Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Diatessaron - J. Rendel Harris, 1890

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Greetings Asher/Albion: Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable witness, and that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with the
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings Asher/Albion:

      Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable witness, and
      that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with the
      Majority Text, the A+Pi+Pesh reading always (I think) represents the
      earlier stratum of the Byzantine Text.

      What was it you wanted to say about the Peshitta?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
      Tipton, Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html


      -- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "asher_ashuri"
      <asher_ashuri@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Mr. Snapp,
      >
      > I downloaded J.Rendel Harris' book "The Diatessaron of
      > Tatian-A Preliminary Study".
      >
      > Thank you for putting this valuable resource in the Files Section.
      >
      > I'm wondering if you are interested in the Syriac Peshitta New
      > Testament?
      >
      > I would think that someone who's interested in Tatian, and 'The
      > Diatessaron', would be interested in the Peshitta N.T. as well.
      >
      > I would like to dialogue with you about the Peshitta N.T. if
      > you're interested.
      >
      > I've studied the Syriac N.T, on and off, since the late 1980's.
      >
      > Hoping to hear from you.
      >
      > Albion
    • asher_ashuri
      Dear Mr. Snapp, I just wanted to ask you what is your opinion of the Peshitta Primacy movement? That is, the theory that the Syriac N.T. PRE-DATES the Greek
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mr. Snapp,

        I just wanted to ask you what is your opinion of the 'Peshitta
        Primacy' movement?

        That is, the theory that the Syriac N.T. PRE-DATES the Greek MSS?

        I just wanted to hear your comments on this.

        And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T.
        text?

        Thank you for your time.

        Shlama, Albion






        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp,
        Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
        >
        > Greetings Asher/Albion:
        >
        > Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable
        witness, and
        > that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with
        the
        > Majority Text, the A+Pi+Pesh reading always (I think)
        represents the
        > earlier stratum of the Byzantine Text.
        >
        > What was it you wanted to say about the Peshitta?
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
        > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
        > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        >
        >
        > -- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "asher_ashuri"
        > <asher_ashuri@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Mr. Snapp,
        > >
        > > I downloaded J.Rendel Harris' book "The Diatessaron of
        > > Tatian-A Preliminary Study".
        > >
        > > Thank you for putting this valuable resource in the Files
        Section.
        > >
        > > I'm wondering if you are interested in the Syriac Peshitta
        New
        > > Testament?
        > >
        > > I would think that someone who's interested in Tatian, and
        'The
        > > Diatessaron', would be interested in the Peshitta N.T. as
        well.
        > >
        > > I would like to dialogue with you about the Peshitta N.T. if
        > > you're interested.
        > >
        > > I've studied the Syriac N.T, on and off, since the late
        1980's.
        > >
        > > Hoping to hear from you.
        > >
        > > Albion
        >
      • yennifmit
        I made some maps of various Syriac versions based on the UBS4 apparatus of Hebrews: http://gamma.ei.virginia.edu/tfinney/NTText/book/syr.html Best Tim Finney
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I made some maps of various Syriac versions based on the UBS4
          apparatus of Hebrews:

          http://gamma.ei.virginia.edu/tfinney/NTText/book/syr.html

          Best

          Tim Finney


          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "asher_ashuri"
          <asher_ashuri@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Mr. Snapp,
          >
          > I just wanted to ask you what is your opinion of the 'Peshitta
          > Primacy' movement?
          >
          > That is, the theory that the Syriac N.T. PRE-DATES the Greek MSS?
          >
          > I just wanted to hear your comments on this.
          >
          > And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T.
          > text?
          >
          > Thank you for your time.
          >
          > Shlama, Albion
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp,
          > Jr." <voxverax@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Greetings Asher/Albion:
          > >
          > > Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable
          > witness, and
          > > that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with
          > the
          > > Majority Text, the A+Pi+Pesh reading always (I think)
          > represents the
          > > earlier stratum of the Byzantine Text.
          > >
          > > What was it you wanted to say about the Peshitta?
          > >
          > > Yours in Christ,
          > >
          > > James Snapp, Jr.
          > > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
          > > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
          > > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
          > >
          > >
          > > -- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "asher_ashuri"
          > > <asher_ashuri@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Dear Mr. Snapp,
          > > >
          > > > I downloaded J.Rendel Harris' book "The Diatessaron of
          > > > Tatian-A Preliminary Study".
          > > >
          > > > Thank you for putting this valuable resource in the Files
          > Section.
          > > >
          > > > I'm wondering if you are interested in the Syriac Peshitta
          > New
          > > > Testament?
          > > >
          > > > I would think that someone who's interested in Tatian, and
          > 'The
          > > > Diatessaron', would be interested in the Peshitta N.T. as
          > well.
          > > >
          > > > I would like to dialogue with you about the Peshitta N.T. if
          > > > you're interested.
          > > >
          > > > I've studied the Syriac N.T, on and off, since the late
          > 1980's.
          > > >
          > > > Hoping to hear from you.
          > > >
          > > > Albion
          > >
          >
        • Schmuel
          Hi Albion and friends, Greetings. Not too long ago I did check the Peshitta on about 180 major variants between the Textus Receptus text (represented by the
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Albion and friends,

               Greetings.

               Not too long ago I did check the Peshitta on about 180 major variants between the
            Textus Receptus text (represented by the KJB) and the modern version text of the
            various versions du jour.  The results were agreement with the TR text in 75%-80%
            of the cases, agreement with the modern versions 20-25%.  Only one or two had
            difficulty of categorization.  The TR should agree with the Byzantine majority text
            on virtually everyone of these variants.

               The Peshitta is a fascinating witness.  If the earlier theory that it is an early translation
            is true it essentially would destroy the alexandrian text supremacy of modern textcrit.  The
            modern textcrit theory moved the date of its composition back, essentially 2nd century to 4th.
            With the later date it is not so much of a challenge to the alexandrian text supremacy position.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

            Tom Finney,
            I made some maps of various Syriac versions based on the UBS4 apparatus of Hebrews:
            http://gamma.ei.virginia.edu/tfinney/NTText/book/syr.html

            asher_ashuri"...> wrote:
            > Dear Mr. Snapp,
            > I just wanted to ask you what is your opinion of the 'Peshitta Primacy' movement?
            > That is, the theory that the Syriac N.T. PRE-DATES the Greek MSS?
            > I just wanted to hear your comments on this.
            > And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T. text?
            > Thank you for your time.
            > Shlama, Albion

            > "James Snapp wrote:
            > > Greetings Asher/Albion:
            > > Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable witness, and
            > > that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with the
            > > Majority Text, the A+Pi+Pesh reading always (I think) represents the
            > > earlier stratum of the Byzantine Text. 
            > > What was it you wanted to say about the Peshitta? 
            > > Yours in Christ,

             "asher_ashuri" wrote:
            > > > Dear Mr. Snapp,
            > > >    I downloaded J.Rendel Harris' book "The Diatessaron of Tatian-A Preliminary Study".
            > > > > Thank you for putting this valuable resource in the Files  Section.
            > > >   I'm wondering if you are interested in the Syriac Peshitta New Testament? 
            > > > I would think that someone who's interested in Tatian, and 'The
            > > > Diatessaron', would be interested in the Peshitta N.T. as well.
            > > > I would like to dialogue with you about the Peshitta N.T. if  you're interested.
            > > > I've studied the Syriac N.T, on and off, since the late 1980's.
            > > > Hoping to hear from you.
            > > > Albion
          • ron minton
            Perhaps you could publish your test passages and results, or at least tell where one might examine the data. Ron Minton
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 7, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Perhaps you could publish your test passages and results, or at least tell where one might examine the data.
              Ron Minton

              On 7/7/07, Schmuel < schmuel@...> wrote:

              Hi Albion and friends,

                 Greetings.

                 Not too long ago I did check the Peshitta on about 180 major variants between the
              Textus Receptus text (represented by the KJB) and the modern version text of the
              various versions du jour.  The results were agreement with the TR text in 75%-80%
              of the cases, agreement with the modern versions 20-25%.  Only one or two had
              difficulty of categorization.  The TR should agree with the Byzantine majority text
              on virtually everyone of these variants.

                 The Peshitta is a fascinating witness.  If the earlier theory that it is an early translation
              is true it essentially would destroy the alexandrian text supremacy of modern textcrit.  The
              modern textcrit theory moved the date of its composition back, essentially 2nd century to 4th.
              With the later date it is not so much of a challenge to the alexandrian text supremacy position.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              Queens, NY
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

              Tom Finney,

              I made some maps of various Syriac versions based on the UBS4 apparatus of Hebrews:
              http://gamma.ei.virginia.edu/tfinney/NTText/book/syr.html

              asher_ashuri"...> wrote:
              > Dear Mr. Snapp,
              > I just wanted to ask you what is your opinion of the 'Peshitta Primacy' movement?
              > That is, the theory that the Syriac N.T. PRE-DATES the Greek MSS?
              > I just wanted to hear your comments on this.
              > And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T. text?
              > Thank you for your time.
              > Shlama, Albion

              > "James Snapp wrote:
              > > Greetings Asher/Albion:
              > > Yes; I think the Peshitta is an interesting and valuable witness, and
              > > that in Mark, when it agrees with A and Pi and disagrees with the
              > > Majority Text, the A+Pi+Pesh reading always (I think) represents the
              > > earlier stratum of the Byzantine Text. 
              > > What was it you wanted to say about the Peshitta? 
              > > Yours in Christ,

               "asher_ashuri" wrote:
              > > > Dear Mr. Snapp,
              > > >    I downloaded J.Rendel Harris' book "The Diatessaron of Tatian-A Preliminary Study".
              > > > > Thank you for putting this valuable resource in the Files  Section.
              > > >   I'm wondering if you are interested in the Syriac Peshitta New Testament? 
              > > > I would think that someone who's interested in Tatian, and 'The
              > > > Diatessaron', would be interested in the Peshitta N.T. as well.
              > > > I would like to dialogue with you about the Peshitta N.T. if  you're interested.
              > > > I've studied the Syriac N.T, on and off, since the late 1980's.
              > > > Hoping to hear from you.
              > > > Albion


            • David Robert Palmer
              Schmuel wrote:
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 7, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Schmuel wrote:
                 
                << Not too long ago I did check the Peshitta on about 180 major variants between the Textus Receptus text (represented by the KJB) and the modern version text of the various versions du jour.  The results were agreement with the TR text in 75%-80% of the cases, agreement with the modern versions 20-25%. >>
                 
                Hello Steven.
                 
                When one wants to, one can put a spin on the data.  I think I should point out that in some of the really significant variants, the Peshitta agrees with the Alexandrian text.  For example,
                 
                John 1:18, Syriac Peshitta says "MONOGENHS QEOS" God the Only Begotten
                 
                John 7:53- 8:11, The UBS textual commentary says that the best manuscripts of the Peshitta omit the Pericope of the Adulteress, and the forms of the Syriac that are older than the Peshitta, the Sinaitic and Curetonian, they omit this pericope.
                 
                 
                 
                Schmuel wrote:
                 
                <<  The modern textcrit theory moved the date of its composition back, essentially 2nd century to 4th.  With the later date it is not so much of a challenge to the alexandrian text supremacy position.  >>
                 
                What evidence do you have that the Peshitta is an earlier form of the Syriac text than the Sinaitic and the Curetonian?
                 
                 
                As you are probably aware, some parties today are claiming that the Peshitta is the original, infallible, unchanged New Testament text.  If this is true, then I would ask them, which texts exactly of the Peshitta, and why?  They differ.
                 
                Some parties today are making much of the fact that they find "Bible Codes" in the Peshitta.  They believe this proves it is the only genuine New Testament, and not the Greek, since no "Bible Codes" have been found in the Greek text.  If this is so, then I ask, should we conclude that the books of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are not part of the Genuine New Testament, since they are not in the Peshitta, and therefore were not included in the "Bible Codes"? 
                 
                David Robert Palmer
              • Schmuel
                Hi Folks, I agree that this is true about a few of very significant variants, that there is agreement with the Alexandrian text and the Peshitta. In addition
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 7, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Folks,

                      I agree that this is true about a few of very significant variants, that there
                  is  agreement with the Alexandrian text and the Peshitta.  In addition to the
                  two mentioned by David (one is in my study) you can add 1 Timothy 3:16 and
                  the Johannine Comma (although the Comma would be one of the very few
                  where the Byzantine Text would differ from the TR, along with Acts 8:37). 

                      However to call a simple complete report "spin" is unfounded and unfair.
                  I almost put in a special sentence saying I did not "weigh" the variants by
                  significance (in that case the Pericope and the resurrection account of Mark
                  would have greater significance).  That seemed to be pretty clear by the way
                  I presented the data so I didn't say the obvious.  And to do so would have added a lot
                  of subjective considerations where "spin" would be very possible.  My methodology
                  was pre-planned and objective and I did not change the method of presentation
                  one iota before, during or after the project.  One variant = one mark.  Would that
                  all textual analysis was so objective.  (And a book-by-book result is available.
                  Interestingly, 1 Timothy had the greatest Peshitta==Alex confluence, which makes
                  the lack of "God was manifest in the flesh..." less surprising).

                       The other element is that my 180 variants are cases where there are
                  phrases and verses that are in the TR text that are not in the Alexandrian
                  text. (There are zero or very few in the opposite direction.) To be a more
                  complete study I would like to add 25 or 50 places where there is text in
                  both manuscripts but they differ.  (e.g. the locations Gergesenes and
                  Gadaranes and Geresenes, although those three verses would be a wash
                  because the Peshitta assimilated to one reading and agrees with neither,
                  this is one of the subjective decisions.  My view would be that the three
                  verses would be grouped together and called a "agrees with neither" rather
                  than giving it as a 2-1 Byzantine split.  So some decisions would have to
                  be made that are not necessary in the "include/omit" type of variants.).

                      Would there still be 75-80% agreement on these other 25-50 or 100-200
                  additional variants ? Dunno.  John 1:18 would be an example of Peshitta==Alex
                  with the "begotten God" reading.  My conjecture is still Byzantine==Peshitta
                  confluence, but a slightly smaller percent on those variants.

                       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 significant.

                  Shalom,
                  Steven Avery
                  Queens, NY
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

                  David Robert Palmer -
                  Schmuel wrote:
                   
                  << Not too long ago I did check the Peshitta on about 180 major variants between the Textus Receptus text (represented by the KJB) and the modern version text of the various versions du jour.  The results were agreement with the TR text in 75%-80% of the cases, agreement with the modern versions 20-25%. >>
                   
                  Hello Steven.
                   
                  When one wants to, one can put a spin on the data.  I think I should point out that in some of the really significant variants, the Peshitta agrees with the Alexandrian text.  For example,
                   
                  John 1:18, Syriac Peshitta says "MONOGENHS QEOS" God the Only Begotten
                   
                  John 7:53- 8:11, The UBS textual commentary says that the best manuscripts of the Peshitta omit the Pericope of the Adulteress, and the forms of the Syriac that are older than the Peshitta, the Sinaitic and Curetonian, they omit this pericope.
                • David Robert Palmer
                  Steven, I am no authority on the Syriac New Testament. But I think you might respect F. H. A. Scrivener, so here are some tidbits from Scrivener: A Plain
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 7, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Steven, I am no authority on the Syriac New Testament.  But I think you might respect F. H. A. Scrivener, so here are some tidbits from Scrivener: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Volume Two, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon, 1887; Chapter One, on the Syriac versions of the New Testament:
                     
                    The Peshitto (or Peshitta) as a name, according to Dr. Field and to Tregelles, came about in the following way.  Originally only the Syriac Old Testament was called this, which means "straight, simple."  It was called this in contrast to those Syriac edtions that had an apparatus with obeli and asterisks.  In In other words, it was "straight, simple Syriac text" without marginal notes, and without the other languages in parallel like the Hexaplas.  Scrivener thought the above men were the authoritative opinion on the source of this Name, especially Dr. Field.
                     
                    "Of this version again [Peshitto] there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused;"  But he dates the earliest Peshitto to around the 4th century.  Though he says there must have been some form of Syriac New Testament as early as the year 150.  He says that the Syriac "Received Text" is not the oldest form of the Syriac N.T.
                     
                    Scrivener says that those editions of the Peshitta that contain the Pericope of the Adulteress, have it in them as "interpolated matter," (p. 15) under which also he categorizes the 1 John 5:7-8 pericope when found in Peshitta editions.  This agrees with what the UBS textual commentary said, that the better manuscripts of the Peshitta omit the Pericope of the Adulteress.
                     
                    Scrivener discusses Dr. Cureton's theory of the primacy of his Syriac text before the Peshitto, and Scrivener points out how the Curetonian has more wild renderings, and that that is a pointer in favor of the Curetonian being older; since the tendency would be to refine and standardize later.  Yet Scrivener was not convinced to a strong opinion either way as to which version was older v v the Peshitto and Curetonian, though I gather from some of his comments that he leant toward the Peshitto.  But, he says, "It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions--and the Peshitto richly deserves all this praise--is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton , Pref. p. lxxxi).  A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way..."  But, on pp. 23-24 Scrivener gives some of examples of what he calls emendations coming from Church tradition rather than from "sacred records."  He says for example that the Curetonian has distinct omissions the sole reason for which appears to be to uphold the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  Matt. 1:16 in the Peshitta: "Joseph the husband of Mary" is changed in the Curetonian to "Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin."  Matt. 1:19 Peshitta: "Joseph her husband, being a just man," changed to "Joseph, because he was a righteous man."  Matt. 1:20 Pesh.: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife" is changed to "Mary thy espoused."  Matt. 1:24 Peshitta: "Joseph...took unto him his wife" changed in Curetonian to "took MARY."  Scrivener concludes: "The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands unsupported--of the word 'husband' in two places, of the word 'wife' in two others."  He says it is not worthy to be set above the Peshitta.  (He gives no reason why those emendations could not have been made earlier, regardless of the Peshitta.)
                     
                    Scrivener says the Peshitto is a free and loose translation, mostly of Codex Alexandrinus, whereas Harklensis is a tight, close rendering of its Greek original (Codex Bezae in Acts, Bezae and B, L 1, 33, 69 elsewhere), and the Curetonian is more like a translation sometimes similar to Codex Bezae, or to the Old Latin, and sometimes standing alone.  His exact words re tightness are: "In comparison with the Harkleian, it [Peshitto] is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original."  (If he is right, could a "Dynamic Equivalent" type text really be the original and source of the Greek text instead of the other way around?)  On p. 28, he says of the Harkleian Syriac, "probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made."
                     
                    A footnote on p. 16 says about Scrivener's statement that the Peshitto is a translation from Codex Alexandrinus, "This fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent."
                     
                    About the Curetonian Syriac, Scrivener says "Dr. Cureton went so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac fragments a text of St. Matthew's gospel that 'to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we have here, in our Lord's discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion Himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect...' " (p. xciii): "that here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek gospel is but a translation."  Scrivener a couple sentences later says about Dr. Cureton's arguments for Matthew's gospel being originally Hebrew and not Greek, that "they seem to have convinced no one save himself.
                     
                    Scrivener says that most of Dr. Cureton's arguments for the Curetonian Syriac being earlier, would apply equally to the other Syriac editions, and that the only argument of his distinguishing the Curetonian, was that his manuscript included the "three Kings" in Matthew 1:8.  Though it still says "fourteen generations" in 1:17.
                     
                    David Robert Palmer

                     
                  • Schmuel
                    Hi Folks, Thank you David. Most all of what Scrivener says here is complementary to what I shared. David Robert Palmer - Of this version again [Peshitto]
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Folks,

                         Thank you David. 
                         Most all of what Scrivener says here is complementary to what I shared.

                      David Robert Palmer -
                      "Of this version again [Peshitto] there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused;" 

                      Just to be clear, the text is generally quite homogeneous (especially compared to the Greek
                      text when you include western and alexandrian manuscripts).  Diffused probably refers to
                      geographical locale and spiritual provenance.

                      But he dates the earliest Peshitto to around the 4th century.  Though he says there must have been some form of Syriac New Testament as early as the year 150.  He says that the Syriac "Received Text" is not the oldest form of the Syriac N.T.

                      This is a matter of great debate.  If the Syriac Peshitta is largely based on an early
                      enough translation to Syriac it demolishes by itself many alexandrian text supremacy
                      and Lucian recension arguments.
                       
                      Scrivener says that those editions of the Peshitta that contain the Pericope of the Adulteress, have it in them as "interpolated matter," (p. 15)

                      More specifically.

                      http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
                      http://adultera.awardspace.com/DUMB/Tregelles2.html#N05
                      Tregelles
                      The versions to which this section do not belong are ... (ii.) the Peshito and (iii.) the Harclean Syriac... It is true that, in some of the editions of the Peshito Syriac, subsequent to that in Walton's Polyglot, this section is found; but it does not belong to that version: and so, too, such MSS. of the later Syriac as are cited as exhibiting it at all, mention that it is an addition.

                       (interesting footnote below on 2nd site about lectionaries and overall Syriac view)

                      Andrew Criddle stated it as thus:
                      http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2437966&postcount=37
                      the Pericope Adultera is not part of the original form of the Harklean text, however it was translated into Syriac at around the same time as the Harklean revision, and often occurs in Harklean manuscripts (and occasionally in late Peshitta manuscripts)

                      Scrivener discusses Dr. Cureton's theory of the primacy of his Syriac text before the Peshitto, and Scrivener points out how the Curetonian has more wild renderings, and that that is a pointer in favor of the Curetonian being older; since the tendency would be to refine and standardize later.

                      On this of course YMMV (your mileage may vary) dependent on your overall textual paradigms.

                      Yet Scrivener was not convinced to a strong opinion either way as to which version was older v v the Peshitto and Curetonian, though I gather from some of his comments that he leant toward the Peshitto.

                      And let's remember this is not the date of extant manuscripts, but the date of original translation.

                       But, he says, "It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions--and the Peshitto richly deserves all this praise--is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its inferior in these respects,

                      And this of course is based to a good extent on the textual criticism idea that the early manuscripts in apostolic times were difficult and errant. 

                      ... He says for example that the Curetonian has distinct omissions the sole reason for which appears to be to uphold the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

                      Good information about Curetonian corruption in this account. And this is related as a similar situation to what Augustine said about the deliberate omission of the Pericope Adultera.

                      Scrivener says the Peshitto is a free and loose translation, mostly of Codex Alexandrinus, whereas Harklensis is a tight, close rendering of its Greek original (Codex Bezae in Acts, Bezae and B, L 1, 33, 69 elsewhere),

                      Maybe someone can explain how the inflated text of Bezae can be the
                      original of the Harklensis Acts (which is very close to the Byzantine text)
                      when the added text from Bezae is not in the Harklean ?

                      Full English translation of Bezae Acts is online courtesy of Roger Pearse.

                      http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_01_intro.htm
                      The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923) - J. M. Wilson

                      Similar questions can arise as to the Peshitto being a "free and loose translation, mostly of Codex Alexandrinus".  Even just a few examples where Alexandrinus agrees with the Peshitto against the Byzantine text can be helpful.

                      Also re: the term "Peshitto" here, some writers make a distinction between Peshitta (eastern text) and Peshitto (later western revisions closer to the Byzantine text).  This may be a more recent distinction.  And some don't, apparently including Scrivener.

                      The actual Scrivener book is here.

                      http://tinyurl.com/2thmwk
                      A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. For the Use of Biblical Students ...
                      By Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

                      So it might be a good research to try to find what he precisely says.

                      I haven't had a chance to look up the Dr. Field material.
                      Is that Otium Norvicense and is it in English ?

                      and the Curetonian is more like a translation sometimes similar to Codex Bezae, or to the Old Latin, and sometimes standing alone.  His exact words re tightness are: "In comparison with the Harkleian, it [Peshitto] is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original."  (If he is right, could a "Dynamic Equivalent" type text really be the original and source of the Greek text instead of the other way around?) 

                      Again, most of this is of little use without a few specific examples.  How can someone talk about the Peshitto being a "close rendering of the original" when the very issue on the table is that we don't know precisely what or when was the Peshitto original source ?

                      On p. 28, he says of the Harkleian Syriac, "probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made."

                      A difficult quote without context. 
                      Probably he means servile to its Greek exemplar as described here.

                      http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/Harklean.html
                      The Harklean
                      In A.D. 616, Thomas of Harqel completed another revision based on the Philoxenian version. The motivation in this case was a philological one. Thomas aimed at providing a literal translation of the Greek even if that meant unintelligible Syriac. The Harklean is considered a masterpiece in mirror translation: every particle in the original Greek is somehow represented in Syriac. As is the case with all the previous versions, the Harklean is not a new translation, rather a revision. The Harklean is the only version which includes the entire text of the New Testament.

                      A footnote on p. 16 says about Scrivener's statement that the Peshitto is a translation from Codex Alexandrinus, "This fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent."

                      Again, first, is this referring to a western text (Philoxenian, Harklean) or the older eastern ?

                      And again, where are the examples where Alexandrinus diverges from the Byzantine text in agreement with the Peshitta. That would be fascinating to read.  Any papers ?  Any section
                      of documentation in the book ?

                      David, you really would do well to retract your statement that implied that I had been
                      involved with "spin" in sharing accurate numbers derived in the most objective and
                      simple and straightforward and transparent methodology.

                      Shalom,
                      Steven Avery
                      Queens, NY
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                    • Jovial
                      (((((((((((((((((((((((((( This is a matter of great debate. If the Syriac Peshitta is largely based on an early enough translation to Syriac it demolishes by
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 8, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ((((((((((((((((((((((((((
                        This is a matter of great debate. If the Syriac Peshitta is largely based
                        on an early
                        enough translation to Syriac it demolishes by itself many alexandrian text
                        supremacy
                        and Lucian recension arguments.
                        )))))))))))))))))))))))))))

                        Since Peshitta = Byzantine (most of the time)
                        and Old Syriac = Western (most of the time)
                        and nothing = Alexandrian (usually), the Aramaic definitely does not support
                        the Alexandrian text.

                        In Latin, the Old Latin = Western = Old Syriac (usually)
                        The Vulgate splits between Byzantine and Alexandrian, and we know the
                        Vulgate's exact date. We also know it was not a fresh translation, but a
                        coorection of the Old Latin against something (Byzantine or Alexandrian).
                        But there's no Latin Byzantine text anywhere.

                        The only thing that is really testified to in all 3 languages is the Old
                        Syriac = Old Latin = Western, which is also what the majority of early
                        quotes are. Ought to seem logical then that the original was perhaps the
                        Old Syriac = Old Latin = Western.
                      • idou747
                        ... When you talk about the Alexandrian text, are you talking about all Alexandrian texts, some Alexandrian texts, or are you really talking about the NA27
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 8, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >The other element is that my 180 variants are cases where there are
                          >phrases and verses that are in the TR text that are not in the Alexandrian
                          >text.

                          When you talk about the Alexandrian text, are you talking about all Alexandrian texts, some
                          Alexandrian texts, or are you really talking about the NA27 critical text? You definitely can't
                          do a study like this just based on the critical text.
                        • Schmuel
                          Hi Folks, Steven Avery ... 180 variants are cases where there are ... Alexandrian text. idou747 When you talk about the Alexandrian text, are you talking about
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 9, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Folks,

                            Steven Avery
                            >The other element is that my 180 variants are cases where there are
                            >phrases and verses that are in the TR text that are not in the Alexandrian text.

                            idou747
                            When you talk about the Alexandrian text, are you talking about all Alexandrian texts, some
                            Alexandrian texts, or are you really talking about the NA27 critical text? You definitely can't
                            do a study like this just based on the critical text.

                            Hi idou,

                              Greeings.  .. hmm.. do you have an easier-to-use first name we can work with :-) ?
                              Excellent question.

                              I do discuss this in my previous post just put through.  In my experience of looking at
                            individual verses every time there is an omission in the modern version text it is based
                            on Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus, with the weight toward Vaticanus when they disagree.

                            (And putting aside any cases where an Alexandrian reading is discarded because of
                            ultra-absurdity which are simply not a factor in this study .. it might make an interesting
                            adjunct to see how many there are,  the Peshitta will agree with the TR on any of those).

                              And I grant that the issue might be more complex on various "alternative textual readings"
                            variants rather than the more simple "inclusion/omission'.  A study that I did not do and that
                            in the big picture is of lesser significance but still very significant.  (John 1:18 and Acts 20:28
                            would be examples of variants that fall in that section but are not in the 180). 

                               I should note in a corrective sense that the list of "inclusion/omission" I used does include
                            at least one "alternative variant" which is 1 Timothy 3:16.  Probably there are a handful of this
                            nature included.  Any such would be significant alternative readings and if the study was ultimately
                            made fuller, including dozens of such alternative readings, any such verses would be put on the
                            other side of alternative variants rather than in the inclusion/omission section.

                                I gave the resources I used in the previous post and if there is any substantive objections
                            to calling the 180 variants "Alexandrian" I will be very happy to consider them very closely.
                            Any input that can help improve the study will be greatly appreciated.

                               Originally I posted the information at:

                            http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_1373481/mpage_6/key_/tm.htm#1559126
                            Peshitta - Bzyantine mostly, or split even ? 

                               Where you can see the book-by-book breakdown as well.  1 Timothy is actually 1:4
                            not 1:5 and I did indicate the one that I excluded from the tally, 1 John 4:19, because it
                            did not fall squarely on one side or the other.  Note that it is more proper to speak of the
                            TR text than the Byzantine, else the Johannine Comma and Acts 8:37 should be removed,
                            although that will have little effect on the final pct.

                               Also note that it is more proper to simply say 75% than 75-80%. 
                               Any amount over 75% is negligible.

                            Shalom,
                            Steven Avery
                            Queens, NY
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

                          • Ross J Purdy
                            http://rpbyztxt.com/RP2005_files/Complete2005RPByzNT.pdf This is a pdf of the Byzantine and the footnotes point out differences with the critical text. In
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 9, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              http://rpbyztxt.com/RP2005_files/Complete2005RPByzNT.pdf

                              This is a pdf of the Byzantine and the footnotes point out differences
                              with the critical text.

                              In Christ,
                              Ross Purdy
                            • James Snapp, Jr.
                              Dear Albion, My view is that all of the books of the NT were originally written in Greek. However, research into Aramaic and Syriac forms of the text are
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jul 10, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Albion,

                                My view is that all of the books of the NT were originally written in
                                Greek. However, research into Aramaic and Syriac forms of the text
                                are valuable, especially in the Gospels and Acts and wherever else
                                Aramaic oral traditions and/or Aramaic source-literature may have
                                existed before the Biblical books were composed.

                                If one were to adjust the Aramaic Primacists' approach so as to argue
                                for the existence of Aramaic source-materials, instead of Aramaic
                                originals of the books themselves, their arguments would be better
                                received. As a whole, I think that what the Aramaic Primacists have
                                noticed and misinterpreted amount to the following:

                                (1) relics of an Aramaic Sayings-source used by Matthew (which was
                                translated into Greek, and then used in its Greek form by Luke).
                                (2) Relics of the Diatessaron.
                                (3) Syriasms in Western witnesses.
                                (4) Places where Greek copyists and Syriac translators both desired
                                to "improve" perceived difficulties in the Greek text.

                                Basically, when I attempt to connect the dots, as identified by
                                Matthew Black and others, it seems a lot easier to form a picture of
                                what I've just described than to form a picture of Aramaic originals
                                of the books.

                                Which, again, is not to say that it is not worthwhile to explore the
                                possible impact of Aramaic and Syriac material on the production and
                                transmission of the text. Some variant-units seem to have origins
                                which are opaque except for where the impact of Aramaic or Syriac
                                seems to shine through. Mark 8:10 might be one example of this.
                                Here's what J. Rendel Harris had to say about it, in "A Study of
                                Codex Bezae" (1893), in a chapter titled, "Does the Codex Bezae
                                Syriacize?" --

                                "Those who have, like ourselves, sought to explain the perplexing
                                textual anomalies of the Western readings, have generally fallen back
                                either upon the hypothesis of reflex Latinism or upon reflex
                                Syriasm. And it has usually happened that the Syriac hypothesis has
                                been taken up, because the Latinizing theiry was supposed to be no
                                longer tenable. Certainly it is not a theory against which we ought
                                to be prejudiced in advance. There are some things in the New
                                Testament that perhaps will never yield to any other mode of
                                elucidation. Take for example Mark viii. 10, which in Cod. D reads
                                [Greek:] KAI HLQEN EIS TA ORIA MELEGADA
                                [Latin:] ET VENIT IN PERTES MAGIDAN.

                                Here most early texts give us [Greek:] DALMANOUQA, so as to read
                                [Greek:] HLQEN EIS TA MERH DALMANOUQA.

                                But since the letters [Greek:] LMANOUQA are an almost exact
                                transcript of the Syriac for [Greek:] EIS TA MERH, we have a text
                                which is equivalent to
                                [Syriac, which I can't replicate here]
                                and it is clear that the text is dittographed and that the real name
                                has dropped out.
                                If this explanation be the right one, we have lighted upon a case in
                                which all Greek MSS. except D have a Syriac error! An astonishing
                                thing, but not an impossibility. Let this instance suffice to shew
                                that it is by no means an unreasonable thing to look for Syriac
                                corruptions in the New Testament."

                                That's just one of the interesting things that can be uncovered by
                                the study of Aramaic and Syriac texts. It's a fine shovel, but the
                                Aramaic Primacists, especially the Peshitta Primacists, are digging
                                in the wrong place.

                                AA: "And how near is the Byzantine Text to the Syriac Peshitta N.T.
                                text?"

                                I'm not a Syriac specialist, but an estimate of 80% agreement, maybe
                                a bit higher, in the Gospels, is probably about right. I don't know
                                about the rest.

                                This should raise a question: if the Peshitta was based on the work
                                of Lucian, then shouldn't the Syriac OT closely agree with the
                                Lucianic OT text? Lucian is *known* to have worked on the OT.
                                Metzger mentioned (in "The Lucianic recension of the Greek Bible," p.
                                33) that Stockmayer (in a work published in 1892) "found more than a
                                score of readings in I Samuel where Lucian agrees with the Peshitta
                                against the Masoretic text and the current Septuagint text." More
                                than 20 readings is evidence of something, yes, but in a book the
                                size of First Samuel I think a lot more is necessary to indicate a
                                very close relationship. Metzger proceeded to say, "Although the
                                exact date of the translation of the Old Testament Peshitta is not
                                known, most scholars believe that it was made in the second or third
                                century of the Christian era. Thus, at least in the Books of Samuel,
                                it too affords evidence of Ur-Lucianic readings."

                                If the producer(s) of the Peshitta incorporated into the text of
                                First Samuel only something like 20 or 30 uniquely Lucianic readings -
                                - preserving, everywhere else, readings older than Lucian -- then why
                                wouldn't a similar approach have been employed in the NT text of the
                                Peshitta, with the result that a small stratum of young readings
                                rests upon an otherwise more ancient text?

                                Yours in Christ,

                                James Snapp, Jr.
                                Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.