Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Critical editions, like Souter, Nestle [-Aland], UBS, et al., all have notes of readings from the Peshitta that differ from the TR.

Lamsa's edition, while pretending to be from the Peshitta, ignores almost all of those noteworthy readings and contains stuff not in the Peshitta; in fact, Lamsa was translating from a 19th century missionary Syrian Bible which was mostly following the TR.
 
Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373).

Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.
 
Shoonra said:
Lamsa's edition, while pretending to be from the Peshitta, ignores almost all of those noteworthy readings and contains stuff not in the Peshitta; in fact, Lamsa was translating from a 19th century missionary Syrian Bible which was mostly following the TR.
Click to expand...

Can you name readings other than the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37. Even those varied by edition, I had this note a while back, starting with the heavenly witnesses.

Lamsa is more complicated, since there is a question of how he approached the verse, and then what the publisher would do.
.
The 1940 noted in a footnote that he merged verses 6 and 7 and inserted the King James version of verse 7. Probably "Carried over from the King James Version." Apparently this was first published in 1933.
.
Lamsa's 1957 edition omitted the verse.

The 1998 "restored his original notes" and said "Carried over from the King James Version."

Note that a Acts 8:37 note is similar: One source says the note is "Acts 8:37 - The confession of Christ's divinity is carried over from the King James Version."
Click to expand...
.
This was taken from various net discussions.
What other verses do you claim are not based on the Peshitta text?
 
Maestroh said:
Now bear something in mind: Steven Avery’s actual level of RESEARCH on any of these is the same as the guy who says that eggs don’t have cholesterol because you never see a chicken getting CPR. There is no research, merely grabbing a quote from a book he doesn’t even read and trying to stir up something.
Click to expand...

The cholesterol in eggs is unrelated to human cholesterol issues, which involves the human production of cholesterol.

My understanding to date:
If there is not sufficient velocity for the blood due to insufficient elasticity in the arteries (e.g. too much salt), then cholesterol is produced and the arteries are made smaller and the velocity will increase. Bernoulli's principle.
 
Steven Avery said:
The cholesterol in eggs is unrelated to human cholesterol issues, which involves the human production of cholesterol.

My understanding to date:
If there is not sufficient velocity for the blood due to insufficient elasticity in the arteries (e.g. too much salt), then cholesterol is produced and the arteries are made smaller and the velocity will increase. Bernoulli's principle.
Click to expand...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You're stalling and trying to divert the reader's attention.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Note that, although some of the manuscripts above may not contain the 1st John 5:6-8 text
Click to expand...

It looks like you are unsure on the great majority, making the list of little use, even if the specifics of Syriac mss. were important.

It also bewrays your earlier list as poor scholarship in the Syriac as well as the Latin, and the silly dating of the Greek Sinaiticus.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
… and/or any secondary evidences, such as Patristic references.

... and early Latin Vulgate manuscripts
Click to expand...

References like the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the Council of Carthage are far more significant than even authentically early mss. like Alexandrinus.

Are you playing the old Metzger deception of leaving Latin manuscripts out of both the Vulgate and Old Latin categories?
 
Steven Avery said:
Can you name readings other than the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37.
Click to expand...
In the post just before your post, you were given other readings such as Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 15:34.

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373).

Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
In damage control mode again?
Click to expand...

You are mixing up two conversations.

One with Shoonra specifically about the Lamsa Peshitta text, where Rick Norris on post 831 got confused and put in a post about the Peshitta in general, which I corrected in 833.

Two - My discussion pointing out problems in two lists you created,
a) one with mss. from multiple languages where you deliberately omitted early Latin mss.
b) one with simply Syriac manuscripts, where you are unsure on most of them whether they have 1 John 5 7-8 section.

The url related to Two.

Try to follow.
Better than silly, false accusations.
 
Steven Avery said:
One with Shoonra specifically about the Lamsa Peshitta text, where Rick Norris on post 831 got confused and put in a post about the Peshitta in general, which I corrected in 833.
Click to expand...
You corrected no error or confusion on my part. I did not suggest that the Lamsa Peshitta text did not have some readings that are not found in Peshitta manuscripts.

Perhaps you seek to avoid the truth that some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.
 
logos1560 said:
You corrected no error or confusion on my part. I did not suggest that the Lamsa Peshitta text did not have some readings that are not found in Peshitta manuscripts.
Click to expand...
Your post was not relevant to my discussion with Shoonra, you were not giving Lamsa readings.

Your triple negative sentence is typical Rick Norris negative nonsense.
 
Lamsa's Bible has material not found in the ancient Peshitta, and also omits some significant variants found in the ancient Peshitta. I was told this many years ago by the librarian of the American Bible Society, and I have since then verified it for myself.
 
Shoonra said:
Lamsa's Bible has material not found in the ancient Peshitta, and also omits some significant variants found in the ancient Peshitta. I was told this many years ago by the librarian of the American Bible Society, and I have since then verified it for myself.
Click to expand...
Can you give some variants other than the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 (which vary in Lamsa editions)?

I would love to see Peshitta variants with text he omits.
 
logos1560 said:
Perhaps you seek to avoid the truth that some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.
Click to expand...
This is well known, beginning in the 1500s. Some editors provided Reformation Bible corrections, similar to the Greek Orthodox who accepted the heavenly witnesses verse.

There are some complexities, because the Philoxenian and Harklean versions are often considered Peshitta, and include five books and text that is not in earlier manuscripts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top