Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Errors in the Peshitta OT from the Leiden instittute.
Upon reviewing the data published on the web from the Leiden insititute, I have noticed a great deal of errors.

For instance, take a look at my first entry concerning Genesis, chapter 9.

verses 16 and 17 are missing.

0915 )tdkr qymy dbyn:y wlkwn, wbyt kl np$) xyt) d(mkwn, wbyt kl bsr, wl) nhwwn twb m:y) dTwpn) lm.xblw kl`bsr,
0918 )bwhy d=kn(n,

And now take a look at Exodus chapter 10

verse 22 has two different entries, out-of-sequence:

1021 w)m_r mry) l-mw$), )rym )ydk lwt $my), wn_hw) x$k) (l klh. )r( d=mcryn, wn(m_T x$k),
1022 w)rym -mw$) )ydh l$my) whw) x$k) w(mTn) bklh. )r() d=mcryn, tlt ywm:y_n,
1023 l) x_z) )n$ l)xwhy,
1022 wl) qm )n$ mn dwkth_ tlt) ywm:yn, wlklhwn bn:y -)ysryl hw_) nwhr byt mwt.bhwn,
1024 wq_r) pr(wn l-mw$) w)m_r lh zlw plwxw qdm mry) bl_xwd (nkwn wtwr:ykwn $bwqw, w)p )yqrtkwn t.)zl (mkwn,

And so on.

You can quickly link to the leiden via here to confirm: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

I have emailed the Leiden institute about a week ago, but they have not responded. I have asked another user on this forum and he had no idea of the cause.

Does anybody know of the cause of this, if it is something other than a technical failure on the part of the compilers and editors at the Leiden institutue?

If this source cannot be trusted, is there another which can be trusted?

Here is the list of discrepencies

Book/ Chapter / From-verse / To-verse

GEN 9 15 18
EXO 4 25 27
EXO 10 23 22
EXO 10 22 24
EXO 29 10 12
EXO 29 30 34
EXO 30 18 20
EXO 33 7 10
EXO 35 17 19
EXO 35 21 23
EXO 40 2 4
EXO 40 12 15
EXO 40 22 28
LEV 3 2 5
LEV 4 5 8
LEV 4 14 20
LEV 8 3 5
LEV 8 33 35
LEV 9 5 7
LEV 10 7 9
LEV 10 9 12
LEV 11 42 41
LEV 14 11 13
LEV 14 23 26
LEV 16 7 13
LEV 16 16 18
LEV 16 20 22
LEV 24 3 7
NUM 2 17 20
NUM 3 7 10
NUM 4 28 31
NUM 4 35 44
NUM 8 9 13
NUM 10 3 6
NUM 11 16 18
NUM 14 10 16
NUM 16 18 26
NUM 17 19 21
NUM 18 4 9
NUM 18 22 24
NUM 20 6 8
NUM 25 6 8
NUM 27 2 12
DEU 2 31 33
DEU 14 17 16
JOS 1 1 3
JOS 6 6 8
JOS 14 1 3
JOS 15 8 10
JOS 15 32 34
JOS 19 38 40
JOS 19 49 51
JOS 21 34 36
JOS 21 37 34
JOS 21 35 38
JOS 24 1 4
JUD 1 1 11
JUD 11 11 2
JUD 20 19 21
1SA 2 22 24
1SA 14 35 37
1SA 23 10 12
1SA 25 24 26
1SA 28 18 22
2SA 1 16 0
2SA 1 0 17
1KI 3 22 24
1KI 8 4 7
1KI 12 21 21
1KI 13 34 34
1KI 14 1 1
1KI 14 2 2
2KI 9 14 17
ISA 38 12 14
ISA 38 20 22
ISA 38 22 21
ISA 48 1 3
JER 37 8 10
JER 52 16 18
EZE 1 1 6
EZE 3 15 21
EZE 10 15 17
EZE 40 7 9
EZE 43 3 7
EZE 48 5 7
JOE 2 2 20
JON 2 1 0
JON 2 0 2
PSA 34 9 11
PSA 73 22 24
PSA 73 25 23
PSA 73 23 26
PSA 89 31 33
PSA 109 9 11
PSA 111 8 7
PSA 119 90 92
PSA 119 151 148
PSA 119 148 152
PSA 119 170 172
PSA 119 172 171
PSA 119 171 173
PSA 136 10 12
PSA 140 1 3
JOB 29 5 7
JOB 30 2 5
JOB 41 21 24
PRO 13 22 24
DAN 3 57 59
DAN 3 59 58
DAN 3 58 61
DAN 3 61 60
DAN 3 60 62
DAN 3 66 71
DAN 3 72 69
DAN 3 70 73
DAN 3 76 78
DAN 3 78 77
DAN 3 77 79
DAN 3 90 24
NEH 3 16 18
1CH 2 22 24
1CH 2 44 46
1CH 2 46 50
1CH 2 52 54
1CH 3 6 8
1CH 3 8 7
1CH 3 7 9
1CH 4 6 9
1CH 4 12 15
1CH 4 15 19
1CH 4 21 24
1CH 4 31 38
1CH 5 12 14
1CH 7 33 39
1CH 8 7 9
1CH 8 16 23
1CH 8 26 28
1CH 11 44 43
1CH 12 23 25
1CH 22 6 8
1CH 23 4 6
1CH 24 26 30
1CH 25 4 7
1CH 28 11 20
2CH 4 2 4
2CH 4 10 18
2CH 5 11 14
2CH 9 24 26
2CH 9 28 30
2CH 13 12 15
2CH 20 21 24
2CH 24 12 15
2CH 25 21 23
2CH 26 6 8
2CH 26 13 15
2CH 27 7 9
2CH 28 13 15
2CH 28 15 22
2CH 28 25 16
2CH 28 21 26
2CH 29 6 10
2CH 29 10 8
2CH 29 9 20
2CH 33 3 5
JohnPooPoo Wrote:Upon reviewing the data published on the web from the Leiden insititute, I have noticed a great deal of errors.

No doubt there are many "errors" in the Peshitta OT as there are in the massoretic OT or the LXX.
The peshitta OT is an entirely different collection of books than the Peshitta NT.
The origin of the Peshitta NT is the apostles.
The origin of the Peshitta OT is very obscure. It just happens that aramaic speaking believers who used the Peshitta NT used an Aramaic version of the OT. This version is the POT, but this does not mean it can be compared with the PNT in every way.
They both just happen to be written in Aramaic.
How can't this be an error:

Exodus chapter 10 verse 22 has two different entries, out-of-sequence:

1021 w)m_r mry) l-mw$), )rym )ydk lwt $my), wn_hw) x$k) (l klh. )r( d=mcryn, wn(m_T x$k),
1022 w)rym -mw$) )ydh l$my) whw) x$k) w(mTn) bklh. )r() d=mcryn, tlt ywm:y_n,
1023 l) x_z) )n$ l)xwhy,
1022 wl) qm )n$ mn dwkth_ tlt) ywm:yn, wlklhwn bn:y -)ysryl hw_) nwhr byt mwt.bhwn,
1024 wq_r) pr(wn l-mw$) w)m_r lh zlw plwxw qdm mry) bl_xwd (nkwn wtwr:ykwn $bwqw, w)p )yqrtkwn t.)zl (mkwn,
Forgive-me if I'm a ignorant in this subject.

Isn't the Old Testament in Aramaic called Targum? Isn't Peshitta the name only of New Testament in Aramaic?

Thanks for your attention.
Shlama kalhown,

Gentlemen, please do not confuse editing errors at a web site with errors in The Peshitta OT. The Peshitta OT does not have all the errors John listed. They are obviously errors made by the editor who posted them on the Peshitta Leiden web site. My hard copies of the Peshitta do not contain those errors.

Of course The Peshitta OT does contain errors; it is a translation, not the original Hebrew text.

The Peshitta NT is another matter. No one has ever demonstrated that it contains one error, either factual, grammatical or even orthographical (spelling).

I could make a list of Greek NT grammatical, factual and orthographical errors. Pick any edition you like.
I challenge anyone who knows Aramaic to do the same with The Peshitta NT (using only strictly Peshitta mss. or The Critical 1905 Syriac NT edition - No "Red Book", please).


Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Here this should help clear things up for you Dave;

Quote:The following is the entry from the Anchor Bible Dictionary:

This article surveys the translation of the Bible, or parts of it, into the Syriac language.
A. Old Testament
1. Peshitta
2. Syro-Hexapla
3. Other Translations
4. Christian Palestinian Aramaic
B. New Testament
1. Diatessaron
2. Old Syriac
3. Peshitta
4. Philoxenian
5. Harklean
6. Christian Palestinian Aramaic
C. Translations and Commentaries
A. Old Testament
The two main translations into Classical Syriac (Eastern Aramaic) are the Peshitta, made from Hebrew, and the Syro-Hexapla, made from Greek; fragments of two further translations, both from Greek, also survive. The translation into Christian Palestinian Aramaic (sometimes called Palestinian Syriac; a Western Aramaic dialect) was made from the LXX and is only partially preserved.
1. Peshitta. This is the standard version of the Syriac Churches (Syrian Orthodox, Maronite and Church of the East). The name, meaning ???Simple,??? is not found until the 9th century when it was first used to distinguish this version from the Syro-Hexapla (in the OT) and the Harklean (in the NT). The origins of the Peshitta OT lie in obscurity: both date and place remain matters of conjecture. Most, if not all, the work must have been completed by the 3d century a.d., for the Old Syriac Gospels adapt some OT quotations to the Peshitta OT text. Perhaps most books date from 1st???2d century a.d. As with the LXX, the OT was not translated as a whole, but book by book; it is possible that some books were translated by Jews and others by Christians. Certain books (notably the Pentateuch) have a loose connection with the Targum tradition, perhaps by way of some lost ancestor of the extant Palestinian and Babylonian Targum traditions; in the case of one book (Proverbs) the extant Targum derives from the Peshitta (which was thus presumably of Jewish origin for this book). Suggestions have been made that there once existed an ???Old Syriac??? form of the Syriac OT (on analogy with the situation in the NT), but the evidence adduced for this is unconvincing. See also TARGUM, TARGUMIM.
All books of the Peshitta OT were basically translated from Hebrew, though in some books there are the links mentioned above with the Targum traditions, and in others the translators may have made occasional use of LXX. With the exception of Ecclesiasticus, also translated from Hebrew, the Apocrypha were translated from LXX. Because mss of the complete Peshitta OT are rare, the division between canonical and uncanonical was not clear cut; thus the earliest complete OT ms, Milan, Ambros. B.21.Inf. of 6th???7th century (7al in the Leiden edition), also contains the following, mostly intermingled with the canonical books: Wisdom of Solomon, Epistle of Jeremiah, Epistle of Baruch, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 1???4 Maccabees, and Josephus JW 6. Some Psalters contain Psalm 151 (from LXX) and 152???5 (made from Hebrew ca. a.d. 800; the original of Psalms 154 and 155 is now known from 11QPsa).
Manuscripts of the Peshitta OT range in date from 5th to 20th century; they include the two oldest dated biblical mss in any language, British Library Add. 14512 of a.d. 459/60 (palimpsest of Isaiah), and Add.14425 of a.d. 463/4 (Pentateuch). Some 60 mss from the 6th and 7th centuries are preserved; these normally contain single books, or small groups, and only one is a complete OT. A system of chapter divisions (different from the one in current use, which is of European origin) is found in most mss from the 8th century onwards. Separate Lectionary mss occur from the 9th century onwards; some of these include lections taken from the Syro-Hexapla. A small number of mss, dating between 9th and 13th century, contain what is referred to as a ???masorah??? (i.e. notes on pronunciation, etc.). A few illuminated mss survive, notably Sinai 1048 (6th century?), Paris syr.341 (8al, 7th/8th century), and Cambridge Oo.1.1???2 (12al, 12th century). The order of books is variable, but Job often follows the Pentateuch (based on the Jewish tradition identifying Job with Jobab and the author as Moses).
Compared to the LXX, the textual history of the Peshitta OT is relatively stable, and variations of any real importance are infrequent. Recent studies (notably Koster) have indicated that in many books at least three slightly different text forms are to be found in the extant manuscripts. The earliest stage, closest to the Hebrew, is only poorly preserved, being partially represented in the rare 5th century mss and in some of the aberrant readings in 9al. The next stage, represented by mss of 6th???8th centuries, is well preserved. The differences between the first and second stages concern small alterations in vocabulary and improvements in style, making the text read more smoothly. This process was taken a stage further in later mss, containing the medieval Textus Receptus. For the textual critic interested in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Peshitta it is essential to work from the oldest stage attainable, recorded in the apparatus of the Leiden Peshitta, and not from other printed editions which, being based on late medieval mss, reproduce the most evolved stage of the Peshitta text (many of the references to Peshitta in BHK and BHS are unreliable in this respect).
The most important older editions are: the Paris Polyglot of 1645, the London Polyglot of 1657, S. Lee (1823), and three editions published in the Middle East, Urmiah (1852), Mosul (1887???92), and Beirut (1951). None of these are critical editions and all are based on late mss; in some cases the mss used can be identified (Emerton). Lee???s edition has been republished by the United Bible Societies (1979), with the addition of the Apocrypha (evidently based on the Mosul edition). Of more use for critical purposes is A. Ceriani???s photolithographic edition (1876) of 7al, the ms which also serves as the basis for the Leiden Peshitta Institute editions, which are equipped with a good apparatus; to date (1986) the following volumes have appeared: Sample Edition (1966; Cant, Tob, 2 Bar.); I.1 (1977; Gen, Exod); II.1a (1982; Job) II.2 (1978; Judg, Sam); II.3 (1980; Pss); II.4 (1976; Kgs); II.5 (1979; Prov, Wis, Eccl, Cant); III.3 (1985; Ezek); III.4 (1980; 12 Proph, Dan, Bel; IV.3 (1973; 2 Bar., 4 Ezra); IV.6 (1972; Odes Sol., Pr. Man., Pss 151???55, Pss. Sol., Tob, 1 [3] Esdr). The main aim of the Leiden edition is to provide the early ms evidence; a critical edition, based on eclectic principles corresponding to those behind the G??ttingen LXX, remains a task for the future.
Good or satisfactory editions of some individual books exist: Pentateuch (W. E. Barnes 1914); Psalms (Barnes 1904); Lamentations (B. Albrektson 1963); Wisdom of Solomon (J. A. Emerton 1959); Apocrypha (P. de Lagarde 1861). For Isaiah an apparatus alone was published by G. Diettrich (1905).
Concordances for the following books are so far available: Prophets (W. Strothmann 1984); Psalms (N. Sprenger 1977); Ecclesiastes (Strothmann 1973); Sirach (M. M. Winter 1976).
There is an English translation of the Peshitta OT by G. M. Lamsa (1957); this needs to be used with caution.
2. Syro-Hexapla. This is a 7th-century Syriac translation of Origen???s revision of the LXX text, bringing it into line with the Hebrew. In several mss the hexaplaric signs are preserved, together with numerous marginal readings taken from Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. The translation was probably commissioned by the Syrian Orthodox patriarch Athanasius and it was undertaken (as we know from colophons) by Paul, bishop of Tella (N Mesopotamia) in a monastery at the Enaton, or ninth milestone, of Alexandria in the years 615???17. During the same period and at the same monastery the Syriac NT was revised by Thomas of Harkel (Harklean, see below, B.5). Both the Syro-Hexapla and the Harklean make use of highly sophisticated techniques of literal translation which Syriac translators had developed by this period (Brock); their aim was to mirror every detail of the Greek original in the Syriac translation, and this has been achieved with such success that the modern textual critic, for whom the Syro-Hexapla is a key witness to the hexaplaric recension of the LXX, is enabled to reconstruct the underlying Greek text with a high degree of confidence.
Syriac writers normally refer to the Syro-Hexapla as ???the Seventy??? or ???the Greek.??? Although the translation was mostly transmitted in Syrian Orthodox circles, use was sometimes made of it by scholars of the Church of the East, notably Isho>dad of Merv (9th century).
From an early date the Syro-Hexapla circulated in two different forms: in mss containing individual books or groups of books, and in folio sized ???pandects??? constituting a two-volume edition of the entire work. A magnificent 8th or 9th century ms of the second volume of this edition is preserved in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, and has been published photolithographically by Ceriani (1874). A ms of the accompanying first volume (Pentateuch and Historical Books) was in the possession of the 16th century scholar A. Masius, but has since disappeared. The loss of this ms is made good only in part by the survival of some 20 mss containing individual books (many of these date from 7th to 9th century; an important later one is an incomplete Pentateuch of 1204, published photographically by V????bus). From the mss available in 1892 A. Rahlfs and P. de Lagarde published what could be recovered of the contents of the lost first volume. Some additional materials discovered subsequently have been published by J. Gwynn, Baars, V????bus and others; some of these passages are derived from lectionary mss. Baars (p. 25) lists all passages of the Syro-Hexapla not yet (in 1968) recovered; some of these lacunae have now been filled by the Pentateuch ms of 1204. See SYRO-HEXAPLA.
3. Other Translations. Two other translations, covering only individual books, survive in part. A fragmentary translation of Isaiah is preserved in British Library Add. 17106; its editor, Ceriani (1868), attributed this version to Polycarp, author of the Philoxenian NT, on the grounds that the Milan Syro-Hexapla attributes an alternative rendering of Isa 9:6 to ???the version which was translated by the care of the holy Philoxenus.??? Polycarp is also said by his contemporary, Moses of Inghilene, to have translated the Psalms, but of this no trace survives. This Syriac version of Isaiah is made from the LXX and in the apparatus of the G??ttingen LXX it is referred to as ???the Syrolucianic.???
Another translation, of which the Pentateuch, 1???2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel alone survive in whole or in part, was made by the great Syrian Orthodox scholar Jacob of Edessa, shortly before his death (708). Jacob evidently constructed his version out of three sources: the already existing Syriac texts of the Peshitta and Syro-Hexapla, and some LXX mss containing a Lucianic text. Only a few samples of this version have so far been published.
4. Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA). The literature in this dialect consists entirely of translations from Greek and was the product of the Aramaic-speaking Christian community in Palestine which remained loyal to the Council of Chalcedon (451), popularly known as ???Melkites.??? Extant mss (often palimpsests and almost all fragmentary) date from 6th to 13th century (by the latter date the dialect was rapidly being replaced by Arabic). Only parts of the OT in CPA survive, and many of these are in the form of lections, rather than straight Bible texts. The version is basically from the LXX, though some scholars claim to have discerned the sporadic influence of the Peshitta and even of the Targumim.
The oldest OT mss are all palimpsests and are almost all fragments of lectionaries. Particularly important is the well preserved OT Lectionary published by Lewis (1897), with texts from Pentateuch, Job and Prophets. A list of all known biblical texts in CPA up to 1903 was given by F. Schultess in his Lexicon Syropalaestinum, pp. vii???xvi. A much-needed republication of all OT texts is being undertaken by Goshen-Gottstein and Shirun.

B. New Testament
1. Diatessaron. Tatian???s Harmony of the Gospels, or Diatessaron, is not preserved in its original form, and it remains disputed whether Tatian, who flourished ca. 160, compiled it in Greek or in Syriac. The most important textual witnesses are the small parchment fragment in Greek from Dura Europos (thus dating from before 256, when the town was destroyed), and the Syriac quotations to be found in Ephrem???s Commentary on the Diatessaron, of which the whole survives in Armenian translation and about two-thirds in the original Syriac. Later Gospel Harmonies in various languages, eastern and western, probably preserve something of the structure of Tatian???s Harmony, but their text has undergone considerable adaptation (e.g., to the Peshitta in the Arabic Harmony, and to the Vulgate in the Latin Codex Fuldensis).
The Diatessaron was regarded as an authoritative gospel text by the early Syriac-speaking Church. When by the 4th century it became necessary to distinguish the Diatessaron from the Syriac translation of the four gospels (Old Syriac), the former was given the name Evangelion da-me??h\alle??t\e??, ???Gospel of the mixed ones,??? while the latter was called Evangelion da-me??pharre??she??, ???Gospel of the separated ones.??? The Diatessaron only fell out of favor in the 5th century: Theodoret, who found 200 mss of the Diatessaron in use in his diocese of Cyrrhus, tells (Haer. fab. comp., 1.20) how he replaced them by mss of the four gospels.
Besides drawing on the four gospels (primarily Matthew), Tatian appears to have made some use of apocryphal sources as well: thus he evidently introduced the theme of light (or fire) appearing at the baptism of Jesus (a feature developed in Syriac liturgical poetry).
The Syriac evidence for the text of the Diatessaron is collected by Leloir and Ortiz de Urbina. It has been suggested that prior to the Diatessaron the earliest gospel text available in Syriac may have been the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Gospel of Thomas, but the evidence is very tenuous. Somewhat more plausible is the suggestion that Tatian himself drew on the Gospel of Thomas, though the reverse is also possible. See also DIATESSARON.
2. Old Syriac. Although some earlier scholars claimed that the Diatessaron was preceded by a Syriac translation of all four gospels (i.e., the Old Syriac), there is now a general consensus that the Old Syriac followed the Diatessaron in time. Two witnesses to the Old Syriac text survive, both belonging to the 5th century, known as the Curetonianus and the Sinaiticus. In neither ms is the text of the gospels complete.
The Curetonianus was named after W. Cureton who first published a large part of the ms (British Library Add. 14451) in 1858. Subsequently three further leaves were identified in a Berlin ms (Or. Quad. 528) and these were included in F. C. Burkitt???s edition (with English translation) of 1904, which remains the standard. In 1985 a further leaf, filling the lacuna of Luke 16:12???17:1 between two of the Berlin leaves, was found to be still remaining at the Syrian Monastery in the Nitrian Desert (Egypt) by D. McConaughy. There still remain many lacunae (almost all Mark, and much of John, is missing). The unusual sequence Matthew, Mark, John, Luke is provided.
The Sinaiticus, a palimpsest ms, was discovered by the twin sisters, Mrs. A. S. Lewis and Mrs. M. D. Gibson, in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Sinai syr. 30). The Old Syriac gospel text is to be found in the under writing (the upper writing contains Lives of Women Saints, in an 8th-century hand). Again the text is not complete and many passages have remained impossible to read with certainty. See SINAITICUS, SYRUS. Although Burkitt???s edition of the Curetonianus gives the variants of the Sinaiticus, the subsequent edition of the Sinaiticus (recording the variants of the Curetonianus) by Mrs. Lewis in 1910 contains several improved readings. There is also a photographic edition of the ms by A. Hjelt (1930). New techniques for reading the under text, developed at Princeton, should result in the recovery of much more of the text.
Besides the many small variations between the two mss are some larger ones; thus the longer ending of Mark is absent from the Sinaiticus but present in the Curetonianus. It is generally agreed that the two mss represent two somewhat different revised forms of a common original text; the date of this original translation is not known, but the 3d century is now widely accepted. The two main characteristics of the Old Syriac text are the large number of harmonizations and the many ???Western??? readings which they attest. Whether or not the former are due to the influence of the Diatessaron is disputed. Both mss contain several archaic linguistic features; these have sometimes been identified as traces of Palestinian Aramaic, but more probably they should be seen as survivals of ???Proto-Syriac,??? otherwise known from pagan Syriac inscriptions of 1st ???3d centuries. The character of the translation is the freest of all the Syriac versions, and so caution needs to be exercised when citing the Old Syriac in any apparatus to the Greek NT.
No Old Syriac text of Acts or the Epistles survives. Isolated readings of this pre-Peshitta text can be recovered from quotations by early Syriac writers. Ephrem???s commentaries on Acts and on the Pauline Epistles, preserved only in Armenian translation, are important witnesses. Materials have been collected by J. Molitor (1938) and Kerschensteiner. In his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles Ephrem includes the apocryphal 3 Corinthians, which, however, was later dropped from the Syriac canon and so no longer survives in that language.
3. Peshitta. This is the standard version of the Syriac churches. It covers all the NT apart from 2???3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, which do not form part of the canon of the early Syriac Church. The following passages are also missing: Matt 27:35b; Luke 22:17???18; John 7:53???8:11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; and 28:29.
As can be seen from the gospels, the Peshitta is not a new translation, but a revision of the Old Syriac, bringing it more closely into line with the Greek; for this purpose a Greek ms (or mss) with an early form of the Byzantine text was evidently used. The revision must have been completed in the early decades of the 5th century and it was propagated very effectively, for it soon replaced its earlier rivals. Although the famous bishop of Edessa Rabbula (died 435) may well have had a hand in propagating the revised text, he cannot have undertaken the revision himself (as Burkitt proposed), for there is evidence for ???revised??? readings in existence before his time. It is now recognized that the process of revision must have taken place over an extended period (each of the two Old Syriac mss indeed already show traces of such revision here and there on the basis of the Greek).
Over 60 Peshitta NT mss dating from the 5th and 6th centuries survive (the majority contain just the gospels). They exhibit a remarkably uniform text and only in a few mss do some Old Syriac readings survive (notably in a Berlin ms of the 5th???6th century, Phillipps 1388). Elsewhere in the Peshitta NT significant variations are rare: a famous example occurs at Heb 2:9, where early Peshitta witnesses are to be found for both ???apart from God??? and ???in his grace, God??? (sic).
In mss with the complete Peshitta NT the Pauline Epistles follow, rather than precede, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. A system of chapter numbering, different from the current one, is first found in Add. 14460 of a.d. 600, and soon became widespread. Several early Peshitta gospel mss are provided with the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian canons, in an elaborated form. Separate Lectionary mss are found from the 9th century onwards. A number of gospel and lectionary mss contain illuminations; most famous of these is a gospel ms in Florence (Plut. I, Cod. 56) written in a.d. 586 by a scribe named Rabbula (hence often called the ???Rabbula Gospels???).
The first printed edition of the Peshitta NT, edited by J. A. Widmanstadt and published in Vienna in 1555, receives mention in the Translators??? Preface to the King James Version of 1611. In the Paris and London Polyglots, for the books missing from the Peshitta canon the minor Catholic Epistles were supplied from the ???Pococke Epistles??? (see under Philoxenian), and Revelation from the Harklean. The only edition based on a collation of a selection of early mss is that of the gospels by G. H. Gwilliam (1901). Gwilliam???s unpublished work for the rest of the NT served as the basis for the British and Foreign Bible Society???s edition of 1920 (without apparatus), and this remains the most satisfactory text. For this edition the text of those books not in the Peshitta canon was taken from Gwynn???s editions of 6th-century translations of these books (see below). Both these editions employ a vocalized serto script. An estrangelo edition, based directly on early mss, has been published by The Way International (1983); although the introduction states that the books not available in the Peshitta are taken from the Harklean, in fact they derive from the 6th-century translations. The United Bible Societies??? edition of the entire Syriac Bible (1979) provides a reprint of Lee???s edition of 1832; this retains a large number of rubrics indicating lections. For books not available in the Peshitta Lee used the ???Pococke Epistles??? and the Harklean Apocalypse.
No concordance proper to the Peshitta NT yet exists, although one is promised. Word lists with full references, however, are to be found in C. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale (2d ed. 1717) and The Way International???s The Concordance to the Peshitta Version of the Aramaic NT (1985). Besides Schaaf???s Lexicon (Syriac-Latin) there is a handy Syriac-English NT Lexicon by W. Jennings (1926). There are English translations of the Peshitta NT by J. Murdock (1896) and G. M. Lamsa (1957); an earlier translation of the gospels alone was made by J. W. Etheridge (1846).
4. Philoxenian. In his Commentary on the Prologue of John, the Syrian Orthodox writer Philoxenus (bishop of Mabbug, d. 523) tells how, being unsatisfied with some loose translations in the Peshitta of certain key doctrinal passages, he commissioned a revision of this version, bringing it closer into line with the Greek. The work was undertaken, according to a contemporary author, Moses of Inghilene, by his chorepiscopus Polycarp, while the date and place (Mabbug, 507/ are given in the colophons to the Harklean gospels.
Ever since J. White edited the Harklean NT with the misleading words versio philoxeniana in the title, there has been a long dispute over whether the text of White???s edition represented the Philoxenian revision (as White thought, in which case Thomas of Harkel???s work was limited to the critical signs and marginal readings), or Thomas of Harkel???s own revision (in which case the Philoxenian is lost). Argument centered largely around the ambiguous wording of the colophons, found in many Harklean mss, which describe Thomas??? work. The publication in 1977 of Philoxenus??? Commentary on the Prologue of John (from a 6th-century ms) provided a final solution to the problem, for Philoxenus there frequently quotes from a revised text, rather than the Peshitta; this revised text, which will doubtless be Polycarp???s work (i.e., the Philoxenian) is not the same as White???s text, but represents a half-way stage between the Peshitta and that text. Thus White???s text can now definitively be identified as the Harklean. This means that the Philoxenian revision can only be recovered from quotations in the later works of Philoxenus and in some other 6th-century writings.
It is evident that Polycarp also introduced the Euthalian material into Syriac, to accompany his revision of the Peshitta; this survives only fragmentarily in British Library Add. 7157 of a.d. 767/8.
Certain anonymous biblical translations have often been identified as belonging to the Philoxenian version. This applies to the anonymous Syriac translation of Isaiah from Greek (see above, A.3), and to a version of the minor Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse which clearly served as the basis for the later Harklean. For the NT books the identification remains uncertain, since Philoxenus himself never makes use of these NT books which fall outside the Peshitta canon; on the other hand, the Harklean colophon to the Catholic Epistles implies that all seven letters were in the Philoxenian. In any case these anonymous translations can safely be attributed to the 6th century on the basis of the translation technique employed.
The 6th-century version of the minor Catholic Epistles (often referred to as the ???Pococke Epistles,??? after E. Pococke who first published them in 1630) already features in the Paris and London Polyglots, whence it was taken over by other editions such as that by Lee; a much improved text, based on the earliest mss available, was edited by J. Gwynn (1909). In the same volume Gwynn also published two versions, of the 6th and of the 7th century, of the Pericope on the Adulteress. The text of the anonymous translation of the Apocalypse (often referred to as the ???Crawford Apocalypse,??? after a former owner) was also published by Gwynn (1897). The texts of Gwynn???s editions are republished in the standard British and Foreign Bible Society???s edition of the Syriac NT.
5. Harklean. The Harklean version, covering the entire NT, represents the culmination in the long process of bringing the Syriac NT into as close conformity as possible to the Greek, employing techniques of ???mirror translation??? very similar to those used for the Syro-Hexapla. Like the Syro-Hexapla, the revision was undertaken at the Enaton, outside Alexandria; the work was done, as we learn from detailed colophons preserved in many mss, by Thomas of Harkel, and was completed in 616 (the gospel colophons specify that 2 or 3 Greek mss were used). The text is accompanied in the best mss by a number of obeli, asterisks and marginal readings; the precise purpose of these remains disputed, though several of the marginal readings are specifically identified as being derived from different Greek manuscripts. In Acts the Harklean margin is an important witness to ???Western??? readings. Thomas also revised the earlier translation of the Euthalian material.
The Harklean gospels are preserved in over 50 mss, of which at least 10 (not all complete) belong to the 8th or 9th centuries (a few may even belong to the late 7th century). The rest of the NT is much less satisfactorily preserved, and only three fuller Harklean NT mss survive, Oxford, New College 333 of the 11th century, Cambridge Add.1700 of a.d. 1170, and (it seems) Damascus Patr.1/2 of a.d. 1419; these contain (besides the gospels) Acts and the Epistles, but not Revelation. The Harklean gospels, Acts and Epistles (including all seven Catholic Epistles) were published (with Latin translation) by J. White under the erroneous title Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana in three volumes (1778, 1799, 1803). His source was the Oxford ms, from which the end of Hebrews had been lost; this was eventually published, from the Cambridge ms, by R. L. Bensley (1889). The Harklean version of the Apocalypse is known only from a ms of the 12th/13th century in Mardin (Turkey), published photographically by V????bus (1978), and from a group of late Maronite mss from which all printed editions derive; the text was first published by L. Le Dieu, (1627); it is also given in the Paris and London Polyglots and in Lee???s edition. About 70% of the text of the Harklean Apocalypse is also to be found in an anonymous Syriac commentary on this book, preserved in British Library Add. 17127 of a.d. 1088 (to be published by S. Larson).
The Harklean text often features in gospel lectionaries (9th century onwards), and for the Passion Narrative this is sometimes in the form of a harmony compiled by Daniel of Beth Batin (near Harran). A new edition of the Harklean NT is much to be desired.
6. Christian Palestinian Aramaic. This version is only partly preserved; it was made from Greek and shows only minimal traces of influence from the older Syriac versions (including the Diatessaron). The date of the version is uncertain, but the oldest mss (all palimpsests and very fragmentary) may belong to the 6th century. Among the better preserved later mss are three complete gospel lectionaries (dated 1030, 1104, and 1118; two of the scribes are associated with >Abud, a village between Jaffa and Caesarea). Apart from the gospels, fragments from Acts, most of the Pauline Epistles, and James and 2 Peter are represented; the majority of these are preserved only in lectionary manuscripts. Although most of the extant fragments come from Sinai, Damascus and the Cairo Geniza (discovered at the end of last century), there have been a few more recent finds in the Judean Desert (Perrot).
The three gospel lectionaries have been edited in synoptic form by A. S. Lewis and M. D. Gibson (1899). A list of CPA texts published before 1962 is given by Perrot, who published a new fragment of Acts.

C. Translations and Commentaries
Some Syriac biblical versions (usually Peshitta, but in some cases Syro-Hexapla and Harklean) have been translated in the Middle Ages into other languages, notably Arabic, Persian and Sogdian. Traces of Syriac influence have also been discerned in certain books in the Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic (Ge>ez) versions, all of which are otherwise basically from Greek.
The main extant commentaries on the Syriac Bible (OT and/or NT, in whole or in part) are by Ephrem (d. 373) and then, (i) in the Syrian Orthodox tradition, Jacob of Serugh (d. 521), Philoxenus (d. 523), Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), Moshe bar Kepha (d. 903), Dionysios bar Salibi (d. 1171), and Barhebraeus (d. 1286); and (ii) from the Church of the East, Narsai (d. ca. 500), Theodore bar Koni, Isho>bar Nun, Isho>dad of Merv and two anonymous commentators (all 8th/9th century), and the Gannat Bussa??me??, a commentary on the Lectionary of the 13th century.
(Full bibliography up to 1960 can be found in C. Moss, Catalogue of Syriac Printed Books and Related Literature in the British Museum [London: the Trustees of the British Museum 1962] cols. 110???96 and Addenda, cols. 29???52; supplements for 1961???70 and 1971???80 in S. P. Brock, Syriac Studies: a classified Bibliography, in Parole de l???Orient 4 [1973], pp. 405???10, and 10; [1981???82], pp. 306???14; and 14 [1987], pp. 299???302. For the Peshitta OT see Dirksen 1989.)

Aland, B., and Brock, S. P. 1980. Bible??bersetzungen: die ??bersetzung ins Syrische. Pp. 181???96 in vol. 6 of TRE. Berlin.
Brock, S. P. 1983. Towards a history of Syriac translation technique. Pp. 1???14 in III Symposium Syriacum. ed. R. Lavenant. OCA 221. Rome.
?????????. 1989. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. SEERI Correspondence Course on the Syrian Christian Heritage 1. Kottayam.

Peshitta OT
Dirksen, P. B. 1988. The Old Testament Peshitta. Pp. 225???97 in Mikra. Ed. M. J. Mulder. CRINT 2/2. Assen/Masstricht and Philadelphia.
?????????. 1989. An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 5. Leiden.
Dirksen, P. B., and Mulder, M. J. eds. 1988. The Peshitta. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 4. Leiden.
Emerton, J. A. 1962. Unclean Birds and the Origin of the Peshitta. JSS 7: 204???11.
?????????. 1967. Printed Editions of the Song of Songs in the Peshitta Version. VT 17: 416???29.
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 1961. Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Peshitta. ScrHier 8: 26???67.
Haefeli, L. 1927. Die Peschitta des Alten Testaments. ATAbh 11/1. M??nster.
Koster, M. D. 1977. The Peshitta of Exodus. SSN 19. Assen.
Peshitta Institute. 1961. List of Old Testament Manuscripts (Preliminary Issue). Leiden.
V????bus, A. 1958. Peschitta und Targumim des Pentateuchs. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 9. Stockholm.

Baars, W. 1968. New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts. Leiden.
V????bus, A. 1975. The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla. CSCO 369, Subsidia 45. Louvain.

Other Syriac Translations
Baars, W. 1968. Ein neugefundenes Bruchst??ck aus der syrishen Biblerevision des Jakob von Edessa. VT 18: 548???54.

Christian Palestinian Aramaic
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. and Shirun, H. 1973. The Bible in the Syropalestinian Version. Part 1, Pentateuch and Prophets. The Hebrew University Bible Project, Monograph Series 4. Jerusalem.

NT General
Aland, B. 1986. Das Neue Testament in syrischer ??berlieferung. 1, Die grossen katholischen Briefe. ANTF 7. Berlin.
Black, M. 1972. The Syriac Versional Tradition. Pp. 120???59 in Die alten ??bersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenv??terzitate und Lektionare. Ed. K. Aland. ANTF 5. Berlin.
Metzger, B. M. 1977. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford.
V????bus, A. 1951???87. Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac. CSCO 128 and 496, Subsidia 3 and 79. Louvain.
?????????. 1954. Early Versions of the New Testament. Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6. Stockholm.

Diatessaron, Old Syriac, Peshitta
Baarda, T. 1983. Early Transmission of Words of Jesus. Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament. Amsterdam.
Kerschensteiner, J. 1970. Der altsyrische Paulustext. CSCO 315, Subsidia 37. Louvain.
Leloir, L. 1962. Le Temoignage d???Ephrem sur le Diatessaron. CSCO 227, Subsidia 19. Louvain.
Ortiz de Urbina, I. 1967. Vetus Evangelium Syrorum. Diatessaron Tatiani. Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia 6. Madrid.
Petersen, W. L. 1990. An Introduction to the Diatessaron. VCSup 5. Leiden.

Philoxenian and Harklean
Aland, B. 1981. Die philoxenianisch-harklenische ??bersetzungstradition. Le Museon 94: 321???83.
Brock, S. P. 1981. The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem. Pp. 325???43 in New Testament Textual Criticism. ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford.
Zuntz, G. 1945. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. Britisch Academy Supplemental Papers 7. London.

Christian Palestinian Aramaic
Perrot, C. Un fragment christo-palestinien decouvert a Khirbet Mird. RB 70: 506???55.

Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992.

I have read all that garbage before. Garbage does not clear things up. It must be cleaned up.
Most so called scholars simply eat other mens vomit and re vomit the same themselves, for others to eat. That is called scholarship.

"But the true proverb hath happened to them: The dog returneth to his vomit and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:22

Bon appetit !

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
The issue at hand is simple:

Even if the Peshitta OT is compiled from many different sources - it still has to have unique verses, or else you are not compiling - but just sort of combining.

Again, I will point out a blatant error:

Exodus chapter 10 verse 22 has two different entries, out-of-sequence:

1021 w)m_r mry) l-mw$), )rym )ydk lwt $my), wn_hw) x$k) (l klh. )r( d=mcryn, wn(m_T x$k),
1022 w)rym -mw$) )ydh l$my) whw) x$k) w(mTn) bklh. )r() d=mcryn, tlt ywm:y_n,
1023 l) x_z) )n$ l)xwhy,
1022 wl) qm )n$ mn dwkth_ tlt) ywm:yn, wlklhwn bn:y -)ysryl hw_) nwhr byt mwt.bhwn,
1024 wq_r) pr(wn l-mw$) w)m_r lh zlw plwxw qdm mry) bl_xwd (nkwn wtwr:ykwn $bwqw, w)p )yqrtkwn t.)zl (mkwn,
Not to derail John here, I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions for Dave so that he was not making false outlandish statements that others have fully investigated before.

And yes, the Leiden Institute regards the Old testament as the peshitta also.
Quote:The Peshitta NT is another matter. No one has ever demonstrated that it contains one error, either factual, grammatical or even orthographical (spelling).

Quote:Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:3-8), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church.

There it is, the big one has been finally found, it was just a matter of time, the error and factual proof that this syriac text is a copy and incorrect. Not just factual, but textual, it does not agree with itself, just like the greek did in this area.

That is two, the missing name in matthew and this one. Now are you going to make up wild claims and excuses for this one also, such as the gowra genealogy theories Dave? Why not break out some calculations and look for codes in the text to validate it while your at it?

Let me help you out, why not say something was implied here within the text, that when Paul said to do all things in His name, he really meant something else.
Quote:As can be seen from the gospels, the Peshitta is not a new translation, but a revision of the Old Syriac, bringing it more closely into line with the Greek; for this purpose a Greek ms (or mss) with an early form of the Byzantine text was evidently used. The revision must have been completed in the early decades of the 5th century and it was propagated very effectively, for it soon replaced its earlier rivals. Although the famous bishop of Edessa Rabbula (died 435) may well have had a hand in propagating the revised text, he cannot have undertaken the revision himself (as Burkitt proposed), for there is evidence for ???revised??? readings in existence before his time. It is now recognized that the process of revision must have taken place over an extended period (each of the two Old Syriac mss indeed already show traces of such revision here and there on the basis of the Greek).

Here, let me put some salt on the wound:

Quote:Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992.

See that Dave, this is not the 1800's here, we are talking 1997, less than 10 years ago, this is very recent scholarship.
Isn't these things what Trimm pointed out at times?

Quote:Mt. 18:2
DuTillet Hebrew Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew: ???And he called one boy??????(a certain boy)

Old Syriac Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

In the Hebrew and in the Old Syriac Aramaic (but not the Peshitta) we have a common Semitic idiom by which a ???certain??? thing is modified with the word ???one???. In this case Yeshua calls ???one boy??? in the Hebrew and Aramaic, i.e. ???a certain boy???. Codex D has: ???And Iesus called the one boy?????? This Western Greek reading preserves the Semitic idiom ???one boy??? which has no place in the Greek language.

However the traditional Greek has been revised into smoother Greek to read: ???And he called a boy??????

And the Peshitta was revised to agree with the traditional Greek text to read: ???And Yeshua called a boy??????

Here, Trimm was correct, as his conclusions validate what other experts had also found.
Quote:Codex D has: ???And Iesus called the one boy?????? This Western Greek reading preserves the Semitic idiom ???one boy??? which has no place in the Greek language.

And the Peshitta was revised to agree with the traditional Greek text to read: ???And Yeshua called a boy??????

What happened to the idiom here in the peshitta that is so particular to semitic thought Dave?
Dave, you make some good arguments. What is the most authentic NT sources in your opinion.


As close as I have been able to gather so far,.....go back to the earliest unicials, and the papryus, and compare against the traditional text. For the gospels, you will have compare the Old Syriac also as it was a translation from some of the original greek.

For mathew, one will have to look at the DuTillet and Munster for comparison against the greek since the greek has been tampered with. Luckily some of the originality came down through in the old latin, which is in those two texts.

Above all, the validity will have to be established in many areas with the apostolic fathers, or as close to them as you can get. Any writing from them after the late 3rd century or so is questionable.

It would have to be an eclectic text to get it right, as you have been able to point out with the ending of matthew. No text can be demonstrated to to be straight from the original, even the neutral texts have this tampering in spots, although smaller in amounts.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)