How should John 6:69 read? The verse had "you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God" as of A.D. 175, and that's in the Peshitta.
John 6:69 (HCSB)
We have come to believe and know that
You are the Holy One of God!"[a: Other mss read
_You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God_]
Diatesseron 20:9-10
And we have believed and known that
thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (based on Younan)
And we believe and know that
you are the Meshikha, the Son of the living Allaha!"
WM 97: The Text of Peter's Confession in John 6:69
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/07/wm-97-...-john.html
The Issue:
How should Peter’s confession in John 6:69 read?
Translations based on the traditional text:
And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (KJV).
Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (NKJV).
Translations based on the modern critical text:
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (RSV).
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (ESV).
We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God (NASB).
External evidence:
Readings for John 6:69 in NA 28 --- Manuscripts
ho christos ho hagios tou theou ---- p66 sa (mss) ly bo
ho christos ho huios tou theou tou zōntos --- K N Γ Δ Θ (corrected) Ψ f13 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424 Majority sy (p.h) bo (mss)
ho christos [-b sy (c )] o huios tou theou --- C (third corrector) Θ* f1 33. 565. lat sy (s.c)
ho hagios tou theou --- p75 א B C* D L W sa (mss) pbo
Observations:
- p66 (dated c. 200) provides early evidence for the appearance of ho christos but reads “the Holy One of God” rather than “the Son of the living God.”
- ho hagios and ho huios are close enough in form that we can easily imagine early scribal confusion in copying.
- The third reading “the Christ the son of God” actually gives support for the traditional reading, minus the adjective “living.”
========================================================================================.
How do you think Luke 24:42 originally read? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron refer to honey.
Luke 24:42 (HCSB)
So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish,[a: Other mss add _and some honeycomb_]
As of A.D. 175, the passage mentioned honey:
Diatesseron 54:7
And they gave him a portion of broiled fish and of honey.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:
Luke 24:42 (Younan)
And they gave to him a portion of a fish that was broiled and of a honeycomb.
Text Note: Luke 24:42
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/11/text-n...-2442.html
The Issue:
The question here is whether or not the phrase “and of a honeycomb [kai apo melissiou keriou]” should be included. The traditional text includes the phrase, while the modern critical text omits it. Compare (emphasis added):
KJV Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, *and of an honeycomb.*
NIV Luke 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by the following Greek manuscripts: K, N, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and Lectionary 2211. It also is the reading if the majority of extant Greek manuscripts. In addition, the close alternate traditional reading with the final noun in the accusative rather than the genitive case [kai apo melissiou kerion] is found in Theta, family 13, and Lectionary 844.
As for the versions, it appears in the Vulgate and some Old Latin mss., the Syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean * *). In addition, the reading is found in the Church Fathers Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius of Contantia.
The modern critical text, on the other hand, is supported by the following seven Greek manuscripts: p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, L, W, and 579. It is also found in the following versions: Latin manuscript e (5th century), Syriac Sinaiticus, Coptic Sahidic, and some Coptic Bohairic. It is also the reading found in Clement of Alexandria.
=======================================================================================.
Do you think Luke 23:34 belongs in the Bible? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it.
Luke 23:34 (HCSB)
[34 Then Jesus said,
"Father, forgive them,
because they do not know what they are doing."][a: Other mss omit bracketed text]
The "forgive them" prayer was present as of A.D. 175:
Diatesseron 52:6
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.lii.html
And Jesus said,
My Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do.
The "forgive them" prayer is present in the original Aramaic:
Luke 23:34 (Younan of peshitta.org)
And Yeshua was saying,
"Abba [Father], forgive them
for they do not know what they are doing."
Text Note: Luke 23:34
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/10/text-n...-2334.html
I. The Issue:
The question here is the beloved saying of Jesus from the cross: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” The phrase appears in the traditional text, but its authenticity is challenged in the modern critical text which encloses the phrase in double brackets. The Introduction to the NA 28 explains that double brackets “indicate that the enclosed words , generally of some length, are known not to be part of the original text. These texts derive from a very early stage of the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church (cf. Jn 7,53-8,11)” (p. 55).
II. External Evidence:
The traditional text is supported the following Greek mss: The original hand of Sinaiticus and its second corrector [b] (c. 7th century AD), A (using the aorist eipen for “he said” rather than the imperfect elegen), C, third corrector of D, K, L, N, Q, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, family 13 (without the conjunction de), 33, 565, 700, 892, 1424, 2542, Lectionary 844, and the vast majority of extant mss.
Among the versions it is found in the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, the Syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean), some Bohairic Coptic mss, and in the Latin version of Irenaeus (dated to before 395 AD).
The modern critical text is supported by the following Greek mss: p75, second corrector [a] of Sinaiticus (c. 7th c. AD), B, original hand of D, W, Theta, 070, 579, 1241.
Among the versions it is found in the 4th century Old Latin manuscript “a”, Syriac Sinaiticus, the Sahidic Coptic, and some Bohairic Coptic mss.
=====================================================================================.
"I think the Peshitta likely has the NT very well preserved, if for no other reason, because it comes from a well preserved early manuscript line. And perhaps the translator understood some subtle nuances of the Greek, way back in the 4th century, that is maybe lost on us today"
When do you think the Peshitta was translated from Greek? (the 300s?)
I'm aware of several mistranslations of the Aramaic present in Greek mss. Are you aware of anything you consider mistranslations of the Greek that are present in the Aramaic Peshitta?
John 6:69 (HCSB)
We have come to believe and know that
You are the Holy One of God!"[a: Other mss read
_You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God_]
Diatesseron 20:9-10
And we have believed and known that
thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (based on Younan)
And we believe and know that
you are the Meshikha, the Son of the living Allaha!"
WM 97: The Text of Peter's Confession in John 6:69
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/07/wm-97-...-john.html
The Issue:
How should Peter’s confession in John 6:69 read?
Translations based on the traditional text:
And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (KJV).
Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (NKJV).
Translations based on the modern critical text:
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (RSV).
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (ESV).
We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God (NASB).
External evidence:
Readings for John 6:69 in NA 28 --- Manuscripts
ho christos ho hagios tou theou ---- p66 sa (mss) ly bo
ho christos ho huios tou theou tou zōntos --- K N Γ Δ Θ (corrected) Ψ f13 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424 Majority sy (p.h) bo (mss)
ho christos [-b sy (c )] o huios tou theou --- C (third corrector) Θ* f1 33. 565. lat sy (s.c)
ho hagios tou theou --- p75 א B C* D L W sa (mss) pbo
Observations:
- p66 (dated c. 200) provides early evidence for the appearance of ho christos but reads “the Holy One of God” rather than “the Son of the living God.”
- ho hagios and ho huios are close enough in form that we can easily imagine early scribal confusion in copying.
- The third reading “the Christ the son of God” actually gives support for the traditional reading, minus the adjective “living.”
========================================================================================.
How do you think Luke 24:42 originally read? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron refer to honey.
Luke 24:42 (HCSB)
So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish,[a: Other mss add _and some honeycomb_]
As of A.D. 175, the passage mentioned honey:
Diatesseron 54:7
And they gave him a portion of broiled fish and of honey.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:
Luke 24:42 (Younan)
And they gave to him a portion of a fish that was broiled and of a honeycomb.
Text Note: Luke 24:42
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/11/text-n...-2442.html
The Issue:
The question here is whether or not the phrase “and of a honeycomb [kai apo melissiou keriou]” should be included. The traditional text includes the phrase, while the modern critical text omits it. Compare (emphasis added):
KJV Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, *and of an honeycomb.*
NIV Luke 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by the following Greek manuscripts: K, N, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and Lectionary 2211. It also is the reading if the majority of extant Greek manuscripts. In addition, the close alternate traditional reading with the final noun in the accusative rather than the genitive case [kai apo melissiou kerion] is found in Theta, family 13, and Lectionary 844.
As for the versions, it appears in the Vulgate and some Old Latin mss., the Syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean * *). In addition, the reading is found in the Church Fathers Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius of Contantia.
The modern critical text, on the other hand, is supported by the following seven Greek manuscripts: p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, L, W, and 579. It is also found in the following versions: Latin manuscript e (5th century), Syriac Sinaiticus, Coptic Sahidic, and some Coptic Bohairic. It is also the reading found in Clement of Alexandria.
=======================================================================================.
Do you think Luke 23:34 belongs in the Bible? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it.
Luke 23:34 (HCSB)
[34 Then Jesus said,
"Father, forgive them,
because they do not know what they are doing."][a: Other mss omit bracketed text]
The "forgive them" prayer was present as of A.D. 175:
Diatesseron 52:6
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.lii.html
And Jesus said,
My Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do.
The "forgive them" prayer is present in the original Aramaic:
Luke 23:34 (Younan of peshitta.org)
And Yeshua was saying,
"Abba [Father], forgive them
for they do not know what they are doing."
Text Note: Luke 23:34
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/10/text-n...-2334.html
I. The Issue:
The question here is the beloved saying of Jesus from the cross: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” The phrase appears in the traditional text, but its authenticity is challenged in the modern critical text which encloses the phrase in double brackets. The Introduction to the NA 28 explains that double brackets “indicate that the enclosed words , generally of some length, are known not to be part of the original text. These texts derive from a very early stage of the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church (cf. Jn 7,53-8,11)” (p. 55).
II. External Evidence:
The traditional text is supported the following Greek mss: The original hand of Sinaiticus and its second corrector [b] (c. 7th century AD), A (using the aorist eipen for “he said” rather than the imperfect elegen), C, third corrector of D, K, L, N, Q, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, family 13 (without the conjunction de), 33, 565, 700, 892, 1424, 2542, Lectionary 844, and the vast majority of extant mss.
Among the versions it is found in the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, the Syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean), some Bohairic Coptic mss, and in the Latin version of Irenaeus (dated to before 395 AD).
The modern critical text is supported by the following Greek mss: p75, second corrector [a] of Sinaiticus (c. 7th c. AD), B, original hand of D, W, Theta, 070, 579, 1241.
Among the versions it is found in the 4th century Old Latin manuscript “a”, Syriac Sinaiticus, the Sahidic Coptic, and some Bohairic Coptic mss.
=====================================================================================.
"I think the Peshitta likely has the NT very well preserved, if for no other reason, because it comes from a well preserved early manuscript line. And perhaps the translator understood some subtle nuances of the Greek, way back in the 4th century, that is maybe lost on us today"
When do you think the Peshitta was translated from Greek? (the 300s?)
I'm aware of several mistranslations of the Aramaic present in Greek mss. Are you aware of anything you consider mistranslations of the Greek that are present in the Aramaic Peshitta?