Hi Folks, Schmuel wrote: I agree that this is true about a few of very significant variants, that there is agreement with the Alexandrian text and the
Message 1 of 2
, Jul 9, 2007
I agree that this is true about
a few of very significant variants, that there
is agreement with the Alexandrian text and the
How did you do your study when,
as you've admitted elsewhere, that you read neither Greek nor Syriac?
Hmmmm.... did I "admit" something ?
Did I ever claim anywhere to read Greek or Syriac or Hebrew (beyond
phonetic Hebrew from Hebrew school and a bit of later refreshing) ? Or
did I simply state the facts properly in every discussion ?
Shouldn't language be used properly on an email forum ? Is there really a
place for unfounded attempts to impugn like "spin" and
"admitted" that we have seen in the response to my
discussion of the study of which I shared the basic results.
And didn't I already write to this forum (emphasis added:)
"If someone has a list of Byz=Alex
variants handy I would be happy to do the checking. The nice
thing is that for the most part the study is 100% solid working
with the translations in English, as long as the variant is
Jeffrey Gibson, did you even read my posts
before writing in your par-for-the-course accusatory and hostile style
At any rate, your question I will take as simply an opportunity to share
the methodology and some other points of interest.
In fact, with major variants such a study is almost trivially easy to do
in English. One might wonder and puzzle about why it hasn't been
done before with so many folks doing studies and learning in the textual
field. It seems like arcane analysis is popular in textual
criticism -- while easily done, simple and effective analysis can be
missed entirely. (Whether having language skills necessary or not.)
Why ? An interesting question.
Similarly, notice how I questioned the statement about Codex Bezae,
related here as from F. H. A. Scrivener info Bezae, being the source of
the Syriac Harklensis Acts.
And this was easier to question since Codex
Bezae in Acts is translated and easily available. I do hope someone
with more background in the field can try to answer the questions in that
regard. Quite puzzling. Perhaps there is more context in
Scrivener or a limited application not mentioned in the quotes given
With the Peshitta especially there is little contention about the text,
with a few eastern/western variants (such as Acts 20:28 and Hebrews
2:9). My purpose was to use the earlier eastern text, however afaik
there are not any differences (accepting the five books which they placed
in their text later, one might want to separate those five books in the
final analysis) between the eastern and western Peshitta versions when it
comes to the major "inclusion/omission" variants in the
alexandrian text. And this was confirmed by the fact that the Peshitta
translations of John Wesley Etheridge, George Lamsa and James Murdock
agreed on these 180 variants despite being translations from differing
Those three editions, and the incomplete Paul Younan text, are available
Then it was necessary to find differences
between the Textus Receptus and Alexandrian texts. The TR texts are
well represented by the King James Bible, although similarly any English
TR translation would be expected to give the exact same results, such as
Young's or the NKJV or the MKJV or the Geneva or Tyndale Bible.
Generally speaking every time the English modern versions omit a phrase
or verse that is in the TR text this is because the NA-27 text recommends
against the verse as original. And the NA-27 does so on the basis
principally of Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus.
And from these many folks have already documented many of the major
variants. One website had gone so far as to list the text of 180
such variants. This is the "magic marker" page of Brandon
Please note, you don't have to agree with
the textual views of Brandon Staggs to acknowledge
that he has put together a very easy-to-use list. It sticks with
quite significant variants which
is an advantage. I have found that Brandon omitted a couple, but
only one or two or three have
I found so far. (I made no effort to include those and I did not even
check them on the Peshitta,
I do not know which way they fall.)
One advantage of such a list is that it is compiled completely outside of
so any concern of cherry-picking is eliminated.
If anybody is concerned that some of these may not be Alexandrian
variants, please share away on specifics. Of course some of them
may have a split between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus however since NA-27
approved the variants, if there is a split Vaticanus likely has the
omission rather than Sinaiticus. At any rate, I would be very
interested if there are any substantive objections to the approximately
180 variants given on the Brandon Staggs web site as actually
representing TR-Alexandrian variants.
Ok, with the list of independent (unrelated to Peshitta issues) variants
and the Peshitta text available to check both in English, the study
began. I broke the results down book-by-book and in the Gospels and
Acts the results were fairly close to the 75-80% mentioned in every
book. (I am doing this post from memory.) The major exception
in being "Peshitta agrees with Alexandrian" was 1 Timothy where
there was something like a 5-1 variant split towards the
Alexandrian. As indicated before, I think this is quite interesting
in any discussions where the evidentiary significance of the Peshitta in
1 Timothy 3:16 is discussed, since the Peshitta textual nature in 1
Timothy can be deemed exceptional.
Anyway the book-by-book breakdown is available. All the source
materials are available. My work can be checked (and corrected)
very easily. And additional steps could be taken, such as looking
at variants that are not "inclusion/omission" but represent
"alternative reading" textual variants.
As to the significance of the Peshitta agreeing with the Textus Receptus
text 75-80% against the Alexandrian text where they have significant
omission variants, that I will leave aside for now. Folks may
easily have different views of its significance depending on their
theories of when the Peshitta was translated, its importance as a textual
witness and other factors. To me it is at the very least a very
helpful guide to knowing where the Peshitta text actually falls.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.