Some questions

[gbausc]

Chuck,

You jump to conclusions which I never stated. I do not accept the Acts 20:28 reading of the 1905 edition because of the Greek mss., but the Greek mss. certainly seem to verify that the original Peshitta reading was "church of God". You still have not answered my questions and still simply skirt the issue of the evidence here. "Church of the Lord" is no more supportive of the Eastern reading than "the church of God" is. It actually supports the majority Greek reading (church of the Lord and God) more than the Eastern Peshitta reading, which I have already stated.

Why do you want to jump now to Acts 8:37? Is it because you are relying on a small minority of Peshitta mss. in Acts 20:28 for the reading you accept and cannot justify that, or is your position based on theological bias, which you have disavowed, but can't quite shake?

I am not going to argue about Acts 8:37 here. I can say that I have honestly translated it because it is included in the 1905 Peshitta edition. It is also included in every online edition of the Peshitta NT I have seen, being found in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1599-1600. Who knows where he got it? You and I do not know. I would love to obtain a copy of his Peshitta; perhaps it has a note somewhere, citing the source; until such time, I will regard him as an honest copyist and transcriber of the Peshitta he possessed at the time, even though extant Peshitta mss. do not have the verse today.

I included it because it is there in the most popular Peshitta edition published, and this 1905 edition is based overall on over 80 Aramaic mss., which means that overall it will better represent the original Peshitta than any one Peshitta ms. could do. I am not an eclectic textual critic, and I have not made it my role to edit the Aramaic text. I present it as I find it and translate the same. Others have played the role of editor; I do not presume to do so with the Critical edition, at least not in presenting the text in Aramaic and in translating it.

I happen to know that the Majority Greek text is based on several hundred mss., according to Zane Hodges, in his Greek NT according to the Majority Text. For example, he states that more than 900 Greek mss. contain the Pericope de Adultera in John 7:53-8:11. I can't believe that only 50 have been examined for the book of Acts. The Majority Greek editions published recently are based on far more than 50 mss.. To say that 6000 mss. contain the NT is misleading. Most of those are mere fragments, very few contain the whole NT.

I gave you my Greek sources, so I will not list them again, but there are 3 Greek NT editions, plus my photo copies of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, both of which have, "church of God", which I have read with my own eyes and transcribed for you in uncial Greek. You have yet to acknowledge this.

Is that from the Greek text only then? And if so...then its not a genuine Aramaic verse, But, if a reading is found only in The Eastern Peshitta, and not in the Greek text, then its not genuine?

If it were in the Greek only ( & who can really know the case 400 years ago when Hutter compiled his Peshitta edition), one must still ask, "Where did the Greek come from?" As far as the existence of a verse in the NT is concerned, a witness for it is worth much more than one without it. Why would that be? It is because the error of omission is so much more likely and common than the error of addition. Where did the Itala version (2nd century) get the verse 8:37. Where did the Armenian version get it? Where did the Latin Vulgate get it? Where did the Georgian version get it? Where did Irenaeus find the verse? How about Tertullian,Cyprian,Cyprian,Ambrosiaster,Pacian,Ambrose,Augustine,Theophylact? Where did uncial E get it? Where did the Syriac Harklean version get it?

Inclusion or exclusion of a passage is much easier to decide that the exact wording of a verse, so let's not confuse the matter of 8:37 and 20:28. They are oranges and apples. There is little question that the authorities quoting 8:37 found it in the NT. There is more doubt concerning the exact wording of a NT verse when several witnesses differ in apparent quotes from that verse. So I think the 8:37 issue is easier to decide than the 20:28 variants. Most witnesses agree in 20:28 with "God" being in the verse. As far as inclusion or omission of a verse, a majority of manuscripts not including it is not enough to exclude it, for the reason I stated above concerning the relative ease and commonness of the error of omission as compared to addition.

I think you actually agree with me on this point, Chuck. You accept the Western Five books as the word of God. The Eastern Peshitta omits them from its canon because Eastern mss. do not have them. The Western Syrian churches include them. If you were consistent, you should reject them as not canonical and therefore not inspired, because you believe the Eastern Peshitta is the sole authority by which to decide the text of the NT.

However, if the Eastern canon Peshitta lacks five inspired books of the NT, then it is surely severely defective by reason of that omission, and cannot be counted as a witness against the inclusion of those books in the NT. And if all Eastern Peshitta mss. are defective to such an extent as to omit five books, surely they may be defective to a much lesser degree in other places, and require the testimony of the Western Mss. and to a certain extent, the witness of the Greek mss. and ancient versions, and perhaps even the church Fathers.

That is a double standard Dave.

No double standard- apples and oranges- two different problems. One is omission of a verse and the other is a changed word in a verse.

If all Eastern mss. agree and are yet far outnumbered by other Peshitta mss. and also most Greek mss., and no Greek ms. or ancient version has the Eastern reading, then I go with the Western Peshitta majority.

Blessings,
Dave