Cineraceorum

David Washburn
It’s my understanding from reading Metzger and several others that the Byzantine character of the Peshitta is the main reason eclectics concluded it couldn’t be second century (I know this is grossly oversimplified).

The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church (1900)
Julius August Bewer

[some people think]

Until the late 1800s the Peshitta NT was considered a 2nd century text. That did not fit well with the Westcott-Hort theory so an attempt was made to change that to be as late as the 5th century. Note that Hort also had absurd theories of a Syriac recension, to go along with his Greek (Syrian) recension theories.

The lack of the five books in the original Peshitta would tend to fit better with an earlier date. Also the fact that there was a Peshitta OT would be a spur to the NT edition.

The Peshitta Primacists try to argue for the Peshitta being the original NT. While that is a failure, their arguments can help the earlier dating scenario.

The Peshitta is far closer to the Greek Byzantine text than to the Vaticanus/Alexandrian reader’s digest abbreviated text. However, there are many important spots where it does not match the Greek. Starting with the lack of the Pericope Adultera and not having “God was manifest in the flesh..” in 1 Timothy 3:16, the word God is instead a pronoun, and God instead of Son in John 1:18.

Overall my studies have shown the Peshitta to match about 75% to the Greek Byzantine and 25% to the Alexandrian, in a 3-way study.

Johann David Michaelis wrote an interesting section on the antiquity of the Syriac NT.

Introduction to the New Testament (1793 in German, 1823 in English)
Antiquity of the Syriac Version

p. 29-32 and more around p. 71-74

The question of the dating of the Peshitta was a major element in the Oxford Debate of 1897.

The Oxford debate on the textual criticism of the New Testament … 1897
edited by Edward Miller

Background on the debate, with spin.

Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (1999)
The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held at New College on May 6, 1897
James L. North

The later Philoxenian and Harklean editions (c. 500 to 650 AD) are closer to the Byzantine Greek.

–

Eusebius – five books – compare to Peshitta
Thus, in his most considered statement,9 he classes 2 Peter with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as (Greek). He then goes on to speak of (Greek),
uncanonical books.10

The same five books not in the Peshitta, so the translation could have been that late.

====================================

Introduction to II Peter C. Eusebius used three categories to describe Christian writings:

1. accepted

2. disputed

3. spurious

He included 2 Peter along with James, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John in category 2 (i.e., disputed). Eusebius accepted 1 Peter; had doubts about 2 Peter, and rejected as spurious other supposed writings of Peter (1) the Acts of Peter; (2) the Gospel of Peter; (3) the Preaching of Peter; and (4) the Apocalypse of Peter.

===========================================

After the time of Origen, Eusebius (c. 265–339) also registers doubts regarding 2 Peter, noting that the letter was not quoted by the “ancient presbyters” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.1). Furthermore, he lists 2 Peter, along with James, 2–3 John, and Jude, among the “disputed books” (antilegomenoi) yet at the same time acknowledges that these books were “nevertheless … known to most” (Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–4). Church Fathers coming after Origen, including Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus, and Augustine, all acknowledged the canonical status of 2 Peter.

===========================================

more of the same

“eusebius” “2 Peter” “james” “jude” – Google Search

READ

Conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta (though it has many Alexandrian and Western readings);^[5] usually dated to the beginning of the 5th century;^[6]: 98 although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.

1. Metzger, Bruce M. (1977). The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. New York; Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 61. ISBN 0-19-826170-5.
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516122-9.

The Gospel of John is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author was not as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel’s author.

The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style. But the language of the Apocalypse appeared to him barbarous and disfigured by solecisms. He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Church History VII.25).

The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. The Apocalypse contains visions and revelations.

It could be it or that it was first written in armaic and then translated but different persons into greek

READ

_The Original Language of the Apocalypse_ by Robert Balgarnie Young Scott (1928), 25pp.

I INTRODUCTORY

The Greek of the Apocalypse is notoriously difficult. As early as the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria says of the author that “his dialect and language are not correct Greek; he makes use of barbarous constructions and sometimes of actual solecisms”. “The solecisms are patent. The Hebraistic colouring is evident” comments Moffatt in ILNT, p. 501. A.T. Robertson says that the great number of violations of concord cannot be explained by exceptional parallels elsewhere. After twenty-five years study of the book, Charles comes to the conclusion that the author has “created a Greek that is absolutely his own”.

This phenomenon may be explained, in whole or in part, in one or more of the following six ways:
1. Translation from Aramaic.
2. Translation from Hebrew.
3. Reminiscence of the LXX, conscious or unconscious.
4. Deliberate use of O.T. and apocalyptic phraseology.
5. Parallels from current … [koine] Greek.
6. The author was writing in Greek, but thinking in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Of these, nos. 3 and 4 may operate to some extent, but they cannot begin to explain grammatical peculiarities which run throughout the book. No. 5 reduces the number of passages where the use of a Semitic idiom can be claimed with certainty, but the parallels are exceptional, and no literary work can be pointed out in which such apparent idioms are as frequent, extensive and characteristic as in the Apocalypse.

Charles’ own explanation is that the author writes in Greek but thinks in Hebrew. This may be questioned from the following stand-points. An author who is so imperfectly acquainted with Greek would be unlikely to choose it as a medium of literary expression. Again, if he were thinking in one language and writing in another, his thoughts would be expressed in the language of everyday speech, which at this period was not Hebrew but Aramaic.^1 [1: cf. G.F. Moore: Judaism, vol. i, p. 302] Moreover, Charles himself finds this hypothesis insufficient and is forced to postulate translation from Semitic sources, as, for example, in cap. 12. But the idioms of cap. 12 are found elsewhere in places where the use of sources is not suggested. Finally, the transliterations and mistranslations later to be noted are inexplicable on the theory that the Apocalypse was composed in Greek.

Charles unconsciously gives away his case when he says: “the chief Hebraisms in the Apocalypse… are sufficient to prove that it is more Hebraic than the LXX itself”. There is only one thing that is more Hebraic than a translation from Hebrew, and that is a translation that is more literal and not so well done.

We come to the conclusion, therefore, that the Apocalypse as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, while leaving room for the possibility of minor editorial alterations after it was in a Greek form. A number of the constructions found are common to both languages, but while there are none which are exclusively Aramaic, there are a number which are exclusively Hebrew. The book is evidently a Hebrew apocalypse translated into Greek to secure its admittance to the New Testament.
….
In the evidence which follows, it will be found that in a very few cases the present writer’s results differ from those of Charles in ICC, in a number of cases they coincide, and in a still greater number the evidence submitted is new. The observation of the Hebraic character of the Greek has been carried, by fuller investigation, to the logical conclusion that the Apocalypse is actually a translation. No other hypothesis seem adequate to explain all the phenomena. The strongest evidence is that of transliterations and mistranslations, and if one of these be admitted, the probability in favour of the others is enormously increased. While it must be admitted that, in the nature of the case the demonstration comes short of certainty, it is the belief of the present writer that this explanation covers the facts of the case more satisfactorily than any other.

II HEBREW IDIOMS FOUND IN THE APOCALYPSE ….
III TRANSLITERATIONS AND APPARENT MISTRANSLATIONS FROM HEBREW FOUND IN THE TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE ….
IV CONCLUSION

If one may be permitted to imitate the oft-quoted words of Driver on the date of Daniel in LOT, it might be fair to say that the mistranslations of the Apocalypse demand, the idioms support, and the general considerations permit the conclusion that in this book we have a Hebrew apocalypse translated into Greek. Charles himself has not been far from this conclusion, and one wonders how, in justice to the evidence he has adduced, he could stop short of it. Indeed he argues in one place that Cap. 12 is a translation, only to withdraw this later, apparently because he sees that it will involve the translation of the whole book. This is more than he is prepared to admit. As a matter of fact, both idioms and mistranslations are widely distributed, and occur in the chapters of Revelation in approximately the following numbers:
I, 16; II, 33; III, 25; IV, 7; V, 14;
VI, 18; VII, 16; VIII, 15; IX, 14; X, 18;
XI, 25; XII, 26; XIII, 27; XIV, 17; XV, 8;
XVI, 16; XVII, 20; XVIII, 14; XIX, 22; XX, 9;
XXI, 14; XXII, 10.

This will not give an exact idea of the frequency of Hebraisms, owing to the variation in the length of chapters, but it will show that they are to be found elsewhere than where sources have been suspected on account of subject matter.

While arguing that the whole book has been translated from Hebrew, the writer does not deny the probability that, in common with most apocalypses, it is composite in origin. There are undeniable distinctions of style and usage between different parts of the book, but the strata seem to be in the Hebrew and not in the Greek.

Finally it must be said that the argument will not appeal with equal force to those who know Hebrew and those who do not. The one will dispute individual points and disprove thereby for himself the whole. The other, with a sense for Hebrew and translation Greek, will _feel_ a force to the argument of which the first is not aware. It is like the argument for religion, which does not depend entirely on statistics.

===========================================
Semiticism: seeming-command verb + “and” + verb = If x, then y.

“this do, and live” = ‘If you do this, then you will continue to live’
Genesis 42:18 (King James)
And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; _for_ I fear God:

‘surrender, and eat of your vines’ = ‘If you surrender, then you will eat of your vines’
Isaiah 36:16

(King James) Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make _an agreement_ with me _by_ a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern;
(NET Bible) Don’t listen to Hezekiah!’ For this is what the king of Assyria says, ‘Send me a token of your submission and surrender to me. Then each of you may eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern,

//////////////////////////////////////
“go and see” = ‘If you go, you will see’ [Mk 6:38]
“come and see” = ‘If you come, you will see’ [Jn 1:46, Rev 6:1]

Do you think Mark 6:38 originally had:
“go see”?
“go and see”?

Mark 6:38
Berean Literal Bible
And He says to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see.”
And having known, they say, “Five, and two fish.”
Literal Standard Version
And He says to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see”;
and having known, they say, “Five, and two fishes.”
Young’s Literal Translation
And he saith to them, ‘How many loaves have ye? go and see;’
and having known, they say, ‘Five, and two fishes.’

Mark 6:38

Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
…. ὑπάγετε ἴδετε ….
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
…. Ὑπάγετε καὶ ἴδετε ….
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
…. ὑπάγετε καὶ ἴδετε ….
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
…. ὑπάγετε καὶ ἴδετε ….

John 1:46 (Berean Literal)

And Nathanael said to him, “Is any good thing able to be out of Nazareth?”
Philip says to him, “Come and see.”

John 1:46
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
…. Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
…. Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
…. Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε

///////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you think Revelation 6:1 originally had:
” Ἔρχου”/ “Come”?
” Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε”/ “Come and see”?
” Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε”/ “Come and look”?
“Come and see/look”? (the Crawford ms. contains that)

Revelation 6:1
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
…. Ἔρχου.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
…. Ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
…. Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε

hat tip:
_The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax_ (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, Series Number 52) by Steven Thompson (1985), 155pp., 94-95