor Ephrem (St. Ephrem the Syrian) wrote a commentary based on the Peshitta in 338 AD.

The ancient text called "The Doctrine of Addi" places the Peshitta in apostolic times. This Addi is identified by the Church of the East as Thaddaeus (mentioned as a disciple in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18), who went to Edessa around 50AD, according to their history, and wrote the treatise which came to be known by that name.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Skan,

Most would not argue that Eastern Aramaic versions were floating around - Ephrem's commentary is a good example of this evidence. But what does that mean for us? The Peshitta as we have it is probably 400 yrs away from the NT period. That's a while - and Syriac is quite distinct from the Palestinian Jewish Aramaic of NT times. Matthew Black did a painstaking study on the Aramaic influence in the Gospels and Acts - and got torched (justifiably) by Joseph Fitzmyer for this very reason.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

What "fact?" The fact is that there's not a single shred of hard evidence for the existence of the Peshitta before the late 4th-early 5th C.

Aphraates, also know as the "Persian Sage," quoted the Peshitta about 337 AD.

Mor Ephrem (St. Ephrem the Syrian) wrote a commentary based on the Peshitta in 338 AD.

The ancient text called "The Doctrine of Addi" places the Peshitta in apostolic times. This Addi is identified by the Church of the East as Thaddaeus (mentioned as a disciple in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18), who went to Edessa around 50AD, according to their history, and wrote the treatise which came to be known by that name. </font>[/QUOTE]Aphraates and Ephraem used a Diatessaron text, not a Peshitta text. And the claims of ancient works like "The Doctrine of Addi" are often pious exaggerations and need to be independently verified. There were ancient traditions stating that Mark founded the church in Alexandria, yet there's no hard evidence that Mark was anywhere near Alexandria. The same applies to the claims about an early date for the Peshitta -- no hard evidence exists to back them up.

 

[skanwmatos]

The only one I know of who says Ephraem used the Diatessaron was Burkitt, and I believe the work of Arthur Hjelt is far superior to Burkitt's.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
]What "fact?"

They knew it and told their own fact without the integrity.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Skan,

Doesn't Bruce Metzger also say that Ephrem used the Diatessaron for his commentary?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Skan,

Doesn't Bruce Metzger also say that Ephrem used the Diatessaron for his commentary?

He cites the work of Burkitt to support his position.