Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Interpolation in the peshitta text
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
After Mister Bauscher made a declaration of the peshitta not having a single interpolation, I decided to do a search:

Quote:But aside from knowing that the Peshitta cannot be original because it was compiled later than the Greek texts that we have, we can determine that it is younger than our extant Greek texts because of its theology as well. Consider Acts 15:24 translated from the Peshitta, versus being translated from the oldest Greek texts at our disposal:

???It has been heard by us that men from us have gone out and disturbed you with words and have upset your nefeshot [souls] while saying that you must be circumcised and observe the Torah, which we did not command them??? (Acts 15:24, Hebraic-Roots Version ???New Testament???).

???Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls??? (Acts 15:24, NASU).

Notice that the New American Standard 1995 Update does not have the expression ???You must be circumcised and keep the Law??? (Lamsa), in regard to what the non-Jews coming to faith were required to do. This expression does not appear in the oldest extant Greek texts, but does appear in the Aramaic Peshitta and in the Greek Textus Receptus, the source text for the King James Version. The KJV does say ???Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law.???

The phrase humown legontes peri temnesthai kai teirein town nomon (umwn legonte?? peritemnesqai kai threin ton nomon) is omitted from the oldest extant Greek texts. In its explanatory notes which demonstrate the alternative reading among extant texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, United Bible Societies??? Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition indicates that this phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175,[13] which dates from the Tenth Century C.E.[14] The phrase teirein town nomon (threin ton nomon) or ???keep the Law??? first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius. In its list of the Greek Church Fathers, Amphilochius[15] is listed as having died ???after 394,??? and the Apostolic Constitutions are dated ???about 380.???[16] This expression, appearing in the Aramaic Peshitta, we believe is internal evidence that the Peshitta was nothing but an Aramaic translation of the Greek text that would later be used for the King James Version.

The phrase ???keep the Law??? was added to the text of Acts 15:24 by the Fourth Century C.E., at the same time that Roman Catholicism was getting its start. The last thing that this new religious establishment wanted was for its members to be following the Torah or Law of Moses. By the Tenth Century, ???be circumcised??? had been added to the text as well. Thankfully, due to textual criticism, that is the science of examining and comparing ancient Biblical texts and translations of texts to determine the original reading of them, we have discovered that ???be circumcised and keep the Law??? was not in the original reading of Acts 15:24. Based on this and other texts, we do not consider the Aramaic Peshitta as being primary to our extant Greek New Testament.

Here is the webpage and the references.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... index.html</a><!-- m -->

EDIT: fixed the link
Is that Hebraic Roots version available in Electronic format? I thought that was only a paper purchase. I should really look into that book as it looks like an interesting work.

I have a copy of it. It is ok, but not of really good quality as far as a book goes. The text is not bad, it provides an additional comparison tool for use, but that is about as far as I would go with it Paul.

You can find them on ebay every now and then.
Sorry, I didn't really answer your question Paul, no I haven't seen it in an electronic form yet. I've looked at the Online Bible downloads and others but have not see it offered. I'm not sure if Mister Trimm has any ambitions towards the market of this in that format.
Thanks Dave. Yeah that was what I was wondering about. I saw your post and thought you just cut and pasted it from an electronic format.

Here is another interesting one:

Quote:41 (Lamsa) And those men among them who readily accepted his word and believed were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added in that day.
41 (Murdoch) And some of them readily received his discourse, and believed, and were baptized. And there were added, on that day, about three thousand souls. {or: persons}

Here is an example of an interpolation, but one that is considered expansive. The first italics section is found in the Received Text and is supported poorly in E P 614 copG67 and Augustine.

That's it. A very small amount of witnesses to it, with no papyrus and neutral text support. Hence it's lack of usage in more modern bibles.

The second italics example, in the bold and colored text, is particular to the syriac only! There are no witness's to this in the greek that I have found.

If we study the second example, it follows the expansion type interpolation, meaning it expands on a particular thought in the text to help the reader, or help the text, or to expand on a particular scribes personal agenda and theology. These are very evident when one compares between the neutral text and the received text. The examples are readily seen and can be weighted separately for originality, although most bible committee's would not spend that sort of time.

So there you go, another interpolation example within the syriac text!
Forgive me for not knowing the terminologies used. What is meant by neutral text and received text?


The received text would be the collection of manuscripts that make up our King James bible. It has the greatest manuscript support and the most widespread usage in the languages extant.

The neutral text is made up from the oldest great uncial manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrius, plus all the papryus fragments, which mostly came from egypt. The fragments preserve the oldest text of our NT bible and help to show a more non-interpolated text.

The difference in the two is mainly the age and the cleanliness of the text. The neutral text has considerably less of these sorts of interpolations like I just pointed out. The oldest unicials are dated to around the 4th century, to possibly a bit earlier. The british scholars, Westcott and Hort spent most of their lifetime collecting together and amassing this neutral text.

There is always a great debate between the two, those who adhere to the received text, IE the King James type, and those who adhere to a more modern bible, such as the new king James or the NIV. The differences are there and one has to spend time considering many of them.

That is just a small bit on it, there is quite a bit more on the web.
Thanks for the explanation Dave. I already came across those words a few other times this morning. Now I can go back and read them again with a bit more understanding.

Shlama Paul,

Are you going to buy Dave's tripe wholesale, simply because he agrees with you on a verse in Matthew ? How about asking him if he can read Greek or Aramaic, or Hebrew, or how much study he has done in Textual Criticism. What he wrote you about mss. and "Neutral texts" is inaccurate and outdated for a long time.

As for Westcott and Hort "amassing" neutral texts
for a lifetime, that is simply false. They adhered to two manuscripts for their Greek NT edition, and often to only one ms., and they were Vaticanus (which they worshipped) and Sinaiticus, which they adored somewhat less, as it had been recovered from a trash can in a monastery near Mt Sinai. They never discovered or ammassed anything. They grabbed Sinaiticus, because it is old, and Vaticanus, from the Vatican, because it was the oldest Uncial ms. There are older mss. known among papyrii today.

Anyone who has read the manuscripts and studied them , as I have, would know that they both are very sloppy work and contain numerous spelling, grammatical and transcriptional errors (additions, omissions, word order changes, and even some seemingly deliberate alterations affecting doctrine).Both of those mss. say, for example, that Jesus was speared through the side before He died on the cross in Matthew 27:49. This means He was killed by a soldier with a spear !

Most people don't realize these things, because they don't read Greek. There are many other gross inconsistencies in those mss. not found even in much older papyrii.

For the Truth,

I'm not taking sides gentlemen. I'm just trying to get to the Truth. I appreciate both of your input. There are many attributes of quality in both of your comments - maybe you even see some in each other.

How about those interpolations huh Dave?

Don't mind him Paul, I just gave a short spill on it, there is plenty of info on the web over it, but it will come down to basically what I just put out, in a nutshell.
Oh, if one looks at the article on the link, you will find that this is a messianic community refuting the peshitta here.

Hehe, I love that. There has been a hotbed of prejudice against the greek scriptures from various messianic communities, but I guess this one has done some comparisons instead of just accept things blindly.
Dave (of interpolation fame) wrote:

Quote:41 (Lamsa) And those men among them who readily accepted his word and believed were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added in that day.
41 (Murdoch) And some of them readily received his discourse, and believed, and were baptized. And there were added, on that day, about three thousand souls. {or: persons}

Here is an example of an interpolation, but one that is considered expansive. The first italics section is found in the Received Text and is supported poorly in E P 614 copG67 and Augustine.

How can you know The Peshitta interpolated anything ? How do we know the Greek did not simply drop a word ? ( "& believed") is one word in Aramaic).

Omission is a much easier mistake to make than addition of new words. Any textual critic would know this.

Simply showing differences between Greek and Peshitta verses proves nothing.Yet you use this as proof that The Peshitta is wrong and The Greek is right ?

You are going to have to work harder than this ,Dave. And you will come up empty handed.

Paul Younan and others have already shown how many Greek readings came out of Aramaic readings - "Split word" translations.

Show us an Aramaic "Split Word" reading, or variant readings in Aramaic that came from Greek mss.. Now that would be interesting.

Rev. Dave
Now Dave, that didn't answer anything.

Of course, I trumpet this information, as I had not known that there were these interpolation's within the text. I want originality. You guys claimed originality, I found a non-original area.

Split words and the such found in the syriac, can be attributed to corrections in the text from the scribes who were translated it from the greek.

I think that would be the best and most reasonable explanation for their inclusion, given the age evidence or lack thereof. Many times the NT text points towards a semitic area of scripture, it could be viewed as coming from an aramaic, or most likely, a hebrew source in those particular areas, especially in the OT quotes. How hard is it to make a correction in that regards?

Prime example, the Pangs of death or cords of death scenario. One word in hebrew or aramaic can mean both. Syriac is a dialect of aramaic and this word has the same definitions.

Now, if the scribe used that word(which they would have to it seems), are we to make our conclusions that the text was original from this small bit of evidence? That would be quite presumptious.

Does that sort of explanation make sense? Is that a reasonable explanation for everyone giving the circumstances and the evidence available? I think so. It shouldn't be hard to look at this with reasonable eyes.
Pages: 1 2