{"id":8411,"date":"2023-08-22T09:18:05","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T14:18:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8411"},"modified":"2023-08-22T10:31:50","modified_gmt":"2023-08-22T15:31:50","slug":"peshitta","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/08\/22\/peshitta\/","title":{"rendered":"Peshitta"},"content":{"rendered":"\nAlthough physical evidence has yet to be found, J.S. Assemane[5] in his Bibliotheca stated that a Syriac Gospel dated 78 A.D. was found in Mesopotamia.[6][7][8]\n\n\n\nSyrian churches say that their history includes compilation of their canon (which lacked the ‘Western Five’) extremely early. Comments John Hancock Pettingell, “There is no question, but that scattered manuscripts of the several books of the New Testament, in Greek, were in existence very early, for the Fathers quote from them,\u2014but there is no evidence that any attempt was made to collect them into one code, or canon, till after the Second or Third Century. But it is certain, on the other hand, that the Syrian Churches had their canon long before this collection was made; tradition says, between the years 55 and 60, and that this was done by the Apostle Jude. This canon is known to have contained all the books now included in our New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse, and the brief Epistles of 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude. This tradition is strongly corroborated by the fact that these closing portions of our present canon were not then written; and this is a good and sufficient reason why they were not included in the first collection. The abrupt closing of the Book of Acts\u2014for it was evidently written at about that time\u2014that it might be ready for inclusion in this collection, goes to confirm the tradition as to the date of this collection. The Apocalypse and the four short Epistles which were not in readiness to be included at that early[...x]<\/span>
date, were afterward received into the Syriac Canon, but not till the sixth century.”[9]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Assemane, Giuseppe Simone (J.S.). “Bibliotheca Orientalis (2nd Vol.) De Scriptoribus Syris Monophysitis”. digitale-sammlungen.ulb.uni-bonn.de<\/em>. p. 486. Retrieved 2019-10-20.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. ^<\/strong> Michaelis, Johann David (1793). Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels) by H. Marsh. 4 vols. [in 6 pt.]<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. ^<\/strong> Norton, William (1889). A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John: With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881<\/em>. W.K. Bloom. This sacred book was finished on Wed., the 18th day of the month Conun, in the year 389.<\/q><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. ^<\/strong> Taylor, Robert; Smith, John Pye (1828). Syntagma of the evidences of the Christian religion. Being a vindication of the Manifesto of the Christian evidence society, against the assaults of the Christian instruction society through their deputy J.P.S. [in An answer to a printed paper entitled Manifesto &c.]. Repr<\/em>. p. 32. This sacred book was finished on Wed., the 18th day of the month Conun, in the year 389.<\/q><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. ^<\/strong> Pettingell, John Hancock (1887). “The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament”. Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come<\/em>. pp. 53\u201354.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The most noteworthy advocate of the “Peshitta-original” hypothesis in the West was George Lamsa of the Aramaic Bible Center.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    E. Jan Wilson writes, “I believe firmly that both Matthew and Luke were derived from Aramaic originals.”[11]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Some advocates of the “Peshitta-original” theory also use the term “Aramaic primacy”, though this is not used in academic sources. The expression “Aramaic primacy” was used by L. I. Levine,[12]<\/sup> but only as a general expression used to denote the primacy of Aramaic over Hebrew and Greek in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period (i.e. roughly 200 BC \u2013 70 AD). The earliest appearance of the phrase in print is in David Bauscher.[13]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Charles Cutler Torrey, while teaching at Yale, wrote a series of books that presented detailed manuscripturial evidence supporting the Aramaic New Testament, starting with The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels<\/em>,[14]<\/sup> and including the widely known Our Translated Gospels<\/em>.[15]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. xli of his The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark)<\/em> (2003), 381pp.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. ^<\/strong> Judaism and Hellenism in antiquity: conflict or confluence<\/em>, 1998, p. 82<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. ^<\/strong> The Original Aramaic Gospels in Plain English<\/em> (2007), p.59.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. ^<\/strong> Torrey, Charles Cutler (1912). The Translations made from the Original Aramaic Gospels<\/em>. New York: Macmillan Co. ISBN 9781293971314<\/bdi>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. ^<\/strong> Torrey, Charles Cutler (1933). The Four Gospels: a new translation<\/em>. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Argument using the Arabic Diatessaron for the old age of the Peshitta<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Tatian died in A.D. 175. Reasoning and textual evidence suggest that Tatian started with the 4 Gospels in the Aramaic Peshitta, and interwove Gospel passages into one consolidated harmonized narrative to get his Diatesseron, in the process quoting three-fourths of the 4 Gospels. We presently lack Tatian’s Diatessaron in its original Aramaic, but do have it in translation in Arabic, a language related to Aramaic. A large number of parallels exist between the Peshitta’s 4 Gospels and what is in the ‘Arabic Diatessaron.’ Paul Younan says, “It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic<\/em> harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian’s Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic<\/em> Gospels. …. Since the Arabic translation by Ibn al-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta…, and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn \u2013 I submit that Tatian’s Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta. Occam’s Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best. The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. ….if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation… the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian. And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Arabic Diatessaron has been translated into English, Latin, French, and German.[19]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Argument from geographical details for the old age of the Peshitta<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Advocates of the Aramaic being written first, and then translated into Greek, have pointed out the geographical details present in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.; those advocates ask what’s the best explanation for the presence of those geographical details in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Johann David Michaelis states:[20]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      In the Cur\u00e6, in Act. Apost. \u00a7 vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew.  To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’  The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Latin: Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum ex duplici codice edidit et translatione latina<\/em>; A. Ciasca (1888). French: Diatessaron De Tatien by Tatian<\/em>; A. S. Marmardji (1935). German: Tatians Diatessaron aus dem Arabischen<\/em> (1926). English: Aramaic to Arabic to Latin to English: The earliest life of Christ ever compiled from the four Gospels : being the Diatessaron of Tatian<\/em>; J. Hamlyn Hill (1894). English: Aramaic to Arabic to English: The Ante-Nicene Fathers : translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, volume 9<\/em> The Diatessaron of Tatian, Hope W. Hogg (1897)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. ^<\/strong> Michaelis, Johann David (1802). Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels) by H. Marsh. 4 vols. [in 6 pt.]. 4 vols. [in 5 pt.]<\/em>. Vol. 2, part 1 (2nd ed.). pp. 43\u201344.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        William Norton states:[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        \u2014\u200aIn the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. ….in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103.) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        “how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all” (pp. 104, 105.)Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, profane persons, where the Greek calls them the nations, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi. 7; x. 5; xviii. 17; Mark vii. 26; John vii. 35; Acts xviii. 4, 17; 1 Cor. v. 1; x. 20, 27; xii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106\u2013110.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        ABOUT Acts it could have been written in Greek and that\u00a0Aramaic was used for portions of the text<\/strong>. Or its addressed was a greek and aramaic speaking person as it writter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Norton, William (1889). A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881<\/em>. London: W. K. Bloom.Introduction, pages l\u2013li: “In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. . . . . in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu. Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103. ) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says, “how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all” (pp. 104, 105.) Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, profane persons<\/em>, where the Greek calls them the nations<\/em>, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi. 7; x. 5; xviii.17; Mark vii. 26; John vii. 35; Acts xviii.4, 17; 1 Cor. v. 1; x. 20, 27; xii. 2; 1 Pet. iv.3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70.” (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106\u2013110.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Argument from bad Greek grammar in Revelation to it not being originally Greek<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Torrey opines that Revelation was originally in Aramaic, and points to grammatical monstrosities as evidence that it was not originally written in Greek:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        For the Apocalyptist the language of the New Dispensation of the Christian Church was Aramaic only. It is most significant that the numerous hymns and doxologies sung or recited by the saints and angels in heaven, in chapter after chapter of the book, are composed in Aramaic (wherever it is possible to decide), not in Hebrew; though the writer could have used either language. ….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he [R.H. Charles] reaches\u2014expressed in similar words by many before him\u2014namely, that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique.” The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected. A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1:4. \u201cGrace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come\u201d (all nom. case). 1:15. \u201cHis legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)\u201d 11:3. \u201cMy witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.\u201d 14:14. \u201cI saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.\u201d 14:19. \u201cHe harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.\u201d 17:4. \u201cA golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).\u201d 19:20. \u201cThe lake of blazing fire (\u201cfire,\u201d neut.; \u201cblazing,\u201d fem.). 20:2. \u201cAnd he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.\u201d 21:9. \u201cSeven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.\u201d 22:5. \u201cThey have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek.[21]<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        Historical criticism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        An argument that at least one of the Greek books of the New Testament have been translated out of the Aramaic comes from a textual analysis of those attributed to the Apostle John. Their variation in writing style is so considerable, that it would preclude them having been written in Greek by the same author. St Dionysius of Alexandria lent support to this argument, when pointing out how John’s style of writing differs so markedly between his Gospel and Revelation. He concluded that the sophisticated writer of the former could not have written the clumsy Greek of the latter. Thus, the only way for John to have been the author of Revelation is for it to have been penned by a translator. However, Dionysius himself left open the possibility that it was written in Greek “by a holy and inspired writer” other than John.[22]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Some have argued that the Aramaic gospels are older than the Greek gospels, and that the Aramaic NT wasn’t derived from the Greek NT. William Norton commented in 1889:[23]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        “Faust Nairon, a Maronite, is often referred to by J. S. Asseman as a writer of eminence. He was one of the two editors of the edition of the Peshito Syriac Version, printed by the side of an Arabic Version of the N. T., in 1703, by command of the Roman Congregation De propaganda fide, for the use of the Maronites. He also wrote the preface. In this he said, (p. 2.) ‘The Syriac text excels in antiquity all other texts. By it very many places which in these are obscure, may be made plain.’ He proceeds to endeavour to prove that the Syriac text is more ancient than the Greek text of the Gospels. He mentions the common opinion that the Syriac Gospels were translated from the Greek, and says that there are better reasons for concluding that the Greek Gospels were translated from the Syriac. [….] F. Nairon says in proof that THE PESHITO, AS A WHOLE, IS NOT A MERE TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK COPIES, that the number of books in it is different from that of the Greek text, which has 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. That the order of books is also different from their order in most Greek copies; for James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, follow the Acts; and that the Greek text has passages which the Peshito has not.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        Norton later adds (on p. xlvii):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        Persons familiar with the Peshito admit the truth of Faust Nairon’s remark, that the Peshito does really sometimes “make clear, things difficult or doubtful in the Greek.” (Introduction, p. 9.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n


        Bishop Walton quotes with approval the remark of De Dieu, that “the true meaning of phrases which often occur in the N. T., can scarcely be sought from any other source than the Syriac.” (Polyg. Prol. xiii. 19.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n


        J. D. Michaelis says, “the Syriac Version leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient.” (Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 44.)’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        Norton mentions (on lix\u2013lx) additional scholars who had high regard for the Aramaic, and gives a fuller exposition of Michaelis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        Jacob Martini was Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg, and wrote a preface to the N. T. Peshito-Syriac, in which he said, “It is a version, but of all, it is the first and most ancient. . . It is a version, but made either by one of the Evangelists, or at least, of those who . . . had the Apostles themselves present, whom they could consult and hear, respecting many of the more obscure places. To this only, therefore, when some obscurity or difficulty occurs in Greek copies, can we safely go. This only, when doubt arises respecting the meaning or translation of any passage, can be consulted with safety and freedom from error. By this only, the Greek Text is truly illustrated, and rightly understood.” (See Gutbier’s Preface to his Syriac N. T., 1663, p. 26.) J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the N. T., 1787, chap, vii., sec. 4., says, “The Syriac Testament has been my constant study.” In sec. 8., he says, “The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraem and Bar Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure. . . . It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original.” “What is not to be regarded as a blemish, it differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation; but I know of no version that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration.” “The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke.” “The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language [as that of Christ], but in a different dialect, … in the purest Mesopotamian.”…. Professor Wichelhaus, 1850, dwells much on the worth of the Peshito. He calls it, “The most ancient witness, a version most accurate, untouched and untarnished, ever transcribed and preserved by the Syrians with the greatest care.” (p. 236.) He did not see why, with some few exceptions, it should not be “most like to the autographs of the Apostles.” (p. 264.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Torrey, Charles C. (1958). “The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation”. The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology<\/em>. Retrieved 2 March 2020.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. ^<\/strong> Eusebius, The History of the Church<\/em>. VII, 24:1\u201327<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. ^<\/strong> Norton, William (1889). A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John : with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881<\/em>. Boston University School of Theology. London : W.K. Bloom. pp. xli\u2013xlii, xliv.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          Antilegomena<\/strong><\/em> (from Greek \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) are written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1]<\/sup> Eusebius in his Church History<\/em> (c. 325) used the term for those Christian scriptures that were “disputed”, literally “spoken against”, in Early Christianity before the closure of the New Testament canon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The antilegomena<\/em> were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.[2][3]<\/sup> There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Liddell; Scott, A Greek\u2013English Lexicon<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. ^<\/strong> Kalin 2002.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3. ^<\/strong> Davis, Glenn (2010), The Development of the Canon of the New Testament<\/em>, p. 1.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            The Crawford Aramaic New Testament manuscript<\/strong> is a 12th-century Aramaic manuscript containing 27 books of the New Testament. This manuscript is notable because its final book, the Book of Revelation, is the sole surviving manuscript of any Aramaic version of the otherwise missing Book of Revelation from the PeshittaSyriac New Testament. Five books were translated into Syriac later for the Harklean New Testament.[1]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester<\/em>. John Rylands University Library of Manchester – 1999- Volume 81 – Page 41 “Possibly what was actually exhibited in 1935, and indeed in 1925 as well, was Rylands Syriac 66, a Harklean Syriac … Among the Syriac manuscripts remaining in Manchester, the following two Crawford manuscripts are important: 1 Syriac 2. This is a full New Testament, a rarity among Syriac manuscripts, because the Peshitta lacks the lesser Catholic epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude) and Revelation. These books are absent from the Syriac church’s canon, although they were translated later, and are in the Harklean version. This manuscript of the twelfth century, has the Peshitta text of those books found in the Syriac canon and a later form of the Syriac for the rest. The Apocalypse found in this manuscript is unique; no other surviving manuscript contains is unique; no other surviving manuscript contains Revelation in this form. The manuscript has the texts in the following order: Gospels, the Harklean Passiontide Harmony, Revelation, Acts, Catholic …..”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Aramaic manuscript contains some notable differences from the Greek, indicating variant Greek originals or conflation.[7]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            John Gwynn The Apocalypse of St. John: In a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown 2005 Page 51 “… all which three variations imply a different Greek original (see note on Greek text). But the true explanation of the facts proves to be that S here represents a conflate Greek text. The ms. 152 of Apoc. (Vatican, 370) reads here (see supr., Part “<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Harklean version<\/strong>, designated by syrh<\/sup><\/strong>, is a Syriac language bible translation by Thomas of Harqel completed in 616 AD at the Enaton in Egypt.[1]<\/sup>[2]<\/sup>[3]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The version is partly based on the earlier Philoxenian version, partly a new and very literal translation from the Greek New Testament.[4]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q-Z<\/em>. p. 976. ISBN 0-8028-3784-0<\/bdi>. Printed editions of the Peshitta frequently contain these books in order to fill the gaps. D. Harklean Version. The Harklean version is connected with the labors of Thomas of Harqel. When thousands were fleeing Khosrou’s invading armies, …<\/q><\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. ^<\/strong> Kiraz, George Anton (2002) [1996]. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions<\/em> (2nd ed.). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press (orig. Brill).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. ^<\/strong> Kiraz, George Anton (2004) [1996]. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions<\/em> (3rd ed.). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press (orig. Brill).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            4. ^<\/strong> The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium Jo\u017ee Kra\u0161ovec<\/em> (in French), 1998, p. 496, Ensuite, dans le monast\u00e8re de l’Enaton \u00e0 Alexandrie en 6l6, Thomas de Harqel retraduisit le Nouveau Testament en le r\u00e9visant drastiquement sur un mod\u00e8le grec. La lecture du colophon ne laisse point de doute que le texte de Philox\u00e8ne a …<\/q>“<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              Thomas of Harqel<\/strong> was a miaphysite bishop from the early 7th century. Educated in Greek at the monastery of Qenneshre, he became bishop of Mabbug in Syria. He was deposed as bishop by the anti-miaphysite metropolitan Domitian of Melitene before 602.[1]<\/sup> He and Paul of Tella lived as exiles in the Coptic monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria, Egypt. At the request of Athanasios I, they worked on a Syriac translation of the Greek Bible. Translation of the New Testament, known as the Harclensis was completed in 616.[2][3][4]<\/sup> At this time, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were added to the Syriac Bible. Until then they were excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. William H. P. Hatch, “The Subscription in the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospels”, The Harvard Theological Review<\/em> 30<\/strong>, 3 (1937), p. 143. JSTOR 1507949<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              2. ^<\/strong> Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q-Z<\/em>. p. 976. ISBN 0-8028-3784-0<\/bdi>. Printed editions of the Peshitta frequently contain these books in order to fill the gaps. D. Harklean Version. The Harklean version is connected with the labors of Thomas of Harqel. When thousands were fleeing Khosrou’s invading armies, …<\/q><\/li>\n\n\n\n
              3. ^<\/strong> Kiraz, George Anton (2002) [1996]. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions<\/em> (2nd ed.). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press (Brill).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              4. ^<\/strong> Kiraz, George Anton (2004) [1996]. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions<\/em> (3rd ed.). Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press (Brill).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                In a detailed examination of Matthew 1\u201314, Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus<\/em> only 108 times and with the Codex Vaticanus<\/em> 65 times. Meanwhile, in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, and in 31 instances it stands alone.[9]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                A statement by Eusebius that Hegesippus “made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel,” means we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160\u2013180 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer. The translation of the New Testament has been admired by Syriac scholars, who have deemed it “careful, faithful, and literal” with it sometimes being referred to as the “Queen of the versions.”[10]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                1. Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations<\/em> (Oxford University Press 1977), p. 50.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                2. ^<\/strong> “Syriac Versions of the Bible, by Thomas Nicol”. <\/em>. Retrieved 2019-11-11.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                  The following manuscripts are in the British Archives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n