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

Unbound68

Well-known member
Steven Avery wrote in the "Was the Old Latin Version Pure and in Agreement with the KJV" thread:
The Syriac lines (Peshitta, along with the Peshitta updates called Philoxenian and Harklean) has long been considered the third major line, after Greek and Latin.


To which TC Calvinist brilliantly responded:
So by your own methodology, you should be rejecting this passage [the Comma] that by your own admission is missing from not one but two of the three "major lines" as you call it.


Furthermore, and keeping in mind the claims of some that the Comma was removed from the Greek line by heretics, Bill Brown in an article at Academia.edu entitled, Did Heretics Alter 1 John 5:7? wrote:
But perhaps the most problematic issue is that virtually all KJVO advocates demand a second century date for the Syriac Peshitta. Hills never gives an explicit date, but he suggests "...the Peshitta was in existence long before the 5th century." Strouse insists on a date around AD 165. However, this creates a problem that is fatal to any claim of authenticity for the Comma: if the Syriac Peshitta is a second century translation then heretical alteration by the Arians could not have happened. The Syriac versions are drawn directly from Greek. The Comma is not in the Syriac Peshitta, a fact that must either mean: a) the Comma did not exist in any Greek manuscripts used for translating the Peshitta; or b) it vanished completely, leaving no trace sometime between the date of John's authorship and the first translation of the Peshitta. It would indeed be a supernatural accomplishment for the Arians of the fourth century to remove a doctrinally offensive reading in the second century. (bolding mine, U68)

I don't think KJVOs have thought through their insertion of the Syriac Peshitta into the "pure line" culminating in the KJV.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
I shouldn't say this. . . and I know better. Nevertheless, this poster has moved on to other forums and I'm happy he is. I don't want to see him again. I'm begging you! :censored:

God speed my friend.
I understand. After reading that article by Bill Brown tonight, and coming across TCs comments in that thread, I just had to post my findings! I don't know much about the Peshitta right now but am fascinated with how it relates to the Comma issue.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Steven Avery wrote in the "Was the Old Latin Version Pure and in Agreement with the KJV" thread:
Because this poster makes a claim does not mean that it is true.

The Syriac Peshitta does not actually support KJV-only reasoning. The Peshitta would introduce many new textual differences into the KJV-only view's so-called pure stream of Bibles. There are English translations of the Peshitta which KJV-only advocates do not accept and recommend.

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.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible and Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude.

At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, and the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock has “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders.” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock and Lamsa have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These three English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19. Do Bradley and other KJV-only advocates accept these readings or renderings in the Peshitta as accurate and as being a direct link to the handwritten documents of the apostles?

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV.

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible and Bauscher’s translation do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.” Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108). In Edward Miller's Textual Commentary, the Peshitta, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions are listed as not having this clause along with many Greek manuscripts (p. 75). Edward F. Hills listed this clause "raise the dead" in his list of readings where Erasmus followed the Latin Vulgate, and he also noted that this clause "is omitted by the majority of Greek manuscripts" (KJV Defended, p. 200).
 

Shoonra

Well-known member
The Lamsa Bible is mislabeled; it claims to be translated from the Peshitta but it actually was done from a 19th century Syriac missionary version which closely tracked the Greek TR. Lamsa lacks many of the specific variants (from the Greek) known to be in the Peshitta and includes substantial portions that were missing from the Peshitta.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Lamsa Bible is mislabeled; it claims to be translated from the Peshitta but it actually was done from a 19th century Syriac missionary version which closely tracked the Greek TR. Lamsa lacks many of the specific variants (from the Greek) known to be in the Peshitta and includes substantial portions that were missing from the Peshitta.

Beyond the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37, can you document such "substantial portions"?

Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Because this poster makes a claim does not mean that it is true.

The Syriac Peshitta does not actually support KJV-only reasoning.

The Syriac Peshitta is far closer to the KJB/TR text than the Alexandrian texts behind the modern corruption versions.

So it clearly supports the KJB position against the Westcott-Hort recension.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Beyond the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37, can you document such "substantial portions"?

Thanks!
If you had read the posts in this thread, other examples (Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11, etc.) were already documented in post 4.

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).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
There are mistaken and incorrect KJV-only arguments and claims that you have not rejected.
You repeat and use some mistaken KJV-only arguments including some that involve use of fallacies.

Show us one spot where you have criticized Westcott-Hort recession reasoning.
 

Shoonra

Well-known member
I, for one, don't criticize W&H reasoning ... but technology has affected their work. Westcott & Hort had to deal with 19th century photographs of manuscripts, including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were of such primitive quality that it made it difficult or impossible to detect erasures or changes. Also, a great wealth of papyri were discovered shortly after publication of the W&H Greek NT, and more mss continue to be made available for examination. The same reasoning the W&H used in 1881 could be used today and result in a (slightly) different Greek text.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The quality, and age, and therefore thee importance of the Syriac witnesses to the New Testament manuscript text of 1st John 5:7-8 absolutely trumps the Latin Vulgate and any Vetus Latina (type texts) manuscripts and/or any secondary evidences, such as Patristic references.

These, plus the early Greek NT manuscripts, and early Coptic NT manuscripts, and early Latin Vulgate manuscripts certainly widens and deepens the temporal evidence between Comma inclusive NT manuscripts (Greek or Latin) greatly.

Look at the age of these New Testament manuscripts below.

St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, Syriac Manuscripts 5 (circa. 5th century A.D./C.E.)
Contains the Catholic Epistles and the book of Acts.
[Comma Johanneum?].
https://www.loc.gov/item/00279386164-ms/
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/05/syriac-new-testament-mss-at-saint.html

British Library, Add. 14470, (circa. 5th-6th century A.D./C.E.)
The oldest extant Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament (all 22 books). Contains the Catholic Epistles. Folio 174a = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 176v = end of 1st John.
(Colophon = Folio 176b).
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 40, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 29).

BNF, Syr. 341 (circa. 5th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Peshitta Old and portions of the New Testament; See the catalog entry here.
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://syri.ac/digimss/sortable?page=12
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10527102b/f3.item.r=Syriaque

British Library, Add. 14473, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 129r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 139v = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 79-80, and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

British Library, Add. 17120, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 47b = beginning of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 80).

British Library, Add. 17121, (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac manuscript of the complete New Testament. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 98r = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 106r = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 81 and Cf. “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 27).

British Library, Add. 14472, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 67a = beginning of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
Some marginalia, but from a later hand, and unrelated to the Comma Johanneum.
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 81-82).

British Library, Add MS 14448 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 160v = beginning of 1st John,
Folio 164r = end of 1st John.
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Pages 41-42 and Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 30).

British Library, Add. 18812, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 55a = ending with chapter 2:16
[Folio 55b = is missing possibly = may be an incomplete MS of 1st John]
[Comma Johanneum?].
(Cf. William Wright, “Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum,” Reprinted 2002, Page 83).

Goodspeed Ms. 716, (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT Fragments, (Formerly Goodspeed Ms. Syr. 26). University of Chicago Library, Goodspeed Manuscript Collection.
Contains the Catholic Epistles.
1st John 5:7-8 = Folio 32v, (Page/Image 64).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
http://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/view/index.php?doc=0716&obj=064

Vat. sir. 266 (circa. 6th-7th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles (Folio's 154r-157v).
Folio 157r = 1st John 5:7-8 (starts sixth line from bottom right column).
Confirmed, by personal examination, there is no Comma Johanneum in this MS.
(Cf. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF“Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Pages 28-29).
http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.266
https://roger-pearse.com/wiki/index.php?title=Vatican_Syriac_manuscripts

BNF, Syr. 361 (circa. 8th-9th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript. Contains Acts, and the Catholic Epistles (Folio's 118-169).
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://syri.ac/digimss/sortable?page=13

BNF, Syr. 342 (circa. 8th-9th century A.D./C.E.)
Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript. Contains the Catholic Epistles.
Folio 169v = 1st John 5:7.
[Comma Johanneum?].
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528606c/f344.item.r=Syriaque.zoom
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528606c/f1.item.r=Syriaque.zoom

Catalogue of Syriac manuscripts in the British museum acquired since the year 1838
by British Museum. Dept. of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts; Wright, William, 1830-1889

Published 1870
Topics Manuscripts, Syriac -- Bibliography
Volume 1
Publisher London
Pages 420
Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language English
Call number AEL-3642
https://archive.org/details/catalogueofsyria01brituoft
https://ia601406.us.archive.org/20/items/catalogueofsyria01brituoft/catalogueofsyria01brituoft.pdf

Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF “Das Neue Testament in syrischer Überlieferung,” Volume 2, Part 3, Page 1
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=QhqQLzsFGVoC&pg=PR2&lpg=PR2&dq=Munster+Das+Neue+Testament+in+Syrischer+%C3%9Cberlieferung&source=bl&ots=cC44Kz0nIg&sig=IzXkMO2P88aAJoJFwS8XuILSeXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqhIqd_uTTAhVFlpQKHSnuDgQQ6AEISDAG#v=onepage&q=Munster%20Das%20Neue%20Testament%20in%20Syrischer%20%C3%9Cberlieferung&f=false


Note that, although some of the manuscripts above may not contain the 1st John 5:6-8 text, but all of the listed manuscripts above have been examined by Scholars, and it has been reliably and factually reported that no Syriac manuscript prior to the 15th century A.D./C.E. contains the Johannine Comma.
 
Last edited:
Top