The Peshitta

This post is in reponse to Askjo's post in the other thread (click here to see it), but since the topic of the Peshitta would take that thread seriously off topic, I thought I'd start a new thread.

Yes, Askjo, let's look at the Peshitta. First, some quotes about it from some KJV-only authors (you mentioned some of these already):

- "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]." - David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, Grand Rapids Int. Pub., 1970, pp. 197-98.
- "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." - Dean John Burgon, Which Bible?, p. 130.
- "The Peshitta Syriac version, (150 A.D., the second century)... was based on the Received Text." - D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 45.
- "...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)." - Jack Moorman, Modern Bibles - The Dark Secret, Foundation Magazine, Sept-Oct. 1992, p. 30; Forever Settled, p. 116.
- "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." - Edward F. Hills, The King James Bible Defended, Des Moines, IA, Christian Research Press, 1993, 1956, p. 121.
- ""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..." - William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Version, Shererville, IN, Grady Publications, 1993, p. 34.
- "...the Peshitta Syriac (now dated much earlier than the fifth century) agrees with the KJV." - G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p. 488.
- "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..." - Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 94.
- "[the Peshitta] contained the O.T. as it stands in the A. V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" - Peter Ruckman, Handbook of Manuscript Evidences, p. 79.
- "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" - Bill Bradley, To All Generations, p. 52.
- Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta - Mickey Winter, KJV On Trial, p. 16.
- Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV - Donald Clarke, Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20.

Sounds impressive. All these famous KJV-only authors love the Peshitta. Do they know about the following?

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Scripture KJV Peshitta NIV and/or NASB
passage
Judges 14:15 &quot;And it came to &quot;But on the &quot;On the fourth
pass on the fourth day...&quot; day...&quot;
seventh day...&quot;
1 Samuel 1:24 &quot;three &quot;three-year &quot;three-year-old
bullocks...&quot; old bull...&quot;
bullock...&quot;
1 Samuel 13:5 &quot;...thirty &quot;...three &quot;...three
thousand thousand thousand
chariots...&quot; chariots...&quot; chariots...&quot;
2 Samuel 15:7 &quot;...forty &quot;...four &quot;...four
years...&quot; years...&quot; years...&quot;
1 Kings 5:11 &quot;...twenty &quot;...twenty &quot;...twenty
measures of pure thousand thousand baths
oil...&quot; measures of of pressed
pure oil...&quot; olive oil...&quot;
2 Chronicles &quot;...one hundred &quot;...twenty &quot;...twenty
3:4 twenty...&quot; cubits...&quot; cubits...&quot;
2 Chronicles &quot;Jehoiachin was &quot;Jehoiachin &quot;Jehoiachin was
36:9 eight years was eighteen eighteen years
old...&quot; years old...&quot; old...&quot;
Psalm 145:13 &quot;Thy kingdom is &quot;Thy kingdom &quot;Your kingdom
an everlasting is an is an
kingdom, and thy everlasting everlasting
dominion kingdom, and kingdom, and
endureth thy dominion your dominion
throughout all endures endures through
generations.&quot; throughout all all
generations. generations.
The LORD is The LORD is
faithful in faithful to all
his words and his promises
righteous in and loving
all his toward all he
works.&quot; has made.&quot;
Matt 27:35 &quot;And they &quot;And when they &quot;When they had
crucified him, had crucified crucified him,
and parted his him, they they divided up
garments, divided his his clothes by
casting lots: clothes by casting lots.&quot;
that it might be casting lots.&quot;
fulfilled which
was spoken by
the prophet,
They parted my
garments among
them, and upon
my vesture did
they cast lots.&quot;
Mark 1:2 &quot;...the &quot;...Isaiah the &quot;...Isaiah the
prophets...&quot; prophet...&quot; prophet...&quot;
John 1:18 &quot;...the only &quot;...the only &quot;...the only
begotten Son...&quot; begotten begotten
God...&quot; God...&quot;
John 7:53- present not present present, but
8:11 footnotes
(the story of indicate this
the woman is of
caught in questionable
adultery) origin
Acts 4:25 &quot;Who by the &quot;who spoke &quot;You spoke by
mouth of thy through the the Holy Spirit
servant Holy Spirit by through the
David...&quot; the mouth of mouth of your
thy servant servant, our
David...&quot; father
David:...&quot;
Romans 9:5 &quot;...Christ came, &quot;...Christ &quot;...Christ, who
who is over all, appeared in is God over
God blessed for the flesh, who all, forever
ever.&quot; is God over praised!&quot;
all, and to
whom are due
praises and
thanksgiving
for ever and
ever. Amen.
Jude 1:25 &quot;To the only &quot;To the only &quot;to the only
wise God our God our God our Savior
Saviour, be Saviour, be glory,
glory and through Jesus majesty, power
majesty, Christ our and authority,
dominion and Lord, be glory through Jesus
power, both now and majesty, Christ our
and ever. Amen.&quot; dominion and Lord, before
power, both all ages, now
now and for and
ever. Amen.&quot; forevermore!
Amen.&quot;</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry, that table didn't come out as nice as I was hoping. Visit the following link for a more readable version:

http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/peshitta.htm

 

Sorry, the page is not quite finished, I just uploaded it "as is" for the purpose of this thread. We got the comparisons by using George Lamsa's "Holy Bible - From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts", which is Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta into English. My copy is the fourth edition, 1957. In the preface it says "Manuscripts uses in making this translation were the Codex Ambrosianus for the Old Testament and the so-called Mortimer-McCawley manuscript for the New Testament; the former is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, Italy, and has been identified as fifth century A.D.; the latter was used for our previous translation of the New Testament, of which this edition is a revision, and has been variously identified as sixth or seventh century A.D. Comparisons have been had with Peshitta manuscripts in the Morgan Library, New York, N. Y., with manuscriptus in the Freer Collection, Washington, D.C., with the Urumiah edition, and with a manuscript of the Peshitta Old Testament in the British Museum, the oldest dated Biblical manuscript in existence. Our translator states that comparisons show no differences in text between these various manuscripts, and that he has filled in the few mission portions of Chronicles from other authentic Peshitta sources, as noted in his Introduction."

In the Introduction, Lamsa says "The translator of this work [(himself)] has access to the existing texts; he has spent many years comparing them in the course of translating the Bible. Astonishingly enough, all the Peshitta texts in Aramaic agree. There is one thing of which the Eastern scribes can boast: they copied their holy books diligentyly, faithfully, and meticulously."

 

YOU were the one that posted a humungous post about how fantastic and perfect and early and reliable and pure the Peshitta is. YOU posted quotes from Fuller, Burgon, Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, and others, talking about how much the Peshitta and the KJV were in agreement. I even posted *more* quotes for you from KJV-only authors, including things like it "contained the O.T. as it stands in the A. V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Ruckman) and "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (Brady).

Now you are wanting me to doubt the reliability of Lamsa's work *because* he translated from the Peshitta, instead of from the Greek? Maybe I should bow out of this discussion, and let you debate with yourself instead.

*Exactly* right, Archangel7. The whole reason I wrote that article and that table in the first place was because KJV-only supporters hold the Peshitta in such high regard, basically equating it to the KJV. The examples in my table were chosen not only because they differed textually from the TR/KJV, but also because in these places they differ in such a way as to agree with W/H and "modern" translations.

 

Certainly. The Peshitta is NOT dominantly "Alexandrian" or anything like that. In most places, it is strongly in agreement with the TR. The vast majority of the phrases (and verses) which are in the TR but not in "modern versions", ARE in the Peshitta. A very noteable exception which I just noticed I haven't put on my table yet (but I have now), is 1 John 5:7, which is not present in the Peshitta.

Absolutely.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]According to author James Trimm, those books were not accepted into the canon of the Eastern Church until "508 C.E.", which is after the earliest Peshitta manuscripts are dated, so early Peshitta manuscripts don't contain those books while later ones do. So some copies of the Peshitta today (translated or not) contain those books and some don't, depending on whether the publisher choose to follow their early canon or their later canon. The "Philoxenian" is sometimes the term used for the Peshitta with addition of the 5 books, but I'm not sure if this is technically different from the Peshitta or not.

Here's some handy, interesting links:

Detailed info about the various ancient Syrian versions, including the Peshitta. (Also, this site is awesome in general, tons of info about all aspects of textual criticism and history of scripture)
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac

Lots of info, including a Peshitta Aramaic/English interlinear of the Gospels:
http://www.peshitta.org/

[ September 08, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Here's two more online English translations of the Peshitta (NT only), both done in the mid-19th century:

http://www.peshitta.com/

 

Yes, *some* reject him. Some don't. Do you reject him? I personally think his translation of the Peshitta is "the word of God".

But all that is beside the point. When are you going to address the points raised? You must be listening to some pretty groovy music - you're doing a lot of dancing.

 

Yes, I apologize for originally not understanding your reason for posting that quote. I still don't understand your reason. I accept Lamsa's translation as the word of God. Now are you actually going to discuss the points raised, or are you going to teach me to waltz?