The Peshitta

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by BrianT, Sep 7, 2003.

  1. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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]
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    [/quote]This website did not give one source concerning thr Peshitta. Where did Brian Tegart and Rick Norris get it?
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    This website did not give one source concerning thr Peshitta. Where did Brian Tegart and Rick Norris get it?
     
  5. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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."
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found other information about Lamsa from other website. Let this speak:

    "Are Lamsa's interpretations of the Bible reliable?

    Lamsa also contrasts Peshitta Aramaic wording with that of Greek texts. Every translator takes Syriac texts into account, but Lamsa is unbalanced because he always assumes that the Syriac is preeminent, resulting in numerous inaccurate interpretations."

    Do you trust him?
     
  7. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are missing the point. Lamsa didn't intend to provide an accurate English translation of the GREEK text; he intended to provide an accurate English translation of the SYRIAC text of the Peshitta. What is more relevant to the discussion, it has been shown that the Peshitta differs significantly from the TR/KJV in several significant places. *This* is the issue you and other KJV-Only advocates have yet to address.
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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? [​IMG] [​IMG] 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.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    I am wondering, could there be a middle ground?

    Can we conclude (I certainly have) That both texts types (Byzantine-Traditional and Alexandrian) were in existance and used as sources at the point in time that the Peshitta was translated/compiled?

    When these debates get protracted we seem to get into this game of oneupsmanship and loose sight of the goal - truth.

    It's a Baptist thing I guess [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly. [​IMG] 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. [​IMG]
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Thanks Brian,

    You also said...
    That’s not all that is missing…

    HankD
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has turned into a very educational thread. Kudos to you guys.

    Hank, I did have a question based on your last few posts though. Are you moving away from the TRO position towards more of a Majority Text position? The Peshitta would seem to be a very strong support for favoring the Majority/Byzantine.
     
  13. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    </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 ]
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's two more online English translations of the Peshitta (NT only), both done in the mid-19th century:

    http://www.peshitta.com/
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Scott, you asked...
    Scott, I was never really a hard-core TRO advocate for the very reason that so many authors who are opposed to the W&H fixation on the Alexandrian texts of Aleph/B used the terms TR, Traditional, Byzantine and even Majority text as synonymous or equivalents.

    I once said that the Traditional Text has gone by different names through the ages and was chastised for it, however many authors do use these terms interchangeably.

    It was not until the invention of the printing press that the Traditional Text was compiled/collated into the "Textus Receptus" by Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus.

    Personally I choose the Scrivener 1894/95 TR as my final choice.

    Truly it is not exactly any of the above, but I feel that it is the most accurate representation of the originals being a distillation of the above (IMO).

    That is not to say that there is not room for refinements here and there especially as new data is brought to light. Again (IMO).

    HankD

    [ September 08, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Modern versions defenders, whom I rejected, reject Lamsa. That's how I found this information from them, NOT KJVO advocates!!!! :eek: :rolleyes: [​IMG]
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not KJV-0nly advocates!!!!! I found this information concerning Lamsa and the Peshitta FROM modern versions advocates who rejected Lamsa.
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's about 1598 greek TR?
     

Share This Page

Loading...