Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
page XXI - XXIV
CANON WESTCOTT, of Cambridge University, says in his work on the Canon of the N. T. (that is, on what books are really part of God's Word), 1875, that to justify the acceptance of any book as infallible, we need evidence similar to that which Bishop Huet says is a sure proof that a book is what it is said to be. Dr. Westcott says at pg. 12, "It is impossible to insist too often or too earnestly on this, that it is to the Church, as a witness, and keeper of holy writ, that we must look both for the formation and the proof of the Canon. The written rule of Christendom must rest finally on THE GENERAL CONFESSION OF THE CHURCH, and not on the independent opinions of its members.....The chief value of private testimony lies in the fact that it is a natural expression of the current opinion of the time." He applies this rule to the Greek Testament, by showing that its several books were received at an early date, and prized in the following centuries, as divine, by the mass of those Greek Christians, who were not gross corrupters of the truth. He appeals to "common usage," pg. 12; to the mention of these books as "received by Churches," pg. 13, and to proofs of "a belief widely spread throughout the Christian body," as affording decisive evidence that these books are genuine and Apostolic (pg. 14).
Dr. Westcott admits that evidence very much like this exists also with respect to the Peshito-Syriac books. He says, "The Peshito Version is assigned almost universally to the most remote Christian antiquity. The Syriac Christians of Malabar even now claim for it the right to be considered as an EASTERN ORIGINAL of the New Testament, and....their tradition is not, to a certain extent, destitute of all plausibility." "It was in the Aramaean vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written, if we believe the unanimous testimony of the fathers; and it is not unnatural to look to the Peshito as likely to contain some traces of its first form." (pg. 233). "The dialect of the Peshito, even as it stands now, represents, IN PART at least, that form of Aramaic which was current in Palestine." (pg. 234). "Edessa is signalized in early church history by many remarkable facts. It was called the 'holy' and the 'blessed' city; its inhabitants were said to have been brought over by Thaddeus in a marvellous manner to the Christian faith; and 'from that time forth,' Eusebius adds, 'the whole people of Edessa have continued to be devoted to the name of Christ.'" Tradition fixes on Edessa as the place whence the Peshito took its rise. Gregory Bar Hebreus, one of the most learned and accurate of Syrian writers,.....assumes THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN of the New Testament Peshito AS CERTAIN.....He speaks of this AS A KNOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGED FACT." (pp. 235, 236). Dr. Westcott says also, "This version was universally received by the different sects into which the Syrian Church was divided [after] the fourth century, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians whether belonging to the Nestorian, Jacobite, or Roman communion, conspire to hold the Peshito AUTHORITATIVE, and to use it in their public services.....The Peshito became in the East the fixed and unalterable RULE OF SCRIPTURE." (pg. 239). "The respect in which the Peshito was held, was further shown by the fact that it was taken as the basis of other versions in the East. An Arabic and a Persian version were made from it." (pg. 240).
Dr. Westcott has linked the Peshito with the Latin Vulgate in a passage which, if freed from reference to the Latin version, to avoid any discussion respecting it, says of the Peshito, "Its voice is one to which we cannot refuse to listen. It gives the testimony of Churches, and not of individuals. It is sanctioned by public use, and not only supported by private criticism. Combined with the original Greek [and the Old Latin], it represents the New Testament Scriptures as they were read throughout the whole of Christendom towards THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY.....It furnishes a proof of THE AUTHORITY of the books which it contains, widespread, continuous, reaching to the utmost verge of our historic records. Its real weight is even greater than this; for when history first speaks of it, it speaks as of that which was recognised as a heritage from an earlier period, which cannot have been long after the days of the Apostles." (pg. 263).
Dr. Westcott gives at pg. 241, the following information from Dr. William Wright, Professor of Arabic in Cambridge University, one of the best informed persons on this subject. He says, "Of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum, the earliest of the N. T. which is DATED, is A. D. 768." It does not contain the five books last written. "An earlier copy of the 5th or 6th century gives the same books in a different order.....The earliest manuscript in which the disputed Epistles occur is dated A. D. 823."
Dr. Westcott gives, under letter D, in his appendix, "The chief catalogues of the Books of the Bible during the first eight centuries." Sixteen out of thirty-two of them are those of the Eastern Churches. No. IV., by Chrysostom, cent. IV., has only "three catholic Epistles," James, 1st Peter, and 1st John. He omits the five books absent from the Peshito. No. VII. is a list by Hebedjesu, about 1318 A. D., from Asseman's Bibliotheca, Vol. iii. Hebedjesu omits the five books above mentioned. He says, "Matthew wrote in Hebrew in Palestine." He describes the three Epistles, that of James, 1st Peter, and 1st John, as "The three letters which have, written in them, writing by the Apostles in every copy and language, namely, those of James, Peter, and John; and which are called catholic." The statement that these three Epistles were issued by the Apostles in various languages, and authenticated in all of them by the handwriting of the Apostles, is of special importance. In No. XVIII., the list of Leontius, about A. D. 590, seven letters are called catholic, i. e., universal, namely, that of James, 1st and 2nd of Peter, 1st, 2nd and 3rd of John, and that of Jude, and the reason given for this name is, "Because they were not written for one nation, as those of Paul were; but universally for all nations;" he means probably for the Hebrew Christians dispersed throughout all nations. The above lists all represent the Eastern Churches.
The Churches which have used the Peshito-Syriac text have borne witness as uniformly to its "Apostolic origin" and authority, as the Churches which have used the Greek text have declared its Divine authority. Too little attention has been given to this admitted fact; and besides this, many modern critics who have treated the Greek text as the only text which has testimony to its Apostolic authority, have rejected the GENERAL TESTIMONY of those VERY CHURCHES which have used the Greek text. These critics have slighted the readings best approved by the mass and long line of those assemblies; and have adopted as chief guides two copies which have NO RECORD WHATEVER of having been generally approved by those Churches; they have also done this in spite of internal evidence in these two Greek copies, that they have been CARELESSLY WRITTEN. Special attention needs to be given to these facts. Even Canon Westcott, who insists so strongly, in his work on the Canon, pg. 12, that we must depend for proof of what "the written Rule of Christendom" is, on the "general confession" of Christian bodies, has adopted in connection with Dr. Hort, and with view to settle the Greek text upon a sure basis, "a system" which, as Dr. Scrivener says, (Introduction, pg. 537), is itself "entirely destitute of historical foundation."
CANON WESTCOTT AND DR. HORT have made and followed conjectures equally "destitute of historical foundation," with respect to THE PESHITO-SYRIAC TEXT. One of these conjectures relates to some fragments of an old Syriac translation of the Gospels, discovered by the late Dr. W. Cureton, and published by him in 1858. Nothing is known about it, except that it was brought from Egypt to Britain. I have not been able to get a copy, and know it chiefly by a review of it published in 1859, by Professor Christian Hermansen, of Copenhagen. This is not the place to discuss the peculiarities of that translation. It is sufficient to quote a few words from Mr. Hermansen. He says that the Peshito and this translation "greatly differ" and in "various ways," pg. 7; and that there is "a wonderful agreement between this translation and the Cambridge manuscript called D," (pg. 21), of which copy Dr. Scrivener, an able judge, says, "It may be said without extravagance, that no set of scriptural records affords a text less probable in itself, or less sustained by any rational principles of external evidence, than that of codex D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton's Syriac. (Introduction to N. T., 1883, pg. 510) Dr. Roberts, of Aberdeen, seems to be justified in saying of Dr. Cureton's fragments, "Never, probably, was there in the whole history of critical publications, such a notable example of self-delusion as that under which Dr. Cureton has laboured in this undertaking;" (Dr. Roberts, on the 'Original Language of Matthew, pg. 131; that is, the undertaking to prove that these fragments "more nearly represent the exact words of Matthew himself than any copy yet discovered," (pg. 122). And yet Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort ASSUME that this "Curetonian version of the Gospels" is the first form of the Peshito. Canon Westcott calls it the "Old Syriac," (on Canon, pg. 233, note 6). He says, "It appears to have been afterwards corrected," but "in the absence of an adequate supply of critical materials, it is imposssible to construct the history of THESE RECENSIONS in the Syriac," (pg. 234). Notwithstanding these conjectured recensions, he speaks of "the present corrupt state of the text" (pg. 240). One is startled, pained, and almost appalled, by finding that a scholar so highly esteemed as Canon Westcott is, can so violate his own rules; by finding that he not only rejects the admitted testimony of "Churches" to the "Apostolic authority" of the Peshito as it now exists, but even invents and follows mere fictions, and these of a kind fitted and seemingly intended to destroy its reputation. Can it be that this amazing inconsistency and impropriety is in some degree due to a fact which Canon Westcott mentions in one of his notes, when speaking of the Peshito? The note is this (in his work on the Canon, pg. 238), "In reference to the phraseology of the Peshito, it is WORTHY OF REMARK that EPISCOPUS is preserved in one place only, Acts xx. 28. Elsewhere it is KASHISHO (presbyter) except in 1st Peter ii. 25."
The Peshito has there "care-taker." Dr. Westcott's note directs special attention to the fact that the Peshito has omitted in most places the word, which, by being adopted as the name of the prelates who rule the Church of England, gives them some show, and but a deceptive show, of scriptural origin. It cannot be forgotten that Dr. Westcott has stated that the omission of the word BISHOP from passages in the Peshito, is a fact "worthy of remark."