Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Section VIII-continued
Would you like some more of William Norton's section VIII? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The Greek copies called Aleph and B, are those on which Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely. They say that the readings of these "should be accepted as the true readings, until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary." Yet, as Dean Burgon has said, these copies "have come to us without a character, without a history, without antecedents of any kind," (p. 14.); except, indeed, such antcedents as Canon Cook, in his "First Three Gospels, (1882)," has shown to be almost ascertained facts. He has shown it to be in the highest degree probable, that these Greek copies were made when Arianism was in high favor, and under the superintendence of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom Jerome calls "The standard-bearer of the Arian faction." (Cook, pp. 151, 164, 183.) Canon Cook says that the omissions and corruptions of these two Greek copies are "logically incompatible with an entire faith in the Savior's proper and true Divinity." (p. 177.) He says also, that these two oldest manuscripts, Aleph and B, "are responsible for nearly every change which weakens or perverts the record of sayings and incidents in our Lord's life." (p. 142.)
Among these changes Canon Cook mentions the following: Drs. Westcott and Hort omit the leading point in the title of Mark's Gospel, "'Son of God,' an act of singular temerity." (p. 35.) They reject, as a forged addition, the account of our Lord's bloody sweat in Gethsemane; Luke xxii. 44. They omit the doxology in the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13, "For thine is the kingdom," etc. They reject the first words uttered by the Redeemer on the cross, Luke xxiii. 34, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Cook, p. 106.) They omit the last 12 verses of Mark, which Canon Cook calls a mutilation without parallel in the critical history of the New Testament," (p. 120.); and one which removes Mark's account of the ascension, removes the only statement in the Gospels that Christ is seated at God's right hand; removes an emphatic statement of the necessity of faith, "and the most emphatic statement in the New testament as to the importance of baptism." (pp. 121-2.)
The following eminent critics have endeavoured to correct the text of the Greek Testament , and have published editions of it. John Mill, 1707; John Jacob Wettstein, 1751-2; Griesbach, 1771-5; Lachmann, 1842-50; Tregelles, 1857-1879; Tischendorf, 8th ed., 1869-1872; Westcott and Hort, 1881. Most of these have treated the Peshito-Syriac as of little importance.
Dr. John Mill, 1707, is spoken of by Dr. Scrivener as having rendered "services to Biblical criticism, which surpass in extent and value those rendered by any other, except, perhaps, one or two men of our time." (Intro. p. 448.) He did not know Syriac, but he collected the readings of the Peshito, relying on translations of it, and was sometimes misled. (Wichelhaus, p. 246.) He speaks of the Syrians as glorifying their version too much in saying that it was made "by Thaddaeus and other Apostles;" but he seems to concur with Bishop Walton and many of the learned, in conjecturing that it was "made by Apostolic men in the age next to that of the Apostles." He says that "beyond all doubt it was used by the Syrians not long after the beginning of their church," which must have been begun about A. D. 35. (Prol., sec. 1237.) He trusts to conjecture, and rejects Syrian testimony.
Wettstein says, that "if you listen to some men, this version is the most ancient of all, and made by an Apostle, or Apostolic man....This is untrue, as will appear from what I subjoin." His proofs consist of differences between it and the Greek text. He regards it as the work of an uninspired translator, who, instead of always following "the Greek text closely, used licentious liberty in substituting some things for others, and in too frequently giving a paraphrase." (Prol., p. 109.) The insufficiency of such reasons has been shown in the preceding section, with reference to like objections by Wichelhaus.
{The section William Norton is referring to here is Part VII.-Characteristic Differences between the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Greek Text, li-liii.}
Griesbach supposed that there had been three rescensions, or rectifications of the Greek text, one of which he calls Alexandrian, another Western, and the third Constantinopolitan. He says of the Syriac Version, "As printed, it is like none of these rescensions, and yet it is not wholly unlike any of them. In many things it agrees with the Alexandrian, in more with the Western, in some also with the Constantinopolitan....It therefore seems to have been again and again revised at different times, according to very different Greek copies. (Prol., sec. iii. 15 pp. lxxi.-ii.) These revisions of the Syriac are all pure conjectures; and he admits that his whole Greek text "is only his own judgment of various readings." Wichelhaus says, "Ought not Griesbach to have distrusted his rescensions, when he found that the text of the Syriac version combined the readings of those three rescensions? a version which is held to be older than the time when those rescensions had their origin! But men are accustomed to distrust all things rather than their own opinion of them." (p. 240.)
Lachmann did not know Syriac, and he asks, "Of what use would it have been to me to have learned the language of the Syrians, while the most ancient copies of the Peshito, and those worthy of trust, have not yet been classed and presented to view, in the way in which I have divided the Latin ones?" (Pref. p. 24.) This question has for suitable answer, that those who know Syriac, have not only printed editions, but access also to ancient manuscript copies. Wichelhaus says of those who act thus, "Even those who appear to have laid up all store of learning, and to have searched all library-shelves, that nothing may adhere which is false or foreign to the text of the Bible, care not to study that verson of it, which all those who are most skilled in it say is most ancient; the numerous copies of which are of wonderful age, and easily viewed, and which has been found to be , not only in printed editions, but in manuscript copies, and throughout the churches of the whole East." (p. 240.) Lachmann says of the Received Greek Text, that no learned man deems it genuine. How is it then, asks Wichelhaus, that the Ancient Syriac Version does not represent those readings which our critics call ancient, genuine, best and true, but represents the Received Greek Text? (p. 268.) "Lachmann praises what is ancient; he wishes that nothing be received which is not proved to be ancient. I wonder, therefore, why he does not think it worth while even to refer to our [Syriac] Version. If his will is to form a [Greek] text by readings from Origen, and the most ancient Greek copies; he will not deny that if we produce as a witness the Eastern Syriac Version, we have in it documents more ancient still." (p. 268.) Wichelhaus gives cases from Luke, in which he contends that the Peshito is right, and Griesbach and Lachmannn are evidently wrong. (pp. 268-9.)
Dr. Tregelles is more daring still. He makes a statement which Syriac copies prove to be utterly groundless, namely, that "The Peshito-Syriac was frequently modernized from time to time." (Gk. Test. Introductory Notice, p. v.)
Tischendorf said in an edition of the Gk. T., dated 1858, that the Peshito was made in the second century." Of this he gives no proof, nor have I seen any clear evidence of it given by others.
Drs. Westcott and Hort assert in their Gk. T., that a foundling Syriac fragment which has no known, nor seeming, connection with the Peshito, "renders its revised character a matter of certainty." Dean Burgon's rebuke of this untruth has already been given at p. xxv. Dr. Scrivener says, "Of this formal transmutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshito, (for this is what Dr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure), ....not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity; no one writer seems conscious that any modification of this translation was made in or before their times." (Introduction, p. 533.) On Dr. Scrivener's testimony we may fully rely.

There's a couple more paragraphs but I need to take a coffee break or some kinda break. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Man, this guy was AWESOME. He saw past all of the Zorbian antics and revisionist history, past all of their dogmatic assertains which had absolutely no evidence, all their conjectures......

Basically, this guy was US in a previous generation. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Steve Caruso said something about scanning the entire book for his site. Sounds like a winner to me! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)