Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
page LXV - LXVIII
******** LXV ****** LXV ******* LXV ******* LXV ******* LXV ****** LXV ******
His remarks on the two Greek copies, B and Aleph, which are relied on as the chief foes of the Peshito-Syriac text, are VERY IMPORTANT. He says that they "were certainly written at a time when Arianism was in full ascendancy; when Eusebius of Caesarea was the most prominent and the most influential leader of that party," (pg. 244); and that a "combination of facts, external and internal, appears to be incompatible with any other hypothesis, than that these two manuscripts which have furnished the Revisers of the English Version with their new Greek text, were among those which Eusebius prepared by the order of Constantine." (pg. 243.) He says that the Peshito-Syriac Version "must surely be regarded as THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY WITNESS to the state of the text, as received from the beginning in Palestine, and all the adjoining districts; that it gives us distinct intimation of the existence of words, clauses, entire sentences, which are obliterated or mutilated in those two manuscripts;" and he asks whether "we can hesitate as to which testimony has THE BEST, THE ONLY RIGHTFUL CLAIM TO ACCEPTANCE?" (pg. 245.)
Of B, Aleph, C and D, Canon Cook speaks as Dean Burgon does. He confirms "the charges of corruption and depravation made against B, Aleph, C and D," (pg. 229); and says that D is, "of all manuscripts, the least trustworthy." (pg. 214.)
Of B and Aleph he says, "I hold it as ALL BUT CERTAIN that they were written at Caesarea, between 330 and 340 A. D., under the direction of Eusebius," (pg. 245); whom Jerome called "the standard-bearer of the Arian faction." (pg. 166, note.) He says that the Greek Text followed by the Revisers, as well as by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is "virtually identical with B." (pp. 133, 149.)
Manuscript A differs in character from the rest of "the oldest five Greek manuscripts; Aleph, A, B, C and D." (Dr. Scrivener's Intro., 523.) "Manuscript A is the representative," says Canon Cook, "according to Westcott and Hort, of their [imaginary] Syriac recension. It actually represents the text which was adopted and used, without the slightest indication of doubt, by the great divines, the masters of early Christian thought in the fourth century," (pg. 217); it is the text "generally followed" in the later manuscripts, "especially in those which appear to have been the chief authorities for what is called the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, which, as Dr. Scrivener and others have shown, is the foundation of our Authorised Version." (pg. 133.)
****** LXVI ****** LXVI ****** LXVI ****** LXVI ******* LXVI ******* LXVI *******
Canon Cook says of the general mass of Greek manuscripts, which many critics despise, that "they ought not to be disregarded on the mere score of inferior antiquity. Because they record THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCHES for some ten or twelve centuries, and, as Dr. Hort admits, represent the fathers of the fourth century, including Chrysostom, and those who lived after him." (pg. 228.)
The testimony of Canon Cook, therefore, to the value of the Peshito-Syriac, is VERY STRONG; and he represents that testimony, as others do, to be in harmony with the Greek copy called A, with the text approved by early Greek writers, with the text of the mass of Greek copies, and with that followed in the Common English Version; and also as being opposed to that of Drs. Westcott and Hort, and of the Revised English Version.
DR. SCRIVENER, Prebendary of Exeter, is said by Dean Burgon to be "FACILE PRINCEPS, without question first, in Textual Criticism." (Revision Revised, vii.) He is also named by Canon Cook as "that most cautious and judicious critic, the very foremost among those who in England combine reverence for God's Word with the most thorough appreciation of every point bearing upon the criticism of the New Testament." (On Revised Version, pg. 120.)
Dr. Scrivener says in his Plain Introduction, pp. 312, 313, "The grievous divisions of the Syrian Christians have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival churches is as complete and hopeless as ever. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Coordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas, along the coast of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though the Maronites acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea [did so] in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions,..... ALL EXHIBIT A TEXT IN EVERY IMPORTANT RESPECT THE SAME."
Dr. Scrivener says that "The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern, or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other, and with the citations from [the Syriac Gospels by] Aphraates, A. D. 337-45, in most important points, seems to bring the Peshito text, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE SAME STATE AS WE HAVE IT AT PRESENT, UP TO THE FOURTH CENTURY OF OUR ERA..... Of this version there are many codices, of different ages, and widely diffused. Of the Curetonian but one." "Adler (pg. 3) describes a copy of the Peshito in the Vatican, dated, A. D. 548. From the Peshito, as the authorized version of the Oriental church, there are many quotations in Syriac books, from THE FOURTH CENTURY downwards." (pg. 322.) "We are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions [that is, the regions of Antioch and Edessa] at a very early period.... The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it UNQUESTIONABLE that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively [of any other], from THE SECOND CENTURY of our era downwards. As early as A. D. 170, THE SYRIAC is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii. 13. See Mill, Prol. 1239." (pg. 312.)
******* LXVII ****** LXVII ******* LXVII ****** LXVII ******* LXVII ******** LXVII ******
In strong contrast with this proved agreement of all Syriac copies from all quarters, from the fourth and sixth centuries till now, is Dr. Scrivener's reliable account of THE CORRUPT STATE OF THE GREEK COPIES. He says at pg. 532, "During THE FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND CENTURY," that is, between A. D. 100 and 150, "must have originated the WIDE VARIATIONS from the prevailing text, which exist in primary authorities, both manuscripts and versions; variations which survive in D, of the Greek, and in some of the old Latin codices. The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western." Its readings are "the EARLIEST which can be fixed chronologically.... The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western readings is a love of PARAPHRASE. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences, were CHANGED, OMITTED, and INSERTED, with astonishing freedom.... There was a disposition to enrich the text, at the cost of its purity, by alterations or additions taken from TRADITIONAL, and perhaps from apocryphal, and other non-biblical sources." (Dr. Hort, pp. 120, 122-123, quoted by Dr. Scrivener, pp. 532-533.) Dr. Scrivener gives passages from B and Aleph, the oldest copies now existing, in proof of their corrupt state, (pp. 543-552); and says that the text which Drs. Westcott and Hort have built chiefly on them, "is destitute, not only of HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, but of ALL PROBABILITY," (pg. 542); that it is even VISIONARY." (pg. 531.)
Dr. Scrivener says that "During THE WHOLE OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES, CHANGES appear to have been going on without notice;" those of them which are called Western, in Africa, France, and North Italy; those of another kind, in Egypt and its neighbourhood; and of a third kind, in Syria, Antioch, and Constantinople, (pg. 554); and that "ALL that can be inferred from searching into the history" of the Greek text, "amounts to NO MORE THAN THIS : -- that EXTENSIVE VARIATIONS..... subsisted in it FROM the earliest period to which our records extend," (pg. 519); and that "beyond this point our investigations CANNOT BE CARRIED, without indulging in PLEASANT SPECULATIONS, which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the judgment." He says that he is "brought reluctantly to this conclusion after examining the principles laid down by Bengel, Griesbach, Hug, Scholz, Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and by Professor Hort and Canon Westcott." (pp. 519-20.) He says, "Elaborate systems have failed," (pg. 520); "for the present, much is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous." (pg. 521.) He knows of no means of GIVING SURE PROOF, by means of Greek copies, of what readings are true, and what false.
****** LXVIII ******* LXVIII ******** LXVIII ******** LXVIII ****** LXVIII ******
The result of comparing Greek copies, is, in many cases, nothing but an OPINION ABOUT PROBABILITY; and Dr. Hort admits that these fallible opinions show "great diversity of judgment" (Scrivener, pg. 541.) It is self-evident that decisions of this kind fail utterly to establish A SURE TEXT, such as God's book must have, to be infallible. The attainment of such a text in many places, from the mere study of Greek readings, seems to be a forlorn hope.
HOW IMMENSELY IMPORTANT, therefore, is the certainty given by the agreement of Syriac copies! They retain almost throughout, their FIRST FORM, and are, as Dr. Scrivener says, "IN EVERY IMPORTANT RESPECT THE SAME." (pg. 313.) He states that, "Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for THE IDENTITY of the Syriac Version NOW CALLED the Peshito, with that used by the Eastern church long before the great schism had its beginning;" that is, long before A. D. 431. (pg. 313.) He says, "The Peshito has well been called the Queen of versions of Holy Writ, for it is at once the oldest, and one of the most excellent." "It is composed in the purest dialect of a perspicuous and elegant language.... No version can well be more exempt.... from stiffness of expression; yet, while remarkable for its ease and freedom, it very seldom becomes loose or paraphrastic." (pg. 319.) "It is assigned by eminent scholars to THE FIRST CENTURY, undoubtedly it is not later than the second." (Contributions, 1859, pg. 14.)
As to THE RESEMBLANCE of the Peshito to other texts, Dr. Scrivener says that "It habitually upholds the readings of A, one of the oldest uncial copies, those of the later uncials, and of the vast majority in cursive characters." "I claim for codex A and its numerous companions, peculiar attention by reason of their striking conformity with the Peshito Syriac." (Contributions, 1859, pg. 14.) "Beza was the true author of what is called the Received Text." (Intro. pg. 441, note.) "Beza's text of 1598 is found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text." (See Greek Text with variations of Revised Version, 1881 ; preface, pg. 8.)
THE UNTRUTH OF STATEMENTS AND CONJECTURES made by Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort, against the Peshito, in order to sustain their own Greek texts, is fully shown by Dr. Scrivener. Dr. Tregelles collated a Nestorian manuscript of the Peshito called Rich, 7157, and has said in Horne's Introduction, pg. 264, that the greater part of the materials afforded by a comparison of manuscripts with the printed text, for a critical revision of it, "relate to grammatical forms and particulars of that kind." (Scrivener's Int. pg. 318.) Yet Dr. Scrivener, writing in 1859, said, that though "this precious document [Rich, 7157] had been collated throughout by Dr. Tregelles, together with several other manuscripts of high antiquity in the Museum," and though Dr. Cureton, Mr. Ellis, and two German scholars, had found that these "venerable manuscripts exhibit a text singularly resembling that of the printed editions," Dr. Tregelles had spoken of the Peshito, in his "Printed Text of the Greek N. T., 1854," pg. 170, as "the version COMMONLY PRINTED AS THE PESHITO." "He would persuade us," says Dr. Scrivener, that the sects of "the whole Eastern church, distracted as it has been..... have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order to substitute.... a spurious version, in the room of the Peshito, -- that sole surviving manuscript of the first ages of the gospel in Syria! Nay more, that this WRETCHED FORGERY has deceived Orientalists profound as Michaelis and Lowth." (Contributions, pp. 14, 15.)