Aramaic Peshitta
Buy Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
page LV - LX
****** LV ******* LV ****** LV ******* LV ******* LV ******** LV ******* LV ********
Most critics of the Greek text have been TOO INDIFFERENT TO THE TESTIMONY OF RELIGIOUS BODIES, in reference to Greek manuscripts. They have trusted too much to copies which have no known support from the approval of any such societies. The result is, that instead of establishing a Greek text upon a sound historical basis, they have given us the result of THEORIES, of SPECULATIONS FOUNDED ON PROBABILITIES, and on a comparison of copies which, as Dr. Scrivener says, "are PERPETUALLY AT VARIANCE WITH EACH OTHER," and "SCARCELY EVER IN UNISON." (Introduction, pg. 523.) These copies have been unreasonably supposed to be of supreme authority, because THE SUBSTANCE ON WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN has survived that of other copies more in use, and has brought them down from times when Greek manuscripts, instead of being pure, were full of the errors, both of those, and of preceding centuries.
The lamentable result is, that by the latest Greek Text, Drs. Westcott and Hort seem to have done more harm than any earlier Greek editors, by the selection of wrong readings, and by corrupting still more a text which they profess to improve. The statement of Dean Burgon may, with apparent reason, be regarded as lamentably true, that this text is "the most depraved which has ever appeared in print." (Revision Revised, 1883, pg. xxx.)
THE GREEK COPIES CALLED ALEPH AND B, are those on which Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely. They say that the readings of these "should be accepted as the TRUE READINGS, until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary." Yet, as Dean Burgon has said, these copies "have come to us without a character, without a history, without antecedents of ANY kind," (pg. 14); except, indeed, such antecedents as Canon Cook, in his "First Three Gospels, (1882)," has shown to be almost ascertained facts. He has shown it to be in the highest degree probable, that these Greek copies were made when Arianism was in high favour, and under the superintendence of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom Jerome calls "The standard-bearer of the Arian faction." (Cook, pp. 151, 164, 183.) Canon Cook says that the omissions and corruptions of these two Greek copies are "logically incompatible with an entire faith in the Saviour's proper and true Divinity." (pg. 177.) He says also, that these two oldest manuscripts, Aleph and B, "are responsible for nearly every change which weakens or perverts the record of sayings and incidents in our Lord's life." (pg. 142.) Among these changes Canon Cook mentions the following. Drs. Westcott and Hort omit the leading point in the title of Mark's Gospel, " 'Son of God,' an act of singular temerity." (pg. 35.) They reject, as a forged addition, the account of our Lord's bloody sweat in Gethsemane; Luke xxii. 44. They omit the doxology in the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13, "For thine is the kingdom," etc. They reject the first words uttered by the Redeemer on the cross, Luke xxiii. 34, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Cook, pg. 106.) They omit the last 12 verses of Mark, which Canon Cook calls a mutilation without parallel in the critical history of the New Testament," (pg. 120); and one which removes Mark's account of the ascension, removes the only statement in the Gospels that Christ is seated at God's right hand; removes an emphatic statement of the necessity of faith, "and the most emphatic statement in the New Testament as to the importance of baptism." (pp. 121-122.)
******* LVI ******* LVI ******* LVI ******* LVI ******* LVI ******* LVI ******** LVI *****
The following eminent critics have endeavoured to CORRECT THE TEXT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, and have published editions of it. John Mill, 1707; John Jacob Wettstein, 1751-52; Griesbach, 1771-75; Lachmann, 1842-50; Tregelles, 1857-1879; Tischendorf, 8th ed., 1869-1872; Westcott and Hort, 1881. Most of these have treated the Peshito-Syriac as of little importance.
Dr. JOHN MILL, 1707, is spoken of by Dr. Scrivener as having rendered "services to Biblical criticism, which surpass in extent and value those rendered by any other, except, perhaps, one or two men of our time." (Intro. pg. 448.) He did not know Syriac, but he collected the readings of the Peshito, relying on translations of it, and was sometimes misled. (Wichelhaus, pg. 246.) He speaks of the Syrians as glorifying their version too much in saying that it was made "BY THADDAEUS AND OTHER APOSTLES;" but he seems to concur with Bishop Walton and many of the learned, IN CONJECTURING that it was "made by APOSTOLIC MEN in the age next to that of the Apostles." He says that "beyond all doubt it was used by the Syrians not long after the beginning of their church," which must have been begun about A. D. 35. (Prol., sec. 1237.) He trusts to CONJECTURE, and rejects SYRIAN TESTIMONY.
WETTSTEIN says, that "if you listen to some men, this version is the most ancient of all, and made by an Apostle, or Apostolic man.....This is untrue, as will appear from what I subjoin." His proofs consist of differences between it and the Greek text. He regards it as the work of an uninspired translator, who, instead of always following "the Greek text closely, used licentious liberty in substituting some things for others, and in too frequently giving a paraphrase." (Prol., pg. 109.) The insufficiency of such reasons has been shown in the preceding section, with reference to like objections by Wichelhaus.
GRIESBACH supposed that there had been three recensions, or rectifications of the Greek text, one of which he calls Alexandrian, another Western, and the third Constantinopolitan. He says of the Syriac Version, "As printed, it is like none of these recensions, and yet it is not wholly unlike any of them. In many things it agrees with the Alexandrian, in more with the Western, in some also with the Constantinopolitan.....It therefore seems to have been AGAIN AND AGAIN REVISED at different times, according to very different GREEK COPIES. (Prol., sec. iii. 15 pp. lxxi.-ii.) These revisions of the Syriac are all PURE CONJECTURES; and he admits that his whole Greek text "is only his OWN JUDGMENT of various readings." Wichelhaus says, "Ought not Griesbach to have distrusted his recensions, when he found that the text of the Syriac version combined the readings of those three recensions? a version which is held to be OLDER THAN THE TIME WHEN THOSE RECENSIONS HAD THEIR ORIGIN. But men are accustomed to distrust all things rather than their own opinion of them." (pg. 240.)
******* LVII ***** LVII ******* LVII ***** LVII ******* LVII ******* LVII ******* LVII ****
LACHMANN did not know Syriac, and he asks, "Of what use would it have been to me to have learned the language of the Syrians, while the most ancient copies of the Peshito, and those worthy of trust, have not yet been classed and presented to view, in the way in which I have divided the Latin ones?" (Pref. pg. 24.) This question has for suitable answer, that those who know Syriac, have not only printed editions, but access also to ancient manuscript copies. Wichelhaus says of those who act thus, "Even those who appear to have laid up all store of learning, and to have searched all library-shelves, that nothing may adhere which is false or foreign to the text of the Bible, care not to study that version of it, which all those who are most skilled in it say is most ancient; the numerous copies of which are of wonderful age, and easily viewed, and which has been found to be EQUALLY ONE AND THE SAME, not only in printed editions, but in manuscript copies, and throughout the churches of the whole East." (pg. 240.) Lachmann says of the Received Greek Text, that no learned man deems it genuine. How is it then, asks Wichelhaus, that the Ancient Syriac Version does not represent those readings which our critics call ancient, genuine, best and true, but represents the Received Greek text? (pg. 268.) "Lachmann praises what is ancient; he wishes that nothing be received which is not proved to be ancient. I wonder, therefore, why he does not think it worth while even to refer to our [Syriac] Version. If his will is to form a [Greek] text by readings from Origen, and the most ancient Greek copies; he will not deny that if we produce as a witness the Eastern Syriac Version, we have in it documents more ancient still." (pg. 268.) Wichelhaus gives cases from Luke, in which he contends that the Peshito is right, and Griesbach and Lachmann are evidently wrong. (pp. 268-269.)
Dr. TREGELLES is more daring still. He makes a statement which Syriac copies prove to be utterly groundless, namely, that "The Peshito-Syriac was frequently modernized from time to time." (Grk. Test. Introductory Notice, pg. v.)
TISCHENDORF said in an edition of the Greek Testament dated 1858, that "The Peshito was made in the second century." Of this he gives no proof, nor have I seen any clear evidence of it given by others.
Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT assert in their Greek Testament, that a foundling Syriac fragment which has no known, nor seeming connection with the Peshito, "renders its revised character A MATTER OF CERTAINTY." Dean Burgon's rebuke of this untruth has already been given at pg. xxv. Dr. Scrivener says, "Of this formal transmutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshito, (for this is what Dr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure)....not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity; no one writer seems conscious that ANY MODIFICATION OF THIS TRANSLATION WAS MADE IN OR BEFORE THEIR TIMES." (Introduction, pg. 533.) On Dr. Scrivener's testimony we may fully rely.
****** LVIII ****** LVIII ******** LVIII ******* LVIII ******** LVIII ***** LVIII *****
This, then, is the state of the conflict: -- These critics have ALL REJECTED the uniform Syrian testimony on a question of fact, -- the very testimony on which the rules of evidence teach us to rely, as the only sure means of knowing the truth on points which we cannot ourselves investigate. Dr. JOHN MILL "was a friend of truth," and he received the Peshito as a witness of what the Greek copy was, from which, as he supposed, it was made, and said, that except in some passages, "there could be seen in it, as a mirror, the natural face of the Greek text, from which it was formed." (Prol. sec. 1243.) But most of the other Greek editors speak evil of the Peshito, though they give no proof of the evil; this evil-speaking is disproved by known facts. These charges being all both unproved and disproved, the Peshito ought to be free from suspicion of being marred and mis-shapen, as it has been said to be. Meanwhile the Syrian testimony in its favour, remains uniform and universal. "No clear evidence is adduced against that testimony," as Bishop Walton says. (Prol. xiii. 16.) The credit of the Peshito stands in reality all the higher, for its having passed through the ordeal of having had to meet many charges, and being untouched by any of them. The conduct of the accusers is viewed with surprise and indignation. The harm they thought to do it, falls on their own heads. They are distrusted. They are felt to be unsafe, if not even dangerous guides.
On the other hand, THE MOST ELABORATE ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE GREEK TEXT TO PURITY by the comparison chiefly of Greek copies, is admitted to have been hitherto a failure. Dr. Scrivener asks, as if almost in despair, "Is it true that we are thus [by past failures] cast upon the wide ocean, without a compass or a guide? Can no clue be found that may conduct us through the tangled maze? Is there no other method of settling the text of the New Testament than by collecting, and marshalling, and scrutinizing the testimony of thousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue with each other." "Elaborate systems have failed, as might have been looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them in the present stage of things." "The delicate and important process, whereby we seek to determine the COMPARATIVE value, and trace the mutual relation, of authorities of every kind, upon which" the attempt to restore "the original text of the New Testament is based....will (as we trust) gradually develop facts which will eventually put us on the right road, although, for the present, we meet with much that is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous." (Introduction, 1883, pp. 520-21.)
******** LIX ****** LIX ******** LIX ****** LIX ****** LIX ******* LIX ******* LIX ********
Section IX. - TESTIMONIES FOUNDED ON KNOWLEDGE AND ESTEEM OF THE PESHITO-SYRIAC.
Bishop Walton, 1657, had some degree, but only some degree, of reliance on Syrian testimony respecting the Peshito. He said that "much is to be yielded to the general tradition of the Eastern Churches, because no clear evidence is adduced in opposition to it, and it is sustained by internal evidence in the Peshito, which proves its great antiquity; for 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation are not extant in the old issue." The real Syrian tradition is, that it was made not only in the time of the Apostles, but by THE CARE of Apostles; as that tradition is related by Jesudad. But as related by Bishop Walton, "The constant and uninterrupted tradition is, that the Peshito was made in the time of the Apostles, either by some of their DISCIPLES, or by APOSTOLIC MEN." Even this version of it, implies that the DISCIPLES, or the COMPANIONS, of the Apostles, would, in the time of the Apostles, submit to them what they wrote, for their correction, that it might have, as the writings of Luke and Mark have, Apostolic authority. Bishop Walton admits, that if "it were made by any of the Apostles, it would have an authority which is Divine, and equal to that of the other sacred books," and he says that therefore "he would not readily admit that it was made by any one of the Apostles." He says also, that "no one up to that time had affirmed its Divine authority ;" and yet this is the very authority which the Syrians seem to say it has. (See Chap. v., especially the words of Jesudad, and of the Indian Christians.)
The Syrians have a tradition that the Peshito was made chiefly by MARK. Bishop Walton thinks this incorrect, because "many parts of the New Testament were written after his death, which Jerome and others say took place in the eighth year of Nero," that is, in 62. (Prol. xiii. 16.)
The great utility of the Peshito, in the view of Bishop Walton, is, that Syriac was the language spoken by Christ and his Apostles, and that the meaning of many expressions which occur in the Greek New Testament, can scarcely be discovered, except from the Syriac. (Prol. xiii. 19.)
JACOB MARTINI was Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg, and wrote a preface to the New Testament Peshito-Syriac, in which he said, "It is a version, but of all, it is the first and most ancient....It is a version, but made either by one of the Evangelists, or at least, of those who....had the Apostles themselves present, whom they could consult and hear, respecting many of the more obscure places. To this ONLY, therefore, when some obscurity or difficulty occurs in Greek copies, can we safely go. This ONLY, when doubt arises respecting the meaning or translation of any passage, can be consulted with safety and freedom from error. By this ONLY, the Greek Text is truly illustrated, and rightly understood." (See Gutbier's Preface to his Syriac N. T., 1663, pg. 26.)
****** LX ******** LX ******* LX ******* LX ****** LX ******* LX ******* LX ********
J. D. MICHAELIS, in his Introduction to the New Testament, 1787, chap. vii., sec. 4, says, "The Syriac Testament has been my constant study." In section 8, he says, "The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read....Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraem and Bar Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure....It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original." "What is not to be regarded as a blemish, it differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation; but I know of no version that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration." "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke." "The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language [as that of Christ], but in a different dialect, .... in the purest Mesopotamian."
The question is, whether the contents of the Peshito are inconsistent with what the Syrians state to be a known fact; namely, that it was made in the time of the Apostles, and by the care of the Apostles. J. D. Michaelis did not give the above testimony with view to answer that question; yet, what he says, shows that he found the Peshito to be as accurate as it would be, if made under Apostolic care. He had found "no version so free from error." He found that "this must ever be read with profound veneration." And owing to some unexplained cause, when he had "difficulty and doubt" as to the Greek, he could with "much confidence consult" the Peshito.
The Rev. JEREMIAH JONES said, "The Primitive Christians are proper judges, to determine what book is Canonical, and what is not." (On the Canon, vol. i. pg. 43.) "The Greek copies, and the Syriac ones, were both esteemed the Word of God, though in different languages." (pg. 103.)
Professor WICHELHAUS, 1850, dwells much on the worth of the Peshito. He calls it, "The most ancient witness, a version most accurate, untouched and untarnished, ever transcribed and preserved by the Syrians with the greatest care." (pg. 236.) He did not see why, with some few exceptions, it should not be "most like to the autographs of the Apostles." (pg. 264.) He said, as Dr. Glocester Ridley had done, "The Peshito is older and better than all the ancient Latin versions." (pg. 77.) The Common English Version is from a Greek text much like the Peshito. Wichelhaus remarks, that "the ancient Syriac version represents the Received Greek Text." (pg. 268.) This is a point of deep interest to all to whom the Common English Version is dear.