Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic?
Do you think Luke 23:17 belongs in the Bible?

Tatian didn't include it in his Diatesseron. It is in the Peshitta:
Luke 23 (based on Younan)
16. I will chastise him therefore and release him"--
17. for there was a custom that he release to them one at the feast.

Text Note: Luke 23:17
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5S2j0q...ZUb00/view
I. The Issue:
KJV Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
Should Luke 23:17 be included as part of the text of Scripture? It is included in the traditional text and omitted in the modern critical text.

II. External Evidence:
The traditional text is supported by the following: Sinaiticus, W, Gamma, Delta, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, 2542, and in the vast majority of extant manuscripts.
The verse also appears with minor variations in: N, Theta, Psi, 579, and the margin of 892.
Finally, the verse appears in D but after v. 19.
The modern critical text is supported by the following: p75, A, Vaticanus, K, L, T, 070, 892 (txt), 1241.

Comments: Here is an example where the witnesses divide on unusual lines. Sinaiticus, which normally supports the modern critical text, includes the verse. Alexandrinus, which normally supports the Byzantine text, omits it.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you think "in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew" belongs in Luke 23:38?

Tatian didn't use Luke 23:38 in compiling his Diatesseron. The Peshitta has the phrase:
Luke 23:38 (based on Younan) And there was also a kethaba [inscription] that was written over him (in) Greek and Roman and Hebrew: "This is the Malka [King] of the Yehudeans."

Text Note: Luke 23:38 (John 19:20)
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/05/text-n...-1920.html
Translations of Luke 23:38 based on the traditional text (emphasis added)
KJV: And a superscription also was written over him *in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,* THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
NKJV: And an inscription also was written over Him *in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew:* THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Translations of Luke 23:38 based on the modern critical text:
RSV/ESV/NRSV: There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”
NIV: There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

External Evidence:
The traditional text appears to have strong support among the manuscripts generally held in high regard by modern text critics. These include the original hand of Sinaiticus, A, D, W, Theta. It is also supported by the vast majority of manuscripts in the ecclesiastical tradition. There are some variations in this tradition. For example, codices A and D omit the phrase “over him” (ep auto) and use the verb epigrapho rather than grapho.
The modern critical text, on the other hand, is supported by p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 070, and 1241.
Reply
Do you believe "raise the dead" does, or doesn't, belong in Mt 10:8?

It's not in the Peshitta, nor in the Diatesseron.

Mt 10:8 (based on Younan)
Heal the sick and cleanse the lepers and cast out deewa [demons].
Freely you have received, freely give.

Diatessaron, Section XII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~47] And heal the sick, and cleanse the lepers, and cast out the devils:
freely ye have received, freely give.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...HCSB;NABRE
Matthew 10:8 (KJV)
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:
freely ye have received, freely give.
Matthew 10:8 (HCSB)
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those with skin diseases, drive out demons.
You have received free of charge; give free of charge.
Matthew 10:8 (NABRE)
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons.
Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Both the Greek and Latin Matthew 27:9 erroneously claim that Jeremiah said something he didn’t say. The Peshitta and the Diatesseron lack that error. Do you believe "Jeremiah" does, or doesn't, belong in Matthew 27:9?

Matthew 27 (based on Younan)
9. Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the nabia [prophet] who said,
"I took the thirty (pieces) of silver,
the price of the precious one
which (those) from the sons of Israel agreed upon.
10. And I gave them for the field of the potter
as MrYa [Master YHWH] commanded me."

Diatessaron, Section LI
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~14] Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said,
I took thirty pieces of money, the price of the precious one, which was fixed by the children of Israel; and I paid them for the plain of the potter, as the Lord commanded me.

Matthew 27:9a, http://dukhrana.com
(Etheridge) Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet, who said, ….
(Murdock) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, saying: ….
(Lamsa) Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, who said, ….
(KJV) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, ….
(Clementine Vulgate) Tunc impletum est quod dictum est per Ieremiam prophetam, dicentem: ….
Reply
"it seems what happened was the Diatessaron was built from the same Greek manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, and Origen, and this in isolation from other Greek manuscripts"

As you know, Tatian's by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron has numerous points of similarity with the Aramaic Peshitta.  Do you think the material that ended up in the Diatesseron was in existence as of A.D. 99?
Do you think the material in the Peshitta was in existence as of A.D. 99?

off the web:
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100 - 165)

"Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99. He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church, one of the three chief ones together with Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch."  "Born: 35 AD"

Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 184 - 253)
Reply
How do you think John 1:18 originally read?

Word Magazine # 56: Text Note: John 1:18 "only begotten Son" or "only God"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/08/word-m...n-118.html
The Issue:
The textual issue here is of Christological significance. Should it read “the only begotten Son [ho monogenes huios]” (as in the TR) or “only God [monogenes theos]” (as in the modern critical text)?

Compare the KJV and ESV translations:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; *the only begotten Son,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; *the only God,*[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
ESV Footnotes:
a. John 1:18 Or _the only One, who is God_; some manuscripts _the only Son_
b. John 1:18 Greek _in the bosom of the Father_

External Evidence:
The TR reading [_ho monogenes huios_] is supported by the following Greek mss: Codices A [Alexandrinus], C [Ephraemi, 3rd corrector], Kappa, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, etc. It is the reading of the Majority Text. With regard to versions it is the reading of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Harklean Syriac.

The modern critical text reading [_monogenes theos_] is supported by four Greek mss: p66, Sinaiticus [original hand], Vaticanus, and C [original hand]. Among the versions, it is the reading of the Peshitta Syriac and a marginal reading in the Harklean Syriac.

A variation of the modern critical text reading includes the article: _ho monogenes theos_. This reading is found in three Greek mss: p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, and 33.
In his _Commentary_, Metzger notes that with the acquisition of p66 and p75, the modern reading is “notably strengthened” (this and all citations below, p. 198). Even this, however, is a reminder that the TR reading was abandoned in the nineteenth century modern text of Westcott and Hort primarily on the basis of the twin heavyweight uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

=================================.
John 1:18

The key word in John 1:18 is "Ekhediya," which means "only/unique," and when used in a theological sense, is according to Younan, a "beautiful theological term employed by many Eastern theologians and poets. It literally means 'THE ONE.'" We'll start by taking a look at some other verses that use the word in a non-theological sense.

Luke 7:12 (based on Younan)
And when he [Yeshua] approached the gate of the medintha [city] he saw a dead man while being escorted d'ekhediya [who the only (son)] was of his mother, and she his mother was a widow.

Luke 8:41-42
And a certain man whose name was Yorash, a chief of the assembly, fell before the feet of Yeshua and was beseeching him that he might enter his house, for he had ekheditha [an only] daughter about twelve years old, and she was about to die.

Luke 9:38
And a certain man from the crowd cried out and he said, "Malpana [Teacher], I beseech you, take notice of me! He is bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me, and a rukha [spirit] seizes him and suddenly he cries out and gnashes his teeth. . . .

The word is also in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 11:17, and 1 John 4:9. We now look at the controversial verse.

John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.

Ehrman, 161, states that John 1:18 comes "in two variant forms:
'No one has seen God at any time,
but _the unique Son/the unique God_ who is in the bosom of Father,
that one has made him known.'"
Question: Is it the unique/only Son in the bosom of the Father? Is it the unique/only God in the bosom of the Father?

Aramaic to Arabic to English yielded this:

Diatesseron 4:1
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father,
he hath told of him.

That rendering has it as 'the unique Son, who is God, is in the bosom of his Father.'

Starting with the original Aramaic of the Peshitta, Younan takes the other approach, and supplies an implied "of" to get:

John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.

One way to construe the verse is the way the Diatesseron has it, where the Son is called God:
"the only Son, God"
Another way to construe the verse is the way the Younan has it, where an implied "of" is supplied to get:
"Ekhadaya [THE ONE] (of) Allaha"

The word "son" is implied but not actually present in John 1:18, just as Yorash "had ekheditha [an only] daughter," and another father spoke of "bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me."

The verse is ambiguous, with both the Diatesseron's rendition and Younan's rendition seeming-- to me at least-- acceptable. Ehrman speculates that nefarious scribes re-wrote the text, when in fact, the 2 variations are both plausible translations of the original Aramaic.

====================================================================================
How do you think John 14:15 originally read?

Text Note: John 14:15
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/11/text-n...-1415.html
The issue:
John 14:15 is an important instruction which Christ gives to Philip and the other disciples in the upper room.

In the KJV (following the traditional text), the verse is rendered as follows:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

In the Greek text, the verse contains a slight textual variant in the apodosis, regarding the verb téreo “to keep.” In the traditional text, as reflected in the KJV, it is an imperative or command: keep my commandments (cf. NKJV, MEV).

In translations based on the modern critical text, however, the verb is in the future tense. Here is the ESV:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

The variation here is slight, but not insignificant. What did Christ say (cf. John 14:26)?

External evidence:
John 14:15 is a third class conditional [probably future sentence] sentence, with the protasis introduced by ean and “you love” in the subjunctive. The apodosis in such constructions can appear in any mood.

According to the NA 28 apparatus there are three primary variations here (given in reverse order from NA 28):
First, there is the reading taken by the modern critical text:
térésete, the future active indicative, second person plural: you will keep
It is supported by the codices B, l, Psi, as well as by the Coptic and by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia (d. 403).

Second, there is minority variation:
téréséte, the aorist active subjunctive, second person plural: you should keep
This variation is found in p66, Sinaiticus, 060, 33, and 579

Finally, there is the reading found in the Majority of Greek mss. and included in the TR:
térésate, the aorist active imperative, second person plural: keep
This reading is supported by A, D, K, Q, W, Gamma, Delta, Theta, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Lectionary 844, and the majority of the remaining extant mss. of this verse.

So, the difference comes down to a single letter: Is it epsilon (making the verb a future active indicative), eta (making the verb an aorist active subjunctive), or an alpha (making the verb an aorist active imperative). The majority reflects a consensus on the latter, while modern reconstructionists prefer the former.

Notice also that here is a place where three of the earliest uncials all have different readings: Alexandrinus: traditional; Vaticanus: modern; Sinaiticus: minority variation.

////////////////////////////////////
John 14:15 (HCSB)
"If you love Me,
you will keep[a: Other mss read
_If you love Me, keep (as a command)] My commands.

The "you will" is absent from the Diatesseron:

Diatesseron 45:43
If ye love me,
keep my commandments.

The phrase "you will" isn't present in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:

John 14:15 (Younan)
If you love me,
keep my commandments.

====================================================================================
Do you think John 5:3b-4 belongs in the Bible? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it, except for "of the Lord."

' Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.” '

John 5:3-4 (ESV)
In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.[a: Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part,
_waiting for the moving of the water;
4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool,
and stirred the water:
whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water
was healed of whatever disease he had_]

Except for the phrase "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present as of A.D. 175, with "diseases" being here "pain":

Diatesseron 22:11-13
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.xxii.html
And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and paralysed,
waiting for the moving of the water.
And the angel from time to time went down into the place of bathing,
and moved the water;
and the first that went down after the moving of the water,
every pain that he had was healed.

Except for "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present in the original Aramaic, with "diseases" again being here "pain":

John 5:3-4 (Younan)
And in these were laying many people who were sick, and the blind and lame and crippled,
and they were anticipating the stirring of the waters,
4. for from time to time a malaka [angel] would descend to the place of baptism and would stir the waters,
and whoever would descend first
after the movement of the waters
would be healed [literally: be made whole] (of) every pain that he had.

Text Note: John 5:3b-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2015/07/text-n...53b-4.html
Image: Excerpt from John 5 in Codex Alexandrinus (see notes in margin on John 5:3-4)
I. The issue:
The modern critical text, and translations based on it, omits the account of the angel stirring the water in John 5:3b-4. The traditional text, and translations based on it, includes this passage. Compare translations based on the traditional text (disputed portion in bold):

KJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, *waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.*
NKJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, *waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.*

II. External Evidence:
Note: We are dealing here with vv. 3b-4 together but there are some variations, noted below, between vv. 3b and 4 separately among manuscripts.

The traditional text (including vv. 3b-4) is supported in general by the following:

Greek witnesses: A (though NA-28 indicates that v. 3b is missing in the original but it appears in a corrected hand), C (apparently includes in a corrected hand), K, L (apparently includes v.4, but missing v. 3b), Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, 078, family 1, family 13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and the vast Majority tradition.

Versions: The Vulgate and part of the Old Latin apparently support the inclusion of v. 3b, while the Old Latin (with minor variations) and the Clementine Vulgate support the inclusion of v. 4. The traditional text is also supported by the Syriac Peshitta and the Syriac Harklean and, in part, by the Coptic Bohairic.

Church Fathers: Of note is the fact that v. 4 is cited in the writings of the Church Father Tertullian (c. 220 AD).

The modern critical text (omitting vv. 3b-4) is supported by the following:

Greek witnesses: p66, p75, Aleph, B, C (original hand), D (though it apparently includes v. 3b), T, W [supplement] (though it apparently includes v. 3b), 33 (though it apparently includes v. 3b).

Versions: Individual Latin mss. f and l (though they apparently include v. 3b), Latin ms. q, the Stuttgart Vulgate (2007), the Curetonian Syriac, and the Coptic.

To help sort out some of the variations on the inclusion/exclusion of vv. 3b and 4, according to the NA-28, compare:

Include v. 3b but exclude v. 4
Greek codex D
Greek codex W [supplement]
Greek codex 33
Individual Latin ms. f
Individual Latin ms. l

Exclude v. 3b but include v. 4
Greek codex A
Greek codex L

Evaluative notes on external evidence:
First, it is obvious that there has been much textual activity around vv. 3b-4, indicating serious early controversy over their transmission.

Second, closer examination of the passage in the online version of Codex Alexandrinus (p. 45 recto, column 2, lines 13-14) indicates that the NA-28 apparatus notes may be somewhat misleading regarding vv. 3b-4. Though some corrections to vv. 3-4 are included in the margin, these verses seem to be part of the original text of Codex A. See this study of John 5:3-4 in Codex Alexandrinus. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5S2j0q...FwdkU/view

Third, one might give weight to the fact that two papyri omit vv. 3b-4. This should be tempered, however, by the following considerations: (a) the recognition that the papyri evidence, in general, is limited, and it reflects traditions from only one general geographical area; (b) the weighing of the two individual papyri cited here. Of p66, in The Story of the New Testament Text (SBL, 2010), Robert Hull notes, “The manuscript contains more than 400 singular readings, nearly half of them the result of carelessness in copying, and most of them corrected by the scribe himself” (p. 116). Of p75, Hull notes “its text is remarkably similar to that of Codex Vaticanus; in fact, p75 and B are more closely related than any other NT manuscripts” p. 117).

Fourth, the conclusion that must be reached, in the end, is that the exclusion of vv. 3b-4, like so many other points of textual difference between the traditional and modern texts, rests primarily on the evidence of two codices: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

III. Internal Evidence:
....
Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.”

How then did the text come to be omitted? Hills cites a theory by Hilgenfeld and Steck:

These scholars point out that there was evidently some discussion of the Church during the 2nd century concerning the existence of this miracle-working pool. Certain early Christians seem to have been disturbed over the fact that such a pool was no longer to be found at Jerusalem. Tertullian explained the absence of this pool by supposing that God had put an end to its curative powers in order to punish the Jews for their unbelief. However, this answer did not satisfy everyone, and so various attempts were made to remove the difficulty through conjectural emendation. In addition to those documents which omit the whole reading there are others which merely mark it for omission with asterisks and obels.

Hills also point out that the entire passage shows evidence of having been tampered with by “rationalistic scribes” noting as an example the fact that the spelling of the place name for the pool in v. 2 varies widely. Compare:
Bethesda: A, C, K, N, etc. (Majority reading)
Bethsaida: p66 (corrected hand), p75, B, etc.
Bethsaidan: p66 (original hand)
Belzestha: D
Bethzatha: Aleph, (L), 33, and the Old Latin (the reading adopted by the modern critical text)

Though Hills’ suggestion is worth consideration, the truth is that the reasons this passage came into dispute are now lost to us in the mists of the past. One might speculate that it concerned disputes over the theology of angels (cf. Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; 22:9). We will likely never know why the passage came into dispute.

In a commentary published in 1947 Edwyn Hoskyns concluded:

The passage is either a gloss added to explain v. 7, or it belonged to the original text of the gospel, and it was struck out in order to avoid giving support to popular pagan practices connected with sacred pools and streams…. (The Fourth Gospel [Faber and Faber, 1947]: p. 265).

Conclusion:

John 5:3b-4 clearly has ancient support. It was known by Tertullian, appeared in ancient codices like Alexandrinus, and was adopted by the majority as the traditional reading. Its absence is supported by the two major heavyweights of modern text criticism: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Though it is missing in two ancient papyri, one of those (p66) is notorious for it omissions, and the other (p75) apparently reflects the same stream as that represented by Vaticanus.

The arguments against the text by Metzger seem to rely on circular reasoning. He assumes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are “the earliest and best manuscripts” and then reasons that if the passage does not appear in those witnesses it cannot be original. Likewise, he assumes that any less common vocabulary used in disputed passage must necessarily be “non-Johannine.”

Though there is no clear reason known to us as to why vv. 3b-4 might have been omitted, there is also no clear explanation as to why these words might have been added. The ancient church clearly accepted 5:3b-4 as authentic, as did the Reformed Fathers. One wonders if the passage’s exclusion in the modern critical text of the nineteenth century might not have been shaped by an Enlightenment influenced bias against the supernatural. The comment on John 5:3-4 in The Orthodox Study Bible (based on the NKJV text of the Psalms and the NT) notes that these verses are “often omitted from modern English translations,” but adds, “The role of spiritual powers in the world must never be discounted” (p. 224).

I see no compelling reason to exclude John 5:3b-4 from consideration as part of the legitimate text of Scripture.
Reply
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?
Reply
"a very early interlinear gloss"  By who?  (John?)

How do you think Mark 7:19 originally read?

Mark 7:19 (HCSB)
For it doesn't go into his heart
but into the stomach
and is eliminated."
(As a result, He made all foods clean.[b: Other mss read _is eliminated,
making all foods clean."_])

As of A.D. 175, the text had the second reading:

Diatesseron 20:40
because it entereth not into his heart;
it entereth into his stomach only,
and thence is cast forth in the cleansing
which maketh clean all the food?

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the second reading:

Mark 7:19 (Younan)
Because it enters not into his heart,
rather into his belly
and is cast out by excretion,
which purifies all the food.

The Mark PDF from
http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
has several pages of material on Mk 7:19.  A snippet:

TVU 157
NA28 Mark 7:19 ....
BYZ Mark 7:19 ....

Byz 33, 157, 700, 1582C, 2542, Maj-part(K, P, M, U, V, Y, G, F, S)

txt 01, A, B, L, W, X, D, Q, 0274, f1, f13, 28, 565, 579, 892, 1071, 1241, 1342,
1424, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, S), Co, Or, Chr, GrNy

.... D, (i, r1, arm, geo = et purgat)
.... 1047, Sy-S
Note also: .... 0274C (see comment below)
The Latins (it, vg) read: purgans omnes escas which can come from either reading. 
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut

txt "since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" - Thus he
declared all foods clean.
Byz "since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer, cleaning all
the food."

======================================================================================.
"it was a very early interlinear gloss, clarifying real historical knowledge, and should be marked with braces"
Do you think anything in Mt 24:15 needs to be bracketed?

Mt 24 (based on Younan)
15. And when you see the sign of uncleanness and desolation,
that was spoken of by Daniel the nabia [prophet],
which will stand in the holy place"--
he that reads, let him understand--
16. "then those who are in Yehud,
let them flee to the tuora [mountains].
Reply
As Galatians and 1 Corinthians were originally written, when referring to Simon Peter, did they use: 
only “Peter” (Petros)? 
only “Cephas” (Kephas)?  
both?

Did Galatians 2:7 originally have:  Petros?  Kipha?  
Did Galatians 2:9 originally have:  Petros?  Kipha?  

Galatians 2:7
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) but otherwise: for seeing that I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Kipha was intrusted with [that of] the circumcision;
(Murdock) But, otherwise; for they saw, that the gospel of the uncircumcision was intrusted to me, as to Cephas was intrusted that of the circumcision.
(KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Clementine Vulgate) Sed econtra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium præputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis:

Text Note: Galatians 1:18: "Peter" or "Cephas"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/09/text-n...ephas.html
The issue:
Did Paul write that he went up to Jerusalem to see “Peter” (Petros) or “Cephas” (Kephas)?  The traditional text reads “Peter,” while the modern critical text prefers the Aramaic form of Peter’s name, “Cephas.”

External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by a corrected hand of Sinaiticus and the codices D, F, G, Psi, K, L, P, and the vast majority of minuscules, in addition to the entire Latin tradition and the Syriac Harklean.

The modern critical text is supported by p46, p51, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, among other codices.  It is also found in various Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.
….
Examination of the rest of Galatians reveals that textual variations between “Peter” and “Cephas” are not limited to 1:18.  The issue resurfaces in 2:9, 11, and 14.

In 2:11 and 2:14, the Textus Receptus also reads “Peter” and the modern critical text “Cephas,” supported by essentially the same external evidence as found in 1:18.

Of particular interest, however, is the reading found in 2:9, where the traditional text agrees with the modern critical text in reading “Cephas,” not “Peter.”  Thus, the modern critical heavyweights Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the Majority text here.  As Metzger points out, there are, indeed, some witnesses, “chiefly Western,” which read “Peter” rather than “Cephas” in 2:9. These include p46 and the codices D, F, G, K, and L (Textual Commentary, p. 592), but this was not the reading adopted by the traditional text.  Some of the manuscripts (D, F, G, etc.) not only read “Peter” but also place his name first in the list (i.e., “Peter and James and John”).

2786. Képhas; snips in the passage portions 
https://biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm
Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
of Aramaic origin
Definition
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
NASB Translation
Cephas (9).
….
John 1:42 N-NMS
GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται
NAS: you shall be called Cephas (which
INT: you will be called Cephas which means

1 Corinthians 1:12 N-GMS
GRK: Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ Ἐγὼ δὲ
NAS: and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:22 N-NMS
GRK: Ἀπολλὼς εἴτε Κηφᾶς εἴτε κόσμος
NAS: Apollos or Cephas or the world

1 Corinthians 9:5 N-NMS
GRK: κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς
NAS: of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 15:5 N-DMS
GRK: ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς
NAS: and that He appeared to Cephas, then

Galatians 1:18 N-AMS
GRK: Ἰεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα
NAS: to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed
INT: Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter and I remained

Galatians 2:9 N-NMS
GRK: Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης
NAS: to me, James and Cephas and John,

Galatians 2:11 N-NMS
GRK: δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν
NAS: But when Cephas came to Antioch,
INT: moreover came Peter to Antioch

Galatians 2:14 N-DMS
GRK: εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων
NAS: I said to Cephas in the presence
INT: I said to Peter before all

=================================================================================.
How do you think Luke 5:30 originally read?
("their scribes and Pharisees"?
"the Pharisees and their scribes"?
"the Scribes and Pharisees"?-- which is had by the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron)

Luke 5:30
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And the Sophree and Pharishee murmured, saying to his disciples,
Why with tribute-takers and sinners eat you and drink ?
(Murdock) And the Scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said to his disciples:
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
(KJV) But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying,
Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
Luke 5:30 (based on Younan)
And the Sapra and Pharisees were murmuring and they said to his students,
"Why are you eating and drinking among tax-collectors and sinners?"

Diatessaron, Section VII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~28] And the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples,
Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners?

Text Note: Luke 5:30
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/12/text-n...e-530.html
The issue:
There is an interesting and easy to overlook textual variation in Luke 5:30.

Traditional text:
"But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples.."

Modern critical text:
"But the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples.."

External evidence:
The textual support falls out pretty much as we have seen with other significant variations in Luke.
The traditional text is supported by Codex Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority.
The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus (though it omits the final pronoun "their") and Vaticanus, along with several other codices (C, L, R. W, et al).

=====================================================================================.
Does "Why do you tempt me?" belong in Luke 20:23?

Luke 20:23 (based on Younan)
But he perceived their craftiness and said,
"Why do you tempt me?

Luke 20:23 didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron.

Text Note: Luke 20:23
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/05/text-n...-2023.html
The issue:
The problem here is whether the question: "Why do you tempt me? [ti me peirazete;]" should be included in the text. It is included in the traditional text and omitted in the modern critical text.

External evidence:
Greek manuscripts supporting inclusion: Codices Alexandrinus, C, D, W, Theta, Psi, family 13, 33, and the vast majority. It is also supported by the Old Latin and all the Syriac versions.
Greek manuscripts supporting omission: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, family 1, and others. It is also supported by all the Coptic versions.
Reply
Do you think "firstborn" belongs in Matthew 1:25?  The Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it, plus the Byz mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 1:25 (HCSB)
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.[a: Other mss read _to her firstborn son_] And he named Him Jesus. 

Because it is in Tatian's consolidation/ synthesis of the 4 Gospels, the phrase "her firstborn" was present in the verse as of A.D. 175-- the year of Tatian's death:

Diatesseron 2:8
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.ii.html
and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son. 

The text "her firstborn" is present in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:

Matthew 1:25 (based on Younan of peshitta.org)
And-not khakmah [and he did not know her] until she had given birth to her first-born son, and she called his name Yeshua. 

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/1-25.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν 
υἱόν· 
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν 
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον· 
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

google translate on the middle line of the:
NA28: son 
Byz: the son of the first-born;

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 10
NA28 Matthew 1:25 ....
BYZ Matthew 1:25 ....
T&T #4
Byz C, D, L, W, D, 087, 124 + f13a,c, 372, 892, 1071, Maj, aur, f, ff1, vg, Sy-P, Sy-H, (Diatess), Basil(4th CE)
Variant: L, D*, d, q: ....
txt 01, B, Zvid, 071vid, f1, 788(=f13), 33, 1192, it, Sy-S, Sy-C, mae-1, (sa, bo)
....
The Arabic Diatessaron has "until she brought forth her firstborn son". 
Lacuna: Q, 1424
B: no umlaut

==================================================================================.
Do you think 3, or 4, terms synonymous with 'mourning' belong in Mt 2:18?
The Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have 3, as do the txt mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 2:18 (HCSB)
A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping,[a: Other mss read _Ramah, lamentation, and weeping,_]
and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
and she refused to be consoled,
because they were no more.

Tatian included merely 3 and not 4 terms synonymous with 'mourning.' Of course, in making his consolidation of the 4 Gospels, he didn't include 100% of their text.

Diatesseron 3:18
A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and much lamentation;
Rachel weeping for her children,
And not willing to be consoled for their loss.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has merely 3 and not 4 terms synonymous with 'mourning':

Matthew 2:18 (Younan)
"A voice was heard in Ramtha,
great crying and wailing.
Rakhiel crying for her sons
and not desiring to be comforted,
because they were not."

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/2-18.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη,
κλαυθμὸς
καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς·
Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμᾶ ἠκούσθη,
θρῆνος καὶ κλαυθμὸς
καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς,
Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν.

google translate on the second line of the:
NA28: weeping
Byz: lament and weeping

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 13
NA28 Matthew 2:18 ....
BYZ Matthew 2:18 ....
T&T #5
Byz C, D, K, P, L, W, D, 0233, f13, 33, 892, 1071, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-H, Or
txt 01, B, Z, 0250, f1, 22, 279, 372, 1491, 2737, L2211, Lat, Sy-P, Co, Justin(2nd CE)
bo omits ....
L curiously reads ....
Z has .... for .... (c.f. Mt. 8:12)
NA27 lists 0250 (Codex Climaci rescriptus) for the short form, NA28 omitted this reference.
Lacuna: Q
B: umlaut! (line 1 A, p. 1237) ....
Reply
When Acts 3:21 was originally written, do you think it spoke of:
restoration of all things?
completion of the times of all those things that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets?

What's a better rendering in Latin:
[Clementine Vulgate]"usque in tempora restitutionis omnium", or 
[Irenaeus]"usque ad tempora dispositionis omnium"? 

Acts 3:21
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) whom the heavens must receive until the completion of the times of all those which Aloha hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, who (have been) from of old.
(Murdock) whom the heavens must retain, until the completion of the times of those things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets of old.
(Lamsa) Whom the heaven must receive until all the things which God has spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, since the world began should be fulfilled.
(KJV) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
(Clementine Vulgate) quem oportet quidem cælum suscipere usque in tempora restitutionis omnium, quæ locutus est Deus per os sanctorum suorum a sæculo Prophetarum.
Google translate of the Latin:
whom it behoveth heaven, indeed, to receive till times of a restitution of all things, the things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/3-21.htm
The times of the restitution of all things - The noun rendered restitution ἀποκαταστάσεως apokatastaseōs, does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. The verb from which it is derived occurs eight times. It means properly "to restore a thing to its former situation," as restoring a "strained" or "dislocated" limb to its former soundness. Hence, it is used to restore, or to heal, in the New Testament: Matthew 12:13, "And it (the hand) was restored whole as the other"; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10. And hence, it is applied to the preparation or fitness for the coming of the Messiah which was to attend the preaching of John in the character of Elias, Matthew 17:11; Mark 9:12. Thus, in Josephus (Antiq., Mark 2:3, Mark 2:8), the word is used to denote the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon, and their restoration to their former state and privileges. The word has also the idea of "consummation, completion, or filling up." Thus, it is used in Philo, Hesychius, Phavorinus, and by the Greek Classics. (See Lightfoot and Kuinoel.) Thus, it is used here by the Syriac: "Until the complement or filling up of the times"; that is, of all the events foretold by the prophets, etc. Thus, the Arabic: "Until the times which shall establish the perfection or completion of all the predictions of the prophets," etc. In this sense the passage means that the heavens must receive the Lord Jesus until all things spoken by the prophets in relation to his work, his reign, the spread of the gospel, the triumph of religion, etc., shall have been fulfilled. It also conveys the idea of the predicted recovery of the world from sin, and the restoration of peace and order; the consummation of the work of the Messiah, now begun, but not yet complete; slow it may be in its advances, but triumphant and certain in its progress and its close.

Acts 3:21
https://biblehub.com/acts/3-21.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-21.htm
(Berean Literal Bible) whom indeed it behooves heaven to receive until the times [Greek:  chronōn/ χρόνων/ times] of restoration [Greek:  apokatastaseōs/ἀποκαταστάσεως/ restoration] of all things, of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from the age [Greek:  aiōnos/ αἰῶνος/ age].

605. apokatastasis 
https://biblehub.com/greek/605.htm
apokatastasis: restoration
Original Word: ἀποκατάστασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apokatastasis
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ok-at-as'-tas-is)
Definition: restoration
Usage: restitution, reestablishment, restoration.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 605 apokatástasis (from 600 /apokathístēmi, "restore") – restitution, referring to the "restoration of the physical earth in the Messianic kingdom (Millennium)" (G. Archer).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from apokathistémi
Definition
restoration
NASB Translation
restoration (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 605: ἀποκατάστασις
ἀποκατάστασις, ἀποκαταστάσεως, ἡ (ἀποκαθίστημι, which see), restoration: τῶν πάντων, the restoration not only of the true theocracy but also of that more perfect state of (even physical) things which existed before the fall, Acts 3:21; cf. Meyer at the passage (Often in Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, others.)

600. apokathistémi 
https://biblehub.com/greek/600.htm
apokathistémi: to restore, give back
Original Word: ἀποκαθίστημι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apokathistémi
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ok-ath-is'-tay-mee)
Definition: to restore, give back
Usage: I set up again, restore to its original position or condition; hence: I restore, give back.
HELPS Word-studies
600 apokathístēmi (from 570 /apistía, "separated from" and 2525 /kathístēmi, "have a definite standing") – properly, restore back to original standing, i.e. that existed before a fall; re-establish, returning back to the (ultimate) ideal; (figuratively) restore back to full freedom (the liberty of the original standing); to enjoy again, i.e. what was taken away by a destructive or life-dominating power.
600/apokathistēmi ("reestablish") emphasizes separation from the former, negative influence to enjoy what is forward (the restoration).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from apo and kathistémi
Definition
to restore, give back
NASB Translation
restore (2), restored (5), restoring (1).

St. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130 – c. 202) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

_The Third Book of St. Irenaeus Against Heresies_ (1906)
https://archive.org/stream/thirdbookstir...t_djvu.txt
44 The fulfilment of Prophecy in the [xii. 3- 

fecistis nequam. Deus autem quae praedixit ore omnium Prophetarum, pati Christum suum, adimplevit. Poenitentiam igitur agite, et convertimini, uti deleantur peccata vestra, et veniant vobis tempora refrigerii a facie Domini; et mittat praeparatum vobis Jesum Christum, quern oportet quidem coelum suscipere usque ad tempora dispositionis omnium, quae locutus est Deus per sanctos Prophetas suos. Moyses quidem dicit ad patres nostros : [Deut. xviii. 15] Quom am Prophetam excitabit vobis Dominus Deus vester ex fratribus Vestris, quemadmodum me; ipsum audietis in omnibus quaecumque locutus fuerit ad vos. Erit autem : omnis anima, quaccumque non audierit Prophetam ilium, peribit de populo. Et omnes a Samuel et deinceps, quotquot loculi sunt, et annuntiaverunt dies istos. Vos estis filii Prophetarum, et testamenti quod Deus [Gen. xxii. 18] disposuit ad patres nostros, dicens ad Abraham: Et in semine tuo benedicentur omnes tribus terrae. Vobis primum Deus excitans Filium suum misit benedicentem vos, ut convertat se unusquisque a nequitiis suis. 

Via playing with Google translate on "quern oportet quidem coelum suscipere usque ad tempora dispositionis omnium":
whom heaven indeed must receive until the times of the arrangement of all that God spoke through his holy prophets
whom heaven indeed must receive until the times of the disposal of all things, which God hath spoken by means of his prophets, the saints,
who must remain in heaven until the time of the disposition of all that God has spoken through his holy prophets
Reply
Do you believe "to/for Him" belongs in Mt 3:16? It's in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, and in the 1st list of mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 3:16 (HCSB)
After Jesus was baptized, He went up immediately from the water. The heavens suddenly opened for Him,[a: Other mss omit _for Him_] and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming down on Him.

Matthew 3:16
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay01mat.htm
TEXT: "the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove"
EVIDENCE: Sb C D(supp) K L P W Delta f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz most Lect lat vg syr(p,h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSVn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove"
EVIDENCE: S* B syr(c,s) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV NASV NIV NEB
COMMENTS: It is possible that copyists who did not understand the force of "to him" omitted the word as unneeded. The word translated "to him" is bracketed in the UBS text.

As of A.D. 175, that verse had heaven opening 'to him':

Diatesseron 4:36
Jesus also was baptized. And immediately he went up out of the water, and heaven opened to him, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the similitude of the body of a dove. . . .

That verse in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta has heaven opening 'to him':

Matthew 3:16 (Younan)
Now when Yeshua was baptized, he arose at once from the water and heaven was opened to him, and (he) saw the Rukha [Spirit] of Allaha which was descending like a dove, and it came upon him.

Which if any of the Mt 3:16 WH bracketed material do you think was part of the original Mt 3:16?

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/3-16.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν {αὐτῷ} οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν {τὸ} πνεῦμα {τοῦ} θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν {καὶ} ἐρχόμενον ἐπ' αὐτόν·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ βαπτισθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέβη εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἰδού, ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἴδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν.

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 25
7. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA28 Matthew 3:16 ....
BYZ Matthew 3:16 ....
T&T #7+8
omit 1: 01*, B, 789S, 842, 1029, L1043, L1602?, L2211, vgmss, Sy-C, Sy-S, sa, IrLat, Cyr-Jer, G. Ebionites, NA25, WH, Bois, Weiss, Tis, Bal, SBL
(789 + 1029 are Byzantine minuscules)
.... L1043 (from Lk?)
WH have .... in the margin
01: the word has been added by corrector B (=01C1).
Reply
Do you believe "Go away", or "Get behind Me", belongs in Matthew 4:10?
"Go away" is in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, and in the txt mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 4:10 (HCSB)
Then Jesus told him,
"Go away,[a: Other mss read _Get behind Me_] Satan!
For it is written:
Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only Him."

As of A.D. 175, that verse had 'go away':

Diatesseron 5:1
Jesus answered and said unto him,
Get thee hence, Satan:
for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him alone shalt thou serve.

That verse in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta has 'go away':

Matthew 4:10 (Younan)
Then Yeshua said to him,
"Leave Satana [Adversary],
for it is written that,
'thesagud MrYa Allahak [you shall worship Master YHWH your Allaha],
and Him alone thepalukh [you shall serve].'"

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/4-10.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ·
γέγραπται γάρ Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Tότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ·
γέγραπται γάρ, Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις, καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.

Hypage/ Ὕπαγε/ Get you away
"Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου" seems to me to mean: Get behind me

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 27
NA28 Matthew 4:10 ....
BYZ Matthew 4:10 ....
T&T #9
Byz C
C, D, L, Z, f13c, 28, 33, 118S, 157, 579C, 892C, 1071, 1424, Maj1300, b, h, l*, (Sy-S), Sy-C, Sy-H**, sapt, bomss, Justin1/2
Vade, retro Satanas it (a, aur, c, ff1, g1), vgmss, Irarm
Vade, retro me Satanas b, l
Vade, post me Satanas d, h

txt 01, B, C*, K, P, S, V, W, D, S, 0233, f1, f13a,b, 22, 372, 565, 579*, 700, 892*, 2680, 2737, al150, f, k, lC, vg, Sy-P, sapt, bo, mae-1, Or, Basil(4th CE)

892: .... has been added in the margin, probably not by the first hand
(Harris: sec.man.). But it is not completely clear what happened here. ....
Sy-S: Burkitt has "Get behind, Satan!"
Ephrem in his commentary has (McCarthy): "[He said], Get behind me, because …"
Lacuna: Q
B: no umlaut
Reply
Do you believe "without a cause" belongs in Matthew 5:22?
"Without a cause" is in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, and in the Byz mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 5:22 (HCSB)
But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother[a: Other mss add _without a cause_] will be subject to judgment.

As of A.D. 175, that verse had "without a cause":

Diatesseron 8:51
But I say unto you that
every one who is angry with his brother without a cause is worthy of the judgement. . . .

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has "without a cause":

Matthew 5:22 (Younan)
But I say to you that,
anyone who provokes to anger his brother without cause
is condemned to dina [judgment]. . . .

The Aramaic to English translation of Younan yields "who provokes to anger his brother," whereas the Aramaic to Arabic to English Diatesseron and the Aramaic to Greek to English gives "every one who is angry with his brother." An idiom is involved, and perhaps the Aramaic is ambiguous.

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/5-22.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ
ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῇ
ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ, Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 36
NA28 Matthew 5:22 ....
BYZ Matthew 5:22 ....
T&T #13
εἰκῇ = "without cause"
Byz 01C2-mg, D, K, P, L, W, D, Q, S, 0233, 0287, f1, f13, 33, 700, 892, Maj, it, Sy, Co, arm, geo, goth, Ir, Eus, [Trg]

txt P67vid=P64(200 CE), 01*, B, W, 372, 1424mg, 2737, al25, aur, vg, aeth, Justin, Cl, Or, Hiermss, Basil(4th CE), Trgmg

P67: This is the last line of the papyrus and only the upper half of the letters can be seen, but it is almost certain: ....
D: According to Tischendorf/Legg D* reads Byz and DC2 reads txt! This is not correct. ....
1424: has this marginal comment: .... (We don't know what "Ioudaikon" refers to, probably a Gospel similar to Matthew in Aramaic. Cp. 16:2-3 for another such note.)

Justin reads (Apol. 16:2): .... [And concerning our being patient of injuries, and ready to serve all, and free from anger, this is what He said: To him that smites you on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that takes away your cloak or coat, forbid not. And whosoever shall be angry, is in danger of the fire. And every one that compels you to go with him a mile, follow him two. And let your good works shine before men, that they, seeing them, may glorify your Father which is in heaven. - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm ]
Lacuna: C, 22
B: umlaut! (line 19 C, page 1239) ....

Origen (Comm. Eph.) ....
Since some think that anger sometimes occurs with good reason because they improperly add to
the Gospel the word "without cause" in the saying, "Whoever is angry with his brother will be
liable to judgment", for some have read, "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause" let
us convince them of their error from the statement under discussion which says, "Let all
bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and blasphemy be removed from you." For the term
"all" here clearly applies to all the nouns in common, so that no bitterness is allowed, no wrath is
permitted, and no anger occurs with good reason. It is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, since all
anger is sin (and likewise also wrath), "Cease from anger, and leave wrath". It is never possible,
therefore, to be angry with someone with good reason.

Jerome (early 5th CE, Comm. Matt. 5:22)
Omnis qui irascitur fratri suo. In quibusdam codicibus additur: sine causa.
Ceterum in ueris definita sententia est et ira penitus tollitur, scriptura dicente:
Qui irascitur fratri suo. Si enim iubemur uerberanti alteram praebere maxillam
et inimicos nostros amare et orare pro persequentibus, omnis irae occasio
tollitur. Radendum est ergo: sine causa, quia ira uiri iustitiam Dei non operator.
"Everyone who is angry with his brother." In some codices the words are added: "without
reason." But in the authentic texts the judgment is definite and anger is completely taken away,
since the Scripture says: "Whoever is angry with his brother." For if we are commanded to turn
the other cheek to the one who strikes us, and to love our enemies, and to pray for those who
persecute us, every pretext for anger is removed. Therefore, the words "without reason" should
be erased. For "man‘s anger does not work the justice of God" [James 1:20].

Jerome (ca. 415 CE, Pelag. 2.5):
Et in eodem Euangelio legimus: Qui irascitur fratri suo sine causa, reus erit
iudicio, licet in plerisque antiquis codicibus sine causa non additum sit, ut scilicet
ne cum causa quidem debeamus irasci. Quis hominum potest dicere quod ira, quae
absque iustitia est, in sempiternum careat?
And in the same Gospel, we read: "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be
liable to judgment"; although in many of the ancient copies, the phrase, "without cause" has not
been added, so that we should not be angry, to be sure, even with cause. What person can claim
to be free forever from the fault of anger, a fault that is without justice?

Scholion attributed to Apollinarius (Reuss, Fr. Matt 19): ....
"But if it does not say "without cause", as some wish that it does not … [text missing]
But Theodore and Theodore [commentators on Mt, 4th CE] write "without cause" next to the
text [i.e. in the margin] as not being mentioned."

Pseudo-Athanasius (4th CE, Epistulae ad Castorem 2): ....
"But the Lord himself, teaching us that it is necessary to set aside all anger, says in the Gospels,
'Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.' For this is what the accurate
copies contain; for 'without cause' was put down as an addition; and this is clear from the
preceding received text of Scripture."

Augustine (ca. 425 CE, Retract. 1.19.4):
Illud etiam melius intelleximus postea quod scriptum est: Qui irascitur fratri
suo. Codices enim Greci non habent sine causa, sicut hic positum est, quamuis
idem ipse sit sensus. Illud enim diximus intuendum, quid sit irasci fratri suo,
quoniam non fratri irascitur, qui peccato fratris irascitur. Qui ergo fratri non
peccato irascitur, sine causa irascitur.
"Likewise, at a later time, we had a much better understanding of the text: 'Whosoever is angry
with his brother.' For the Greek manuscripts do not have "without cause" as is stated here [i.e.,
in some Latin manuscripts], although the meaning is the same. For we said that it is necessary to
consider what to be angry with one‘s brother means, for one who is angry at the sin of his
brother is not angry with his brother. He, then, who is angry with his brother, but not because
of his sin, is angry without cause."

The word εἰκῇ appears only here in the four Gospels, but five times in Paul.
Reply
Do you believe "hand you over to" belongs after "judge" in Matthew 5:25? It's there in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, and in the Byz mss. mentioned below.

Matthew 5:25 (HCSB)
Reach a settlement quickly with your adversary
while you're on the way with him,
or your adversary will hand you over to the judge,
the judge to[a: Other mss read _judge will hand you over to_] the officer,
and you will be thrown into prison.

As of A.D. 175, that verse had verb material between 'judge' and 'officer':

Diatesseron 8:54-55
Join thine adversary quickly,
and while thou art still with him in the way,
give a ransom and free thyself from him;
lest thine adversary deliver thee to the judge,
and the judge deliver thee to the tax-collector,
and thou fall into prison.

In going from Aramaic to Arabic to English, 'officer' somehow became 'tax-collector.'

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has verb material between 'judge' and 'officer':

Matthew 5:25 (Younan)
Be in agreement with your opponent at law [literally: with your baal/lord of enmity/animosity/strife/judgment] quickly
while you (are) with him on the way,
lest your opponent at law deliver you to the dina [judge]
and the dina deliver you to the officer
and you be thrown (into) the beth [house/place of] captives.

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/5-25.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ,
μή ͜ ποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ,
καὶ ὁ κριτὴς
τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἴ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ μετ’ αὐτοῦ,
μήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ,
καὶ ὁ κριτής σε παραδῷ [Greek: paradō/ παραδῷ/ deliver]
τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ.

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 38
NA28 Matthew 5:25 ....
BYZ Matthew 5:25 ....
Byz (D), L, W, D, Q, 0233, 22, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Sy-H, Co, goth, [Trg]
D: ....

txt P67vid=P64(200 CE), 01, B, 0275, f1, f13, 372, 892, 2737, pc, k, arm, Cl

Sy-S omits ....
0275 (7th CE) is a small fragment, located in Dublin and contains only 4 verses from Mt 5.
P67: Even though the words are not visible, from space considerations it is certain that they were not present: ....
Lacuna: C
B: no umlaut
Reply
Do you believe "brothers", or "friends", belongs in the 1st half of Matthew 5:47?
Do you believe "Gentiles", or "tax collectors", belongs in the 2nd half of Matthew 5:47?

The Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have "brothers.... tax collectors", as does f13. Perhaps "174(=f13)" means 174 does too. The KJV and the YLT use "brothers.... tax collectors."

Matthew 5:47 (HCSB)
And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary?
Don't even the Gentiles[b: Other mss read _tax collectors_] do the same?

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-47.htm
(NKJV) And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?
Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(NIV) And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?
Do not even pagans do that?
(Young's Literal Translation) and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant?
do not also the tax-gatherers so?
(Good News Translation) And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary?
Even the pagans do that!
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) And if you pray for the peace of your brethren only, what excellent thing are you doing?
Behold, are not even the Tax Collectors doing the same thing?

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5-47.htm
And if aspasēsthe/ἀσπάσησθε/you-greet the adelphous/ἀδελφοὺς/brothers of you,
what extraordinary do you?
Do not also the ethnikoi/ἐθνικοὶ/Gentiles the same do?

As of A.D. 175, the verse had "brothers.... publicans/tax-collectors":

Diatesseron 9:20
And if ye inquire for the good of your brethren only,
what more have ye done _than others_?
is not this the conduct of the publicans also?

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has "brothers.... tax collectors":

Matthew 5:47 (Younan)
And if you greet in shlama [peace/hello/goodbye] only your brothers,
what more are you doing?
Do not even the tax-collectors do this?

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/5-47.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς
ἀδελφοὺς [Greek: adelphous/ἀδελφοὺς/brothers]
ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ
ἐθνικοὶ [Greek: ethnikoi/ἐθνικοὶ/Gentiles]
τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς
φίλους [Greek: φίλους/filous/friends]
ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; Οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ
τελῶναι [Greek: τελῶναι/telōnai/tax-collectors - https://biblehub.com/greek/telo_nai_5057.htm ]
οὕτως ποιοῦσιν;

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 46
NA28 Matthew 5:47 ....
BYZ Matthew 5:47 ....
T&T #16 (ἐθνικοὶ)

ἀδελφοὺς/φίλους

Byz L, W, D, Q, 33, Maj, f, h, Sy-H, goth, Basil(4th CE)

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, f13, 22, 372, 472, 892, 2737, pc, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2)

.... 1424

B: umlaut! (line 16 C, p. 1240) ....

ἐθνικοὶ/τελῶναι

Byz L, W, D, Q, f13, 157, 565, 700, Maj, h, Sy-P, goth

txt 01, B, D, Z, f1, 174(=f13), 22, 33, 279, 372, 892, 1071, 1241, 1424,
2680, 2737, 2786, al90, Lat, Sy-C, Sy-H, Co(+ mae-2), Basil(4th CE)

Lacuna: C
B: umlaut! (line 18 C, p. 1240) ....

f13, Sy-P: ἀδελφοὺς/τελῶναι

33, Basil(4th CE): φίλους/ἐθνικοὶ

omit verse: k, Sy-S (prob. h.t.)
174(=f13) adds after verse 47: ....
788 adds after verse 47: ....

Wiki
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_13
Family 13, also known Ferrar Group (f13, von Soden calls the group Ii), is a group of Greek Gospel manuscripts, varying in date from the 11th to the 15th century, which display a distinctive pattern of variant readings — especially placing the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of Luke, rather than in the Gospel of John 7:53-8:11. Text of Luke 22:43-44 is placed after Matt 26:39. The text of Matthew 16:2b–3 is absent. They are all thought to derive from a lost majuscule Gospel manuscript, probably dating from the 7th century. The group takes its name from minuscule 13, now in Paris. ....
In his dissertation on the topic, Perrin lists the current family members as GA 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, and 1689. All of these manuscripts (except 1689) are without the Pericope Adulterae in St. John's Gospel. Most of them relocate the passage after Luke 21:38. This agrees with the historical criteria first established by Ferrar-Abbott in their 1887 publication.

========================================================================.
Do you believe "Jesus" does, or doesn't, belong in Matthew 4:12?

The Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have "Jesus" there, as does:

"C-2 E K L M P S U V W Gamma
Delta Theta Sigma Omega 0233
Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1, 13
Old Latin: a aur b c g1 h1 Vulg-pt
Syr: pesh cur harc
Cop: bo-pt
Arm
Also extant in 047 055 0211"
-- _Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version: With Manuscript Digests and Summaries_ (2005) by Jack Moorman, 454pp., 122
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568480482/

Matthew 4:12
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-12.htm
(NKJV) Now when Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee.
(HCSB) When He heard that John had been arrested, He withdrew into Galilee.
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) But when Yeshua heard that Yohannan had been delivered up, he departed to Galilee.
(Douay-Rheims) And when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he retired into Galilee:

Diatessaron, Section VI
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
25 And when Jesus heard that John was delivered up, he went away to Galilee.

https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/4-12.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἰωάνης / Ἰωάννης [i.e. John] παρεδόθη ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς [i.e. Jesus] ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη, ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν·
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη, ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν·
Reply
"It was a very important work for Syriac speaking Christians before the 5th century"
Indeed.

_The Diatessaron of Tatian: a harmony of the four Gospels compiled in the third quarter of the second century_ (1888), xxxi + 78pp, x, xvi
https://archive.org/stream/diatessaronof...a_djvu.txt
It has been tacitly assumed, because Tatian taught at Rome, wrote his other works in Greek, (which was the usual language at Rome in his day), and gave a Greek name to his compilation of the Gospels, that therefore it was written in Greek, and belonged in a manner to the western sphere of its author's labours. Yet, from the whole body of western Christian literature which we have before us, it is scarcely possible to glean any allusion at all to the Diatessaron before the middle of the sixth century....

So far therefore as early non-Syrian Christianity is concerned, we may safely say that the Diatessaron exercised practically no influence before the sixth century : and even the little that we do read of it in Eusebius and Epiphanius confirms the conclusion that it could not have belonged to that portion of Tatian's life in which he flourished at Rome, but to that later portion in which he laboured among his Syrian fellow-countrymen.
At any rate history begins to find her voice the moment we touch Syrian soil : and we there find the Diatessaron "at home." Take Theodoret for example, the Bishop of Cyrrhus near the Euphrates. ....
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)