Against the Khaburs (the identity of the ancient Syriac text)

 What is the textual family that was widespread in Syria in the first four centuries? The

benefit of answering this question is to determine the date of the Peshitta, and the Peshitta is an anonymous copy of the New Testament in the Syriac language, dating back to the fifth century AD according to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of textual criticism scholars.

The benefit of determining the date of the Peshitta is to prove the existence or nonexistence of any early witness to the Byzantine text (the Byzantine family), the Byzantine family is one of the families of New Testament manuscripts, as the manuscripts of the New Testament differed from each other in many deep-rooted differences such that each region had its own text, the manuscripts are divided into four families (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, Caesarean).

The printed text widely used by Eastern Christians is the Vandyck version, a translation of the Greek version prepared by Erasmus in the 16th century and called the Received Text. Erasmus relied on 5 manuscripts from the Kr block of the Byzantine family.

Accordingly, if it is proven that the Byzantine family is chronologically late, that is, invented at a later time - which is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of manuscript scholars, "universal consensus" - then the current text of the New Testament becomes a forged and invented text.

The defenders of the Byzantine text, despite their small number, are divided into two groups:

- The first section is from textual criticism scholars
- and the second section is from enthusiastic youth or from theologians but they are not specialists, they are not textual critics.

As for the first section , none of them defend the current received text. Although it is based on the Byzantine text, the Byzantines themselves see them as worse and more deplorable than to represent the Byzantine text - which is itself the worst of the textual families. When the supporters of the Byzantine text defend it, they recommend the necessity of setting the current text aside and adopting another text called the Byzantine majority text.
This section does not use the Peshitta in defending the Byzantine text, but those who use it are the popular section, if such a term is permissible among the defenders. The Peshitta is a Byzantine text in the four Gospels, but it is a Western text in the remaining 22 books of the New Testament, as the Peshitta omits five books.

In the late nineteenth century, a famous theory emerged that swept the entire field of textual criticism, called the " Westcott and Hort Theory ." The summary of this theory is that the Byzantine family is the worst of the textual families and was formed late in the fourth century by Lucian of Antioch. There are five pieces of evidence for this, four of which were mentioned by Westcott and Hort and the fifth is cited by them. The most important of these pieces of evidence is that there is not a single manuscript containing the Byzantine text before the Alexandrian manuscript in the fifth century, while the rest of the textual families have manuscripts attesting to them from before the fifth century.

Therefore, if the Peshitta is from the second century, then the Westcott and Hort theory falls, and the authenticity of the current text in its broad outlines will go back in the four Gospels at least to the second century - not the rest of the books - but if it is from the fifth century, which it is, then the Westcott and Hort theory remains, and the poor quality of the Byzantine family is still fixed.

The late date of the Peshitta has been agreed upon since the beginning of the twentieth century with the discovery of more manuscripts and the development of the science of textual criticism.
For example, George Lamsa, the author of one of the most famous printed versions of the Peshitta, the Lamsa version - who adopts the old view held by nineteenth-century scholars that the Peshitta dates back to the second century - states that there is a consensus among scholars that the Peshitta dates back to the fifth century, saying
:

"I will add salt to the wound, the scholarly consensus is that the Peshitta ... was translated from the Greek by Rabbiola, Bishop of Edessa between 412-435 AD. "

“To add insult to injury , scholarly consensus holds that the Peshitta … was translated from the Greek by Rabulla, the bishop of Edessa from 412-435 AD .” [1]

Bruce Metzger says
:

] Concerning the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta from Old Syriac began perhaps in the late fourth century, and seems to have continued at the latest until the time of Rabbiola, Bishop of Edessa (411-435 AD).[

[As for the New Testament, the process of producing the Peshitta version from the Old Syriac probably began before the end of the fourth century and seems to have been completed no later than the time of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (AD 411–35) ] [2]

The Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism says
:

(The date of the Peshitta is unknown, but it was probably written in the fourth century and it is difficult to believe that it was written after that.)

The earliest Greek witness to the Byzantine text is the uncial A, of the fifth century. The Peshitta Syriac is also largely (though not overwhelmingly) Byzantine; Its date is uncertain though it is usually ascribed to the fourth century (and can hardly be later than this) [3] .

One of the evidences of the late date of the Peshitta is:
( All of the Peshitta manuscripts discovered, which number more than 300 manuscripts, are all from after the fifth century. There is not a single Peshitta manuscript from before the fifth century ).
This is an extremely large number. It cannot be a coincidence that all of these manuscripts are from after the fifth century.

---

These are several lists of the names of Peshitta manuscripts and their dates from 5 sources, then a table in which I summarized the names and dates of the manuscripts:

First: From the Introduction to the Textual Testament of the New Testament - Cambridge:

Second: Bruce Metzger's famous book Early Versions of the New Testament





Third: Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by Harold Greenlee

Fourth: The famous critical version of the Peshitta by G. William






Fifth: The UBS fifth edition
The Greek New Testament, Apparatus, 5th revised edition

Sixth: Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism

Finally: My summary tables for the above:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1st...smyArwd--nQygB

You will not find any manuscript in any list dating back to before the fifth century.

---

The famous critical version of the Peshitta, called Tetraevangelium Sanctum iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem, says the authors of the text of the version
:

The text was based on a huge number of manuscripts from different eras and different places, .. the Jacobite version par excellence, called the Lord Crawford manuscript, written in Tur Abdin in.

"The Text is based on the evidence of a large number of MSS., of various ages and different localities. They range from copies of the fifth century… to such a distinctly Jacobite copy as Lord Crawford's MS., written in Tur'abdin in the twelfth century.” [4]

The current study aims to provide another piece of evidence that proves the lateness of the Peshitta, which is:
( All the fathers and Syriac writers in that period “the first four centuries” when they quoted from the New Testament, their quotes were in agreement with the ancient Syriac manuscripts and not the Peshitta, and if the Peshitta was early, their quotes would have been in agreement with it ) The UBS


Committee says :

"Another Eastern text in Antioch and nearby, preserved today in ancient Syriac manuscripts, namely the Sinaiticus and Curitonianus manuscripts of the Gospels (written in the critical system with the symbols syr ^s and syr ^c ) and in the quotations of Scripture in the writings of the Syriac church leaders Ephrahat and Ephraim of the fourth century."

Another Eastern type of text, current in and near Antioch, is preserved today chiefly in Old Syriac witnesses, namely the Sinaitic and the Curetonian manuscripts of the Gospels (cited in the critical apparatus as syrs and syrc) and in the quotations of Scripture contained in the works of the Syriac Church leaders Aphraates and Ephraem in the fourth century [5]

The manuscripts written in Syriac for the New Testament currently available are divided into 6 sections, each of which has its own readings that differ from the second section and distinguish it from it, and they are
:

1- Diatessaron
2- Old Syriac manuscripts Vetus Syria
3- Peshitta
4- Philoxenian Syriac
5- Heraclean Syriac
6- Palestinian Syriac

The oldest manuscripts currently available in the Syriac language of the New Testament are number 2 (Old Syriac), and they are two manuscripts that represent this section:

• The 4th century Syriac Sinaitic manuscript
• Syriac manuscript of the Curitonianus from the 5th century

The available Syriac fathers and writers from the first four centuries are very few in number, namely three: "Tatian" represented in the Diatessaron, "Ephraim the Syrian" and "Ephrahat the Syrian". When scholars looked at the quotations of these scholars from the early Syriac evidence, the Diatessaron, we notice that when the ancient Syriac manuscripts differ with the Peshitta in a reading, the Diatessaron often sides with the ancient Syriac manuscripts , which means that the Diatessaron used the readings of these manuscripts, and did not quote from the Peshitta. The same is true for Ephraim and Ephrahat. This means that the text that was widespread and dominant in Syria in the first four centuries was the ancient Syriac text, not the Peshitta.

The following table shows the readings in which the ancient Syriac manuscripts (vetus syra) differed from the Peshitta manuscripts, and the position of the Diatessaron towards them.

• The numbers (1, 2, 3) refer to “first reading, second reading, third reading”, where each reading is different from the second.
• Always read the Diatessaron, don't take number 1.
• When you find two numbers written together in the same box, such as (2, 1), this means that there is a division in the manuscripts, as some of them are read according to the first reading and others according to the second. In the box of ancient Syriac manuscripts specifically, the order has a meaning, as (2, 1) the first number means reading the Syriac Sinaitic manuscript, and the second number means reading the Syriac Curitonian manuscripts.

Blue:
represents the reading in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac, and this reading is in favor of the seniority of the Peshitta.

Orange:
represents the reading in which the Peshitta + the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (Q4) agreed against the Diatessaron + the Curitonian Syriac manuscript, i.e. the readings in which the Peshitta preserved the oldest form available in the Syriac manuscripts. This is also in favor of the seniority of the Peshitta.

Red:
is the reading in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Old Syriac manuscripts against the Peshitta, and this is a reading in favor of the seniority of the Old Syriac manuscripts.

Green:
is the reading in which the Diatessaron + Sinaitic Syriac agreed against the Peshitta + Curitonian Syriac, i.e. the readings in which the Old Syriac manuscripts preserved the oldest form of the reading represented by the Diatessaron, and this is a reading in favor of the seniority of the Old Syriac manuscripts.

Total number of readings in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Peshitta against the Old Syriac = 11 readings
Total number of readings in which the Diatessaron agreed with the Old Syriac against the Peshitta = 19 readings

So the readings of the Syriac Diatessaron are readings of the Old West Syriac text by 64%

This table was based on the monetary apparatus of the famous International Monetary Commission UBS in their latest critical edition of the New Testament GNT5 ^th

Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C.M., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Fifth Revised Edition). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies.

Of course, there is currently no Syriac version of the Diatessaron, so all scholars rely on Ephraim the Syrian's interpretation of the Diatessaron.

Therefore, the text of the Diatessaron adopted here is the text that is supposed to represent the Syriac version of Tatian the Syrian's Diatessaron, which is "The Syriac version of Ephraim the Syrian's interpretation of the Diatessaron" from the fifth century, since the Armenian version of the aforementioned interpretation of Ephraim dates back to the tenth century! There are many differences between it and the Syriac version that indicate the modification that took place to the text over time in order to convert it by copyists from a Western text to a Byzantine text, so the readings mentioned were limited to
:

1- The readings supported by the agreement of the Syriac and Armenian versions of the interpretation of Ephraim.
2- When the two versions differ, the chosen reading is the reading of the Syriac version because it is approximately five centuries older.

No attention was paid to the text of the Italian, Dutch, or Latin Diatessaron, because they are late on the one hand, and not in the Syriac language on the other hand. The subject of the research is to study the text of the Syriac version of the Diatessaron specifically.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1joK...inVplwYiM/view

Someone might say that the ratio of 65%:35% does not mean absolute seniority of one of the two versions over the other, but I tell him that textual critics consider the number 69% to be a sufficient number to classify the manuscript. If a manuscript agrees with the readings of the Alexandrian manuscript family, for example, by 69% or more, this is sufficient to consider it an Alexandrian manuscript, and so on. In other words, you will not find a clear, unified Syriac text in the early period, in Syria or elsewhere. The early period is characterized by the text being fluid and undisciplined, so do not expect to find a pure ancient Syriac text or a pure Pashto text. The overlap in the readings is the dominant feature, so textual critics are satisfied with an estimated percentage of 69%.

Another point is that these numbers are based on the critical apparatus of the famous UBS critical version, which has the shortest critical apparatus, meaning that if it were possible to conduct it using a larger critical tool, the results would be more in favor of the ancient Syriac text.


Accordingly, this is new evidence added to the series of evidence proving the late date of the Khabur manuscript. It is one of the Peshitta manuscripts, and the Peshitta is not before the fifth century.

---

[1] http://www.superbook.org/LAMSA/FAQ/p...old_syriac.htm
[2] Bruce M. Metzger.,The Bible in Translation.,Ancient and English Versions.,pg15(2001).
[3] The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism., by Robert B. Waltz, pg420.
[4] Ph. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Tetraevangelium Sanctum iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem, Oxford 1901 (Piscataway 2003), pg6.
[5] Omanson, R.L., & Metzger, B. M. (2006). A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: an adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger's Textual commentary for the needs of translators (p. xxiii). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.