Major Doctrinal Differences

The NASB shows correctly that it was "for a little while".

</font>[/QUOTE]Look at ASV "But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man."

Why did ASV disagree with NASB?

 

I don't know askjo, Dr Bob asked about KJV and NASB differences.

The words "little while" (brachu ti) are present in the text without any variants according to the UBS critical apparatus (in other words it's present in the underlying Koine of the AV).

HankD

 

o really?

wld this be an example of doctrinal difference?

Jude 25:

MV--through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore

KJB--missing. therefore, doctrines of Jesus' Mediatorship, Messiahship, Lordship, n Eternality all clearly denied.

 

Misrepresent? You misread what I said that these are 14 MSS omitting this verse. However 47 manuscripts CONTAIN this verse!!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]And therein lies the misrepresentation. It's not the *quantity* of MS witnesses but the *date* and *geographical provenance* of the witnesses that's significant. The fact that the verse isn't found in the *earliest* Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic MSS -- MSS from different regions of the ancient world -- is strong evidence that it was a later addition to the text.

Yes. Can you?

 

Matthew 18:11 is found in D,E,F,G,H,I,K,L-C,M,N,S,U,V,W,X,Y, Theta-c, Sigma, Phi, Omega, a, aur,b, (c), d,f,ff2,g1,l,n,q,r1,2, Vulgate,pesh.,cur.,har., ba-pt, Arm,Eth,0?,055,0211,0233?,0248? and Majority.

Are you satisfied with these manuscript evidences?

Show me to solve these problems on KJV, not MV.

 

Matthew 18:11 is found in D,E,F,G,H,I,K,L-C,M,N,S,U,V,W,X,Y, Theta-c, Sigma, Phi, Omega, a, aur,b, (c), d,f,ff2,g1,l,n,q,r1,2, Vulgate,pesh.,cur.,har., ba-pt, Arm,Eth,0?,055,0211,0233?,0248? and Majority.

Are you satisfied with these manuscript evidences?</font>[/QUOTE]Check the *dates* of the MSS, and you'll discover that the *oldest* copies in Greek (Aleph, B, 4th C.), Latin (e, 5th C.), Syriac (the Sinaitic, 4th C.), and Coptic (the Sahidic, 4th C.) don't have the verse. This means that the most ancient copies from all regions of the ancient world were without the disputed verse. Look even more closely and you'll also discover that Mt. 18:11 in many of the Byzantine MSS (for example, G and a number of lectionaries) has the *same* wording as Lk. 19:10 ("to seek and to save"). All of this suggests that Mt. 18:11 was not originally part of Matthew's Gospel, and was at some later date imported into the text from Lk. 19:10.

All right, but you won't like the solutions.

Lk. 14:10 -- Change the KJV's poor translation to read "honour" rather than "worship."

Rom. 8:26 -- Change the KJV's poor translation to read "Himself" rather than "itself."

Jn. 14:14, Ac. 4:25, Rom. 1:4, 1 Jn. 3:1 -- Restore the missing words to the KJV's text.

Problems solved.

 

Dear askjo,

Although I am not KJVO, I personally do not subscribe to the Wescott and Hort theory which reduced to it's simplistic general level is this:

1. The oldest reading is best.
2. The shortest reading is best.
3. Aleph and B are best.

There is more to it than that but you needn't ask about these passages which have no Aleph and B support. It's the way it is. Did you go to the website I posted in another thread?

http://www.bibleviews.com/robinson.html

This is a treatise by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.

Her you will find Dr. Robinson’s rebuttals to the above mentioned theory with more of the details under
“A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic” along with several other interesting items.

He ends his article thus:

As it is the goal of ALL who post here at the Bible Versions/Translations Forum.

HankD

 

Peshitta (2nd Century) is oldest than other MSS above. Peshitta contains Matthew 18:11.

You did not solve these problems against the KJV.

 

Peshitta (2nd Century) is oldest than other MSS above. Peshitta contains Matthew 18:11. </font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken. The Peshitta is 5th C., which means it's later than the 4th C. Sinaitic Syriac.

You did not solve these problems against the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I did. But I told you that you wouldn't like the solutions.

If you don't like my solutions, then what are *your* solutions to these obvious doctrinal deficiencies in the KJV?

 

I am not mistaken. Most naturalistic critics said, "The Peshitta is 5th Century." They including you denied the Peshitta is 2nd century because they including you picked wrong persons reflecting their textual criticism against the Peshitta.

Look at some quotations from some websites concerning the Peshitta. Let them speak:

"The Peshitta (meaning clear or simple) is the standard Syrian version and was authorized by two opposing branches of the Syrian Church, the Nestorians and the Jacobites. Today the Syrian Church still holds this version in a place of special reverence. [Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 194.] Their tradition states that the Peshitta was the work of St. Mark or the Apostle Thaddeus (Jude). The Peshitta New Testament resembles the Byzantine text-type and therefore supports the Traditional Text. Alexander Souter noted that "the Peshitta Syriac rarely witnesses to anything different from what we find in the great bulk of Greek manuscripts." [Souter, 60.] It should be remembered that the "great bulk of Greek manuscripts" are Byzantine.

The Peshitta was considered the oldest of the Syrian versions dating to the second century or perhaps before, although some scholars disagreed and assigned it to the first part of the fifth century. [Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon, 1977), 36.] In 1901, textual scholar F. C. Burkitt questioned the early date of the Peshitta and attributed the work to Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa. This soon became the standard position adopted by most textual scholars. Dr. Arthur Voobus attacked Burkitt’s view and compared Rabbula’s citations with the Peshitta, finding several differences. Likewise, Dr. Edward Hills argued that Rabbula could not have been the translator because the division within the Syrian Church took place during the time of Rabbula, who led one of the divisions. Yet both sides claim the Peshitta as Holy Scripture. Such unanimous acceptance would not have been likely if the leader of one side had translated it. [Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956; reprint, Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174.]"

"The Syriac Peshitta
One of the presumed source documents for use in the Semitic New Testaments, the Syriac Peshitta, is of particular interest for our report. James Trimm notes the original composition of this "source document" and its derivation from the Old Syriac, rather than the Greek text:

"The Peshitta New Testament is the Aramaic version of the New Testament which has been preserved by the Church of the East... It includes all of the books except 2Peter; 2John; 3John; Jude and Revelation. These books were not canonized by the Church of the East until 508 C. E. The Peshitta is not merely a translation from the Greek text, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac, as Arthur Voobus writes: "... the Peshitta is not a translation, but a revision of an Old Syriac version." (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac; 1951; p. 46 see also pp. 54-55)." 13.
The Hypertext Webster's Dictionary defines the Syriac language as "more correctly rendered 'Aramaic,' including the Syriac and the Chaldee languages." Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary describes the Syriac Peshitta as a departure from the Greek New Testament in that Apocryphal books were included and books of the later canon were omitted:
"A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books (called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the LXX Version. The New Testament was also translated from Greek into Syriac about the same time. It is noticeable that this version does not contain the Second and Third Epistles of John, 2 Peter, Jude and the Apocalypse. These were, however, translated subsequently and placed in the version."
The Biblical Literature website also indicates the growing importance placed on the Peshitta by the fact that a critical edition is now underway:
"There are many manuscripts of the Peshitta, of which the oldest bears the date 442. Only four complete codices are extant from between the 5th and 12th centuries. No critical edition yet exists, but one is being prepared by the Peshitta Commission of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament."
Strange Bedfellows
Although the Semitic and Aramaic New Testament Projects will draw upon other Semitic versions, the Syriac Peshitta has the distinction of being recognized by Fundamental Bible scholars as a legitimate translation. Inexplicably, there is a unanimity of opinion among these scholars that the Peshitta follows the Textus Receptus. This is based on the assertion of arch-rival, Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort!

David Otis Fuller: "It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 A.D. This version is known as the Peshitto (the correct or simple). This Bible even today generally follows the Received Text [quoting F.J.A. Hort, Introduction, p. 143]. 14.
Dean John Burgon: "It is well known that the Peshitto is mainly in agreement with the traditional text. What therefore proves one, virtually proves the order. If, as Dr. Hort admits, the traditional text prevailed at Antioch from the middle of the fourth century, is it not more probable that it should have been made without a record of history, and that in a part of the world which has been always alien to change." 15.
D.A. Waite: "The Peshitta Syriac version, (150 A.D., the second century)... was based on the Received Text." 16.
Jack Moorman: "...the Peshitta...manuscripts (now numbering over 259) are in line with the Received Text. ...the Syrian version may have been written with direct access to the original autographs themselves (based on Ruckman)." 17.
Edward F. Hills: "The Peshitta Syriac version and the Gothic version also belong to the Traditional family of New Testament documents. And the New Testament quotations of Chrysostom and the other Fathers of Antioch in Asia Minor seem generally to agree with the Traditional Text." 18.
William P. Grady: "True to the meaning of its name (straight or rule), the Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition [A.D. 145] and strong agreement with the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible..." 19.
Gail Riplinger: "...the Peshitta Syriac (now dated much earlier than the fifth century) agrees with the KJV." 20.
Peter Ruckman: "The orthodox view of Bible-believing scholars for 1700 years was that the Peshitta was written early in the second century. Since it agrees over and over again with the King James' readings..." 21.
Add to these superlative recommendations of the Syriac Peshitta the repudiation of the Greek New Testament by leading textual scholar, Gordon Fee, whose book, How To Read the Bible for All It's Worth, is required reading in some Christian colleges:
"Jesus' primary tongue was Aramaic; his teachings come to us only in a Greek translation...to some this reality can be threatening..." 22.
A 1995 article in Christianity Today also cites 'leading text-critical scholar' Gordon Fee as doubtful of the reference in I Timothy 3:16 that "God was manifest in the flesh."
"Given the nature of the debate of the deity of Jesus Christ that took place during the third and fourth centuries, would that the early manuscripts had read "God"! The debate about Christ's deity would have been resolved like a gavel to the bench. As [leading text-critical scholar Gordon D.] Fee suggests, 'The argument from silence in this case is an extremely telling one.'" 23.
And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (II Tim. 3:16 KJV)
Gordon Fee's reference to the Greek New Testament as a translation points to an original in Aramaic. The early mss. which omit the word "God" in II Timothy 3:16 appear to be references to the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Syriac. The Peshitta reads "He who" rather than "'God' was manifest in the flesh."
Having laid this foundation of trust in the Peshitta, and doubt upon the Greek New Testament, can it be only a matter of time before Fundamental Bible scholars are prevailed upon by the Hebraisers to admit the unthinkable -- that perhaps the Old Syriac, of which the Peshitta was a revision, was the ORIGINAL text upon which the Greek texts were based?

Considering the agreement among Fundamentalist scholars regarding the pedigree of the Peshitta and the incongruity of its acceptance by two groups of scholars which are fundamentally opposed to one another on essential doctrines such as the Trinity and divine inspiration of Scripture, we thought the Aramaic Text in question warranted an inspection. Our investigation commenced with the following questions in mind:

What religious groups currently use the Syriac Peshitta?
What is the origin and history of the Peshitta?
What religious groups have historically used the Peshitta?
Are there textual variations between the Syriac Peshitta and the Textus Receptus?
If there are significant variations, do they affect essential doctrine?



The Church of Antioch


Last December, the Religious News Service reported on the growing number of Maronite and other Catholic denominations whose liturgies are written in Aramaic and whose New Testament is the Syriac Peshitta. Those who are familiar with the Hebrew Roots rationale for turning to the Semitic languages will recognize the arguments for a Semitic original, which I have emphasized in bold letters:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - To many, it may seem as dead as Latin, but Aramaic - the language Jesus spoke - is alive every weekend at St. Elias Maronite Church here and in communities across the nation from San Diego, Calif., to Yonkers, N.Y.
"It's as close as we can get to the words Jesus spoke," said the Rev. Richard Saad, pastor of St. Elias, a Lebanese Christian congregation. "It's a holy language, it's a liturgical language, it's the language Jesus spoke." And because Jesus taught and told his often-puzzling parables in Aramaic, the language also holds the key to interpreting passages that have long been misunderstood by Westerners, said Aramaic scholar Roco Erricco, author of "Treasures From the Language of Jesus."
"In biblical scholarship and translation, its becoming more important," said Erricco, president of the Noohra Foundation in Santa Fe, N.M. "It helps clarify passages that are obscure. Especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940's, the importance of Aramaic - a general term that includes a group of closely related Semitic dialects - has grown in offering clues to biblical scholars. When they run into difficulty, they turn to Aramaic," Erricco said.
3 key biblical languages
"The three languages that are crucial for biblical scholarship are Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic," he added. "When the New Testament went west, it was in Greek. When it went eastward, it was in Aramaic."
The current interest in Aramaic crosses denominational boundaries and puts Aramaic speakers and translators like Erricco in great demand. I can hardly keep up with it," he said, "People are really interested in it. What I'm doing is showing the Bible through the eyes of the Middle East, the Semitic languages of Aramaic and Hebrew, the ancient culture, psychology, idioms and symbolism of the ancient Near East."
At the same time, Aramaic is not just a "dead," scholarly language, like Latin. Many people from the Middle East who have migrated to other parts of the world have kept Aramaic as their primary language, Errico said. Indeed, there are communities of Aramaic speakers as large as 3,000 in San Diego, Calif., Chicago, and Yonkers, N.Y. Other Middle Eastern Christians who migrated to Australia and Russia also speak it, he said...
Aramaic spoken here
At the 3,000-member St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Church in El Cajon, Calif., "they still speak Aramaic in their community" and continue to use it in the liturgy, Erricco said. "The people preserved it and kept it. Today the Aramaic language is still alive. The liturgy is still alive in the services, In Iraq and Kurdistan, thousands still speak Aramaic."
At St. Elias, a church of Lebanese immigrants, "it's definitely part of our spiritual culture," Saad said. Throughout the Mass, prayers and Scripture are recited in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. When Saad holds up a communion wafer during the consecration of the Eucharist, he recites a Gospel account of the Last Supper in Syriac. In the church library, there is a Syriac manuscript of Holy Week services handwritten by monks and copies of the Peshitta, a Syriac translation of the Bible. Above the front door, the name of the Church is written in Syriac.
The liturgy dates back to a time before Muslims conquered most of the Middle East, beginning in the seventh century, when Arabic became the dominant language of the region. "It put Aramaic on the back shelf," Saad said. Aramaic is a Semitic language, closely related to both Hebrew and Arabic. It is written right to left and uses the same alphabet, syntax and grammar.
Gospels in Greek
The earliest existing copies of the Gospels were written in Greek but maintained 46 words of Aramaic, which some scholars feel point back to an Aramaic original before Greek, Erricco said... 24.
The Maronites were a gnostic sect that was excommunicated in the 7th century [when the Muslims invaded the Middle East] for holding to the doctrine of Monotheletism, the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine) as opposed to orthodox doctrine which maintained that Christ has both Divine and human wills. The heresy of Monotheletism eventuated in a great schism in Christianity from about 640-681, at which time the Council of Constantinople [680-681] condemned Monotheletism.
[Previously, the Council of Chalcedon in 452 had condemned Monophysitism, an advanced type of Alexandrian theology, which ensued in the fatal defection of Syria and Egypt. Nearly the entire Eastern Church had apostacized from Roman orthodoxy with the signing of the Monophysite Henotican in 482 by the Eastern bishops.]

The Columbia Encyclopedia entry for "Maronites" identifies the headquarters of the Maronite community as Antioch:

"Maronites, a Christian community of Arabs in communion with the Pope. By emigration they have spread to Cyprus, Palestine, Egypt, South America and the United States and now number about 1 million. Their liturgy (said mainly in liturgical Syriac) is of the Antiochian type, with innovations taken from the Latin rite. Their ecclesiastical head, under the Pope, is called Patriarch of Antioch; he lives in Lebanon... The Maronites have been a distinct community since the 7th cent., when they separated in the doctrinal dispute over Monotheletism; they returned to communion with the Pope in the 12th cent. In the 19th cent., massacres of Maronites by the Druses brought French intervention; this gave France its modern hold in Lebanon and Syria. Besides the Maronites, there are two other groups in Syria in communion with the Pope - the Melkites and the Syrian Catholics." 25.
The newspaper article arrested our attention, as we recalled that Peter Michas' Preface to The Rod of an Almond Tree in God's Master Plan advanced the possibility that "the Gospels were originally written... in Antioch (the largest Christian community of the earliest Church)..." The capital of Syria, Antioch is also identified in Acts 11:26 as the city where the disciples were first called Christians. In Which Bible? David Otis Fuller again quotes Dr. F.J.A. Hort on the importance of the church at Antioch and translation of the Greek New Testament into the Syrian language (not vice versa):
It was at Antioch, capital of Syria, that the believers were first called Christians. And as time rolled on, the Syrian-speaking Christians could be numbered by the thousands. It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 A.D. This version is known as the Peshitto (the correct or simple). 26.
The Interpreter's Bible Dictionary confirms that the Peshitta was missing New Testament books for a prolonged period of time.
"The canon of the Peshitta does not included II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, and so represents the ancient canon used in the Patriarchate of Antioch in the fourth century." 27.
The Britannica Online states that these books were not considered canonical by the Syrian Church:
"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. The earliest parts in Old Syriac are thought to have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts by Jewish Christians at Edessa, although the Old Testament Peshitta was later revised according to Greek textual principles. The earliest extant versions of the New Testament Peshitta date to the 5th century AD and exclude The Second Letter of Peter, The Second Letter of John, the Third Letter of John, The Letter of Jude, and The Revelation to John, which were not canonical in the Syrian church." 28.
The Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics mentions use of the Peshitta at the School of Antioch:
"In their canon of Scripture [the Antiochian School] followed the tradition of the Antiochian and Syrian Churches (which is also represented in the Peshitta or Vulgate Syriac version), and did not included in the N.T. Canon the Apocalypse, II Peter, II and III John, or Jude. Theodore, on subjective grounds, also rejected the epistle of St. James." 29.
The Biblical Literature website indicates that non-believers were predominantly involved in its translation, and notes the Jewish influences found in the Peshitta:
Syriac Versions
"The Bible of the Syriac Churches is known as the Peshitta ("simple" translation). Though neither the reason for the title nor the origins of the versions are known, the earliest translations most likely served the needs of the Jewish communities in the region of Adiabene (in Mesopotamia), which are known to have existed as early as the 1st century CE. This probably explains the archaic stratum unquestionably present in the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Psalms of the Peshitta, as well as the undoubtedly Jewish influences generally, though Jewish-Christians also may have been involved in the rendering."
The Encyclopedia Britannica Online confirms that the Syriac Peshitta was the accepted bible of the Syrian Churches from the third century onward:
"(Syriac: "simple," or "common"), Syriac version of the Bible, the accepted Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century AD. The name Peshitta was first employed by Moses bar Kepha in the 9th century to suggest (as does the name of the Latin Vulgate) that the text was in common use. The name also may have been employed in contradistinction to the more complex Syro-Hexaplar version.
The apostle Paul indicated that corruption of the New Testament began during the apostolic period: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God. Respected Bible scholars of the nineteenth century confirm this interpretation of II Cor, 2:17a. Dr. Frederick H.A. Scrivener served on the Committee for the English Revised Version and alone opposed the Westcott-Hort agenda to replace the Textus Receptus with a New Greek Text. Dean John Burgon vigorously defended the Textus Receptus and refuted the Westcott-Hort theory. Their statements on early corruption are quoted by D.A. Waite and David Otis Fuller:
"Dr. Scrivener and Dean Burgon both agree, that during the first 100 years after the New Testament was written, the greatest corruptions took place to the Received Text by the early church." 30.
"Prebendary Scrivener, another great scholar, is quoted by Burgon as follows: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed -- that Irenaeus and the African fathers and the whole western with a portion of the Syriac church used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica or Erasmus or Stevens thirteen centuries later when molding the Textus Receptus.' 'Therefore, [Burgon] antiquity alone affords no security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries.'"

" THE QUESTION RAISED ABOUT THE DATE OF THE PESHITTA

The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, agrees closely with the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Until about one hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the second century and hence was one of the oldest New Testament versions. Thus because of its agreement with the Traditional text the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text. In more recent times, however, naturalistic critics have tried to nullify this testimony of the Peshitta by denying that it is in ancient version. Burkitt (1904), for example, insisted that the Peshitta did not exist before the fifth Century but "was prepared by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (the capital city of' Syria) from 411 - 435 AD, and published by his authority."

Burkitt's theory was once generally accepted, but now scholars are realizing that the Peshitta must have been in existence before Rabbula episcopate, because it was the received text of both the two Sects into Which the Syrian Church became divided. Since this division took place in Rabbula’s time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these sects, it is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would have adopted it as their received New Testament text. Indeed A. Voobus, in a series of special studies (1947-54), has argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but even that he did not use it, it least not in its present form. If this is true and if Burkitt's contention is also true, namely, that the Syrian ecclesiastical leaders who lived before Rabbula also did not use the Peshitta, then why was it that the Peshitta was received by all the mutually opposing groups in the Syrian Church is their common, authoritative Bible? It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Syrian Church continued to be loyal to it regardless of the faction into which they came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made little difference to them whether these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not. They persevered in their usage of it, and because of their steadfast devotion this old translation retained its place as the received text of the Syriac-speaking churches. (Edward F. Hills).

With regard to the above and the contention that the Peshitta was merely a Byzantine revision of another Syrian version called the Old Syriac or Curetonian, Pickering says,

Because the Peshitta does witness to the "Byzantine" text, Hort had to get it out of the second and third centuries. Accordingly, he posited a late recension to account for it. F. C. Burkitt went further than Hort and specified Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from AD 411 - 435, as the author of the revision.

Both ideas have had a wide acceptance. H. C. Thiessen's statement is typical, both in content and dogmatism.

This (Peshitta) was formerly regarded as the oldest of the Syrian versions; but Burkitt has shown that it is in reality a revision of the Old Syriac made by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, about the year 425. This view is now held by nearly all Syriac scholars... The text of the Peshitta is now identified as the Byzantine text, which almost certainly goes back to the revision made by Lucian of Antioch about AD 300.

As to the Syrian Peshitta, Burgon protested the complete lack of evidence for Hort's assertions. A. Voobus says of Burkitt's effort:

Burkitt has tried to picture the life span of Bishop Rabbula as a decisive period in the development of the New Testament text in the Syrian church.

Regardless of the general acceptance of the axiom, established by him, that "the authority of Rabbula secured an instant success for the new revised version ..." and that "copies of the Peshitta were rapidly multiplied, it soon became the only text in ecclesiastical use" - the kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it.

Voobus finds that Rabbula himself used the Old Syriac type of text. His researches show clearly that the Peshitta goes back at least to the mid-fourth century and that it was not the result of an authoritative revision.

Here again there is in added historical difficulty.

The Peshitta is regarded as authoritative Scripture by both the Nestorians and the Monophysites. It is hard to see how this could have come to pass on the hypothesis that Rabbula was the author and chief promoter of the Peshitta. For Rabbula was a decided Monophysites and a determined opponent of the Nestorians. It is almost contrary to reason, therefore, to suppose that the Nestorian Christians would adopt so quickly and so unanimously the handiwork of their greatest adversary (Burgon).

It is hard to understand how men like F. F. Bruce, E. C. Colwell, F. C. Kenyon, etc., could allow themselves to state dogmatically that Rabbula produced the Peshitta.

"Literary history," says Scrivener, "can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the "Peshitta" with that used by the Eastern Church long before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land of the blessed Gospel. The Peshitta is referred by common consent to the 2nd century of our era."

'"We now come to the position," says Miller, "testing upon the supposed posteriority of the so-called Syrian Text. Here again we are in the region of pure speculation unsustained by historical facts. Dr. Hort imagines first that there was a recension of the early Syrian Version, which this School maintains represented by the Curetonian Version (see below) , somewhere between 250 AD and 350 at Edessa, or Nisibis, or Antioch.

Well indeed may Dr. Hort add 'even for conjecture the materials are scanty.’ It would have been truer to the facts to have said, ‘for such a conjecture there are no materials at all, and therefore it must be abandoned.’"

"The Peshitta Syriac. It is thought to date about 411 A.D. to 435 A.D., and to be a translation made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, though this is not proven. Some have believed this translation may date back to the 3rd, or even the 2nd century. This version was the great Standard Version of the ancient Syriac Church. It also contained the full reading of Mark 16: 9-20."


"G O D ' S T R U T H

T H E P E S H I T T A B I B L E ( 150 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In Syrian )


After the Apostle John died, the Church used its collection of New Testament manuscripts. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these separate manuscripts were brought together into codex (book) form.

In the very early years of the Church, the Traditional Majority Text (i.e. the Bible) was called the Greek Vulgate; Greek because it was written in Greek and Vulgate because Vulgate means:

"... that which is popular; the usual or best known, and most used by the majority of the people" [S4P97].

Then around 150 A.D. the Greek Vulgate (the Traditional Majority Text) was translated into Syrian. This Bible, for the Syrian Church, was named the 'Peshitta Bible'. Syriac scholars state that the Peshitta Bible was:

"... careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style" [S4P97].

In his book: "Believing Bible Study", Edward F. Hills compares the Syrian Peshitta Bible to the Traditional Majority Greek Text:

"The Peshitta Syriac version agrees closely with the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts ..." and he says: "... the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text" [S8P94].

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason (i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e. corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date back to the early manuscripts. The quote above shows the 'Traditional Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

It used to be that: "... some scholars of the nineteenth century believed that the 'Majority Text' was a fourth century recension and did not represent the earliest manuscripts ... This [theory] has been abandoned by most present day scholars" [S3P480].

Isn't it appropriate that the Traditional Majority Text can be traced back to the early Church in Syria. I say this because it was in Syria, specifically at Antioch the capital of Syria, where believers were first called 'Christians'! ( Acts 11:26 )."

 

I don't know askjo, Dr Bob asked about KJV and NASB differences.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, pls forgive me.

 

I am not mistaken. Most naturalistic critics said, "The Peshitta is 5th Century." They including you denied the Peshitta is 2nd century because they including you picked wrong persons reflecting their textual criticism against the Peshitta. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm afraid you are mistaken. We know the Peshitta dates to the 5th C. for three reasons:

(1) The oldest extant MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are 5th and 6th C. The oldest extant MSS of the Old Syriac (the Sinaitic and Curetonian) are 4th C. So the oldest Syriac MSS are *not* of the Peshitta.

(2) The Peshitta contain readings from the Old Syriac. This suggests that the Peshitta was a later revision of the previously existing Old Syriac text.

(2) An analysis of the Scripture citations in the works of Syriac fathers who lived before the 5th C. (e.g., Ephraem) shows that they did *not* use the Peshitta, but rather the Old Syriac or the Diatessaron.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the existence of the Peshitta prior to the 5th C.

 

Incorrect! So are you mistaken.

 

Dear askjo,

You are fighting a futile battle. As Dr. Robinson said in his treatise, this area of study (Textual Criticism) is both subjective and prejudicial. The dating of witnesses varies wildly among the “experts” of the various schools of thought, so the quest for the real truth is muddled.

Here are a few names that might to helpful for you and the study of the ancient character of the Traditional Text with a work by each.

Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Texual Criticism.
Gunther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles.
Ernest C. Colwell, Studies in Methodolgy in Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

You already know of the John Burgon reprints The Revision Revised and The Traditional Text.

These authors will lead you to others.

HankD

 

Yes, I have 2 books: Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Texual Criticism and John Burgon's book, "The Traditional Text." I read them before. I will get John's book, "The Revision Revised" later.

 

I'm still waiting for the KJV-Only advocates to explain why they don't condemn the "doctrinal deficiencies" in the KJV with the same righteous indignation as they do the "doctrinal deficiencies" in other versions.

 

You know why.
I know why.

Do the gracious thing and let them off the hook.



HankD

 

Well,I could use the tired old crutch of "no doctrine is affected";but that answer is a dishonest hobby-horse cop out.

 

Incorrect! So are you mistaken. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Oh! Well. You have thus pronounced it without any kind of rebuttal evidence or counterargument, so you must be right.