Introduction to the Question of Transmission

The Scriptures have traveled through centuries of copying and translation. Many have asked how accurately the manuscripts were handed down, especially given the linguistic shifts that occurred across the centuries. In the earliest Christian era, portions of the Greek New Testament were rendered into Syriac, giving rise to multiple Syriac versions that illuminate the text’s transmission. These Syriac versions include the Old Syriac, the Peshitta, the Philoxenian, and the Harklean. Some scholars also add a Syro-Palestinian text (in Christian Palestinian Aramaic). These ancient Syriac versions carry significance in the study of New Testament textual history because they reveal which readings gained traction among Christians who spoke Syriac in the first few centuries of the common era.

This subject is not merely academic but integral to understanding how the text was preserved among believers who lived in a broader Semitic milieu. The question remains open-ended: how have these Syriac versions—emerging in different periods—contributed to the stable transmission of the New Testament? By examining their background, key textual features, and scholarly attempts to reconstruct their earliest forms, one gains a richer grasp of how the New Testament reached modern readers. This exploration includes references to the ways early Christian writers in the fourth century quoted the Epistles, and how later revision efforts tried to align the Syriac text more closely with certain Greek manuscripts.

The Rise of Syriac Christianity

Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, gradually became an important literary language for Christians in regions such as Edessa, Nisibis, and beyond. Though the New Testament was written in Greek, the impetus to translate it into Syriac arose naturally among Aramaic-speaking believers. In time, the Syriac versions revealed their own stylistic nuances and interpretive approaches. The earliest evidence indicates that the Christian communities in the East sought to hear the words of the New Testament in their native tongue, thereby spurring the production of translations of the Gospels and, subsequently, the Apostolos (Acts and Pauline Epistles).

The date of these translations varies according to the text. Some believe the Diatessaron—a Gospel harmony compiled by Tatian in the second century C.E.—may have been the earliest attempt at rendering the Gospels in Syriac, though it merged the four canonical accounts into a single continuous narrative. Because Syriac was widely used in the East, the Diatessaron soon coexisted with other Syriac Gospel texts, often called “Old Syriac,” until a more standardized version, the Peshitta, became dominant. However, that transition from Old Syriac to Peshitta did not happen overnight, for it involved a slow process of harmonizing older readings, addressing scribal habits, and seeking alignment with favored Greek manuscripts.

Old Syriac Traces in the Pauline Text

The Gospels are not the sole domain in which Old Syriac readings appear. Scholars have argued that there existed an Old Syriac text of the Apostolos (Acts and the Pauline corpus). Although no surviving manuscript attests directly to an Old Syriac version of the letters of Paul, early Syriac writers often quote these letters in ways that imply the existence of a pre-Peshitta translation.

A notable illustration arises in 1 Corinthians 1:27. Texts preserved in patristic sources, including Aphrahat (fourth century C.E.) and Ephrem of Nisibis (fourth century C.E.), share a distinctive reading in which additional words appear, clarifying that God chose the “foolish of the world” so that He might shame the wise “by them.” This “by them” phrase is not found in the standard Greek text or the later Syriac Vulgate (the Peshitta), indicating that a separate textual tradition was current in the fourth century.

Citations in the Liber Graduum (a Syriac work dating to the fourth century C.E.) echo the same unusual reading. Although the precise words in the Liber Graduum differ at times—using “idiots” for “foolish”—the presence of the same added phrase “by them” underscores the possibility of an Old Syriac strand in the Pauline Epistles. This phenomenon reveals that the earliest generations of Syriac-speaking believers possessed an Apostolos text not strictly identical to the Peshitta.

Scholars conclude that Ephrem, Aphrahat, and the Liber Graduum drew upon a textual tradition earlier than the Peshitta. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that these witnesses exhibit certain expansions and omissions pointing to the existence of a first attempt at rendering these Epistles into Syriac. The label “Old Syriac” was initially applied to the pre-Peshitta Gospels in Sinaiticus and Curetonianus manuscripts, but the term also appears viable for a hypothetical early version of Acts and the Pauline writings. The impetus for such a translation likely arose in the same vibrant communities that had produced the Diatessaron and other Old Syriac forms of the Gospels.

Evolution into the Peshitta

Over time, a more standardized revision—referred to as the Peshitta—gradually displaced earlier Syriac translations. Most of the extant Syriac New Testament manuscripts represent this text, which became the common heritage of Syriac-speaking Christianity. The Peshitta eventually took on such significance that it came to be the authoritative version in both Eastern and Western Syriac traditions. Scholars often speak of the Peshitta as having been finalized in the late fourth or early fifth century C.E.

In 1 Corinthians 1:27, the Peshitta lacks the expanded phrasing with “by them.” Instead, it adheres more closely to Greek forms and reads: “But God chose the fools of the world to shame the wise.” Like many passages in the Gospels, the Peshitta shows a moderate alignment with the Greek while retaining a distinctive Syriac idiom. The same dynamic emerges in Hebrews 5:7, where the Peshitta reads that the Messiah prayed to the One who could save him from death “when he was clad with flesh.” The Old Syriac text possibly had “body,” while a literal word-for-word rendering of the Greek might have been “in the days of his flesh.” These variations display the textual character of the Peshitta as a moderate revision rather than an entirely fresh translation.

The impetus for revising the Old Syriac text may have originated from a desire to curb interpretive ambiguities and align more consistently with widely recognized Greek manuscripts. Nevertheless, the Peshitta was not a mechanical, slavish rendering. When Greek idiom seemed to conflict with Syriac usage, the Peshitta often prioritized readability in Syriac. Thus, in many instances, the Peshitta retained older Syriac formulations, even though the text occasionally reveals corrections in alignment with Greek.

Philoxenian Efforts to Refine the Text

Though the Peshitta reigned supreme among most Syriac believers, theological and Christological controversies in the early centuries impelled certain groups to craft new revisions. Philoxenus of Mabbug (fifth to sixth century C.E.), a proponent of Monophysite theology, believed that the Peshitta’s wording in some passages might lend itself to interpretations he opposed. In conjunction with his associate Polycarp, Philoxenus sponsored a version that strove for hyper-literal alignment with Greek. This text has often been termed the Philoxenian version.

Philoxenus mentioned the impetus for this revision in his commentary on John’s prologue. He complained that the translators of the earlier Syriac text had introduced questionable renderings that risked distorting theological teachings. He specifically pointed to Hebrews 5:7, where the Peshitta’s phrase “when he was clad with flesh” seemed to deviate from the Greek statement “in the days of his flesh.” Philoxenus felt compelled to commission a new translation that would avoid such perceived “mistranslations.”

For 1 Corinthians 1:27, the extant fragments suggest that Philoxenus sometimes quoted the Peshitta directly in his homilies but also advocated a more literal approach when producing his new translation. Because the extant witnesses to the Philoxenian text are fragmentary, one cannot always be sure which readings are purely Philoxenian and which were carried over from earlier forms. Indeed, certain references in his works blend older Syriac phrases with the Greek-based approach that characterized his new revision. Nonetheless, the overarching aim was to present a text more literally conformed to Greek so that matters of Christology and theology would be less ambiguous.

Thomas of Harkel and the Harklean Revision

Thomas of Harkel, a later reviser working in the early seventh century C.E., consulted additional Greek manuscripts to perfect the Philoxenian text further. His revision, called the Harklean version, demonstrates an even more slavish adherence to Greek word order and grammar than what Philoxenus had envisioned. Scholarly analyses show that the Harklean version sometimes uses unusual Syriac constructions to preserve the subtlety of Greek tense or syntax.

In 1 Corinthians 1:27, the Harklean text renders each clause in a manner that painstakingly parallels the Greek structure: “But the foolish of the world did God choose, that he might shame the wise… and the weak of the world did God choose…” Such a rendering disrupts natural Syriac style by placing the verb after the object in a literal replication of the Greek text. While less elegant, this method carried the advantage of letting Syriac-speaking readers see almost word-for-word how the Greek read.

In Hebrews 5:7, the Harklean continues the trend of precise alignment: “He who in the days of his flesh… offered prayers and supplications… with mighty crying and tears.” The resulting text, though sometimes harsh to a native Syriac ear, reveals how meticulous the revisers were in reflecting each Greek nuance. Marginal notes often indicate variant readings and reflect the textual complexity of the era. Greek manuscripts that Thomas of Harkel consulted apparently included some that aligned with the textual tradition known as the Byzantine type, yet the Harklean text cannot be reduced to a single Greek witness. In any case, the Harklean tradition embodies a pinnacle of literal translation methodology in Syriac, culminating an evolving process that began with the Old Syriac.

The Place of the Diatessaron

Though the Diatessaron primarily concerns the four Gospels, it stands as an essential stepping stone in the Syriac tradition. Tatian’s Gospel harmony likely appeared in the second century C.E. The text gained widespread circulation among Syriac speakers who found it convenient to have a single chronological narrative of the Messiah’s life. Eventually, church leaders in the late fourth or early fifth century C.E. sought to replace the Diatessaron with separate Gospel texts—those that became the Peshitta Gospels—thereby preserving each of the four canonical accounts in a more standard layout. This impulse mirrored the movement to create a similarly standardized text in the Pauline letters and the rest of the New Testament.

Despite the Diatessaron’s partial overshadowing by the Old Syriac and Peshitta texts, its prior influence can be detected in occasional “Diatessaronic readings” within the Old Syriac Gospels. Yet for the Apostolos, the Diatessaron does not directly apply, underscoring the possibility that the earliest Syriac-speaking communities initially focused on the Gospels and produced a translation of the letters in a somewhat delayed or piecemeal fashion. This may explain why no single Old Syriac manuscript for Paul’s letters has surfaced.

Comparative Studies and Critical Editions

Modern scholars who edit the Syriac versions frequently mention the complexities of reconstructing a “pure” form of each major text. The Old Syriac Gospels survive mostly in two key manuscripts, the Sinaitic Palimpsest (SyrSin) and the Curetonianus (SyrCur). Both show textual affinities and significant differences. When it comes to Paul’s letters, one finds only patristic quotations to guide reconstruction. No single codex reliably attests an entire “Old Syriac Apostolos.”

The Peshitta New Testament has a more substantial manuscript base, making it easier to produce modern critical editions. Yet this multiplicity of witnesses can generate conflicting readings, as centuries of scribal copying introduced minor variants. Such variants range from orthographic changes to more significant expansions or omissions. Editors usually compare the best early Syriac manuscripts and the Greek textual tradition to establish a likely original Peshitta reading.

Philoxenian and Harklean manuscripts preserve further layers of revision. These texts survive in fewer codices, each heavily annotated with marginal readings that allude to alternative Greek forms. Although these later versions do not have the widespread acceptance of the Peshitta, they remain invaluable for textual criticism because they reveal which variants certain Greek manuscripts contained.

Patristic Evidence from Aphrahat and Ephrem

Aphrahat, the “Persian Sage,” wrote Demonstrations in the mid-fourth century C.E. His Scriptural quotations can sometimes be matched to known texts of the Old Syriac Gospels, or presumably an Old Syriac Apostolos. The distinctive reading in 1 Corinthians 1:27 (“by them”) reappears in Aphrahat’s demonstration on love, supporting the thesis of an older Pauline version.

Ephrem of Nisibis similarly quoted the Gospels and Epistles, often weaving them into his sermons or commentaries. Though Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron centers upon the Gospel harmony, he occasionally references passages from Paul’s letters. In 1 Corinthians 1:27, he too alludes to that unusual phrase, “to shame by them the wise,” pointing to a reading that differs from the standard text of the Peshitta.

In analyzing Ephrem’s citations, scholars discern differences in detail that might reflect the presence of multiple Old Syriac recensions. One such difference involves describing the “fools” as “idiots,” perhaps revealing a local preference in the scribal tradition or a wish to avoid ambiguous connotations. Regardless of the precise word choice, Ephrem attests that a Syriac version prior to the Peshitta circulated widely enough to permeate the commentaries of major church figures.

The Distinctive Rendering of Hebrews 5:7

Hebrews 5:7 highlights some divergences in Syriac translation philosophy. The Peshitta’s mention of the Messiah praying “when he was clad with flesh” aligns with an older interpretive perspective. This phrase occasionally troubled those who wanted a more direct reflection of the Greek wording, “in the days of his flesh.” Philoxenus cited it as an example of the Peshitta’s potential for misunderstanding. He thus insisted upon a more accurate rendering.

The Harklean version accordingly translates Hebrews 5:7 in a near-literal manner: “He who in the days of his flesh offered prayers and supplications… with mighty crying and tears.” By comparing the older text to the Harklean’s reworked lines, one sees how translation choices could be shaped by theological concerns, especially regarding the nature of the Messiah’s humanity. In a broader sense, the variations in Hebrews 5:7 reflect how Syriac translators aimed either to express the text in smooth idiomatic Syriac or to adhere rigorously to the Greek text.

Implications for the Study of Textual Transmission

The Syriac versions illustrate that the New Testament text did not pass from century to century in a single monolithic form. Instead, it underwent modest but telling changes as scribes and translators attempted to represent the Greek accurately, clarify ambiguous expressions, or incorporate doctrinal preferences. The Old Syriac tradition shows the vitality of early Christian communities in the East, forging unique renderings that sometimes expanded upon the Greek for clarity.

The Peshitta’s role as a stable standard testifies to a momentous consolidation, as the churches in Syriac-speaking regions recognized a need for a unified text. By adopting the Peshitta, these congregations minimized confusion that might have arisen from multiple local recensions. Yet the impetus for producing later literal versions—Philoxenian and Harklean—demonstrates that the quest for alignment with Greek was never wholly dormant.

Did the Syriac Versions Preserve a “Better” Text?

Some have asked whether the Syriac versions, being closer linguistically to the Aramaic idiom spoken by the Messiah, might preserve an underlying text more faithful to original words. For example, the question arises when examining the “fools of the world” variant in 1 Corinthians 1:27. Did these Old Syriac readings reflect an early Greek text no longer extant, or were they expansions inserted for explanatory purposes? The question remains open because evidence can support either position.

In places like Hebrews 5:7, the Peshitta’s smooth reading—“when he was clad with flesh”—could preserve an ancient interpretation that Greek scribes did not necessarily reflect. The words “clad with flesh” also appear in other early Christian writers. On the other hand, one sees in the Greek manuscripts a straightforward expression: “in the days of his flesh.” Some propose that the Peshitta might be clarifying the participial phrase, while others see it as an interpretive leap.

Such questions illustrate the intriguing interplay between Greek and Syriac traditions. The presence of expansions and paraphrases in the Old Syriac does not necessarily mean the Greek text behind them lacked those elements; sometimes it might have, but just as often, a translator could have added them to provide clarity. The search for a so-called “better” text seldom yields unanimous conclusions. Yet the Syriac versions are crucial witnesses, unveiling textual threads that might otherwise remain hidden in the Greek tradition alone.

Scribal Habits and Theological Influences

While scribal errors can occur in any language, the theological disputes of the first centuries formed a special backdrop for Syriac. Issues relating to Christology, the nature of the Messiah’s divinity and humanity, and the relationship between the Father and the Son compelled translators and revisers to choose their words with care. Sometimes a subtle nuance could be seized upon by opposing theological camps. If a certain phrasing seemed to suggest, for instance, a separation between the divine and human natures, translators from another viewpoint might adjust the reading.

Philoxenus’s initiative, as well as Thomas of Harkel’s subsequent thorough revision, can be understood in part as attempts to prevent “Nestorian” or “Dyophysite” readings from creeping into the text. These struggles illustrate that textual transmission in Syriac was never purely about language. Translational choices sometimes had theological ramifications, reinforcing or combatting particular Christological tendencies.

Resurgence and Preservation of the Peshitta

Despite the efforts behind the Philoxenian and Harklean versions, the Peshitta remained the dominant text in nearly all Syriac churches. Eastern communities, historically called the “Church of the East,” and Western communities, associated with the Jacobite tradition, both adopted the Peshitta as their official biblical text, though each occasionally appended marginal notes in later centuries.

This enduring authority of the Peshitta indicates that, for everyday congregational use, believers found it a satisfactory, clear, and theologically acceptable rendering of the Greek. Its roots in earlier Syriac traditions and centuries of repeated copying gave it a venerable status, though the Harklean version retained a niche role among scholarly circles concerned with word-for-word precision or those anxious about potential theological pitfalls.

The Monophysite and Dyophysite Divide

The backdrop to the creation of the Philoxenian and Harklean versions cannot be separated from the larger theological controversies that roiled the Eastern churches. Philoxenus championed a strongly Monophysite position, contending that the Messiah’s nature was unified in a single essence. Opponents accused him of ignoring the Messiah’s genuine humanity or distinguishing it only superficially. Meanwhile, those on the Dyophysite side found that certain Peshitta readings could suggest an appropriate distinction between the human and the divine. Consequently, textual details in verses such as Hebrews 5:7 or Philippians 2:6–7 took on heightened importance.

Translators working in a polarizing climate might opt to sharpen or soften certain readings for the sake of upholding their doctrinal perspective. While it is seldom a matter of outright fabrication, subtle adjustments in wording could lend powerful theological coloring. That recognition is vital in evaluating the textual variants of the Philoxenian or Harklean versions, especially wherever controversies over the Messiah’s nature loom in the background.

The Role of Marginal Readings

The Harklean New Testament often contains marginal notes that specify variant readings gleaned from comparing multiple Greek manuscripts. These notes show that Thomas of Harkel not only adhered to a literal translation approach but also recognized that Greek manuscripts did not always agree. Instead of conflating them, he preserved alternate readings in the margins. While such notes appear sporadically, they give modern researchers an invaluable glimpse into the Greek textual landscape that Harkel had at his disposal.

If the margin in a Harklean manuscript indicates that one Greek codex used a particular phrase, while another used a slightly different one, that detail can inform our study of the Greek textual tradition. It illuminates how scribes and translators navigated the multiplicity of ancient manuscripts. In this way, the Harklean version is a testament to the seriousness with which Syriac scholars approached the question of fidelity to the “original” text.

Scholarly Reconstructions and Modern Access

A complete reconstruction of the Old Syriac text of the Pauline Epistles remains elusive since no direct manuscript stands as a witness. Instead, modern scholars carefully sift quotations from Aphrahat, Ephrem, the Liber Graduum, and other early Syriac documents, comparing them with the Peshitta, to hypothesize what that earlier form might have been. This textual detective work relies on the premise that scribes and translators typically preserve wording from their textual tradition, even if they occasionally revise or update it.

The Peshitta Pauline corpus is well-attested in later manuscripts. Critical editions such as those spearheaded by the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany, have begun analyzing the earliest accessible Peshitta codices to produce texts with extensive apparatus. That apparatus helps scholars discern the level of scribal variation from one manuscript family to another. Meanwhile, specialists in the Philoxenian-Harklean tradition compile collations of existing manuscripts to gauge how that literal translation fared across centuries of copying.

Illustrative Textual Comparisons

Turning once more to 1 Corinthians 1:27, the difference between Old Syriac expansions (“by them”) and the standard Peshitta omission underscores how a translator’s decisions can shift the nuance of a verse. Did the translator see a Greek reading that implied “by them,” or was it an explanatory insertion added for clarity? Since the earliest Greek texts do not contain that phrase, many suspect it was a free addition in the Syriac tradition. Yet the reading is old enough that Ephrem and Aphrahat both employed it, possibly indicating that they believed the text read this way in their communities.

In Hebrews 5:7, the evolution from “when he was clad with flesh” (Peshitta) to “in the days of his flesh” (Philoxenian and Harklean) displays a conscious shift toward literalism. These examples may seem minor to some, but they exemplify how textual subtlety and theological reflection can shape translation. They also show why comparing multiple versions is essential for robust textual criticism.

Linguistic Features of Syriac Translations

The Syriac language, while cognate to the Aramaic spoken in first-century Judea, is not identical to it in every detail. Nevertheless, because of shared Semitic roots, Syriac translators could sometimes echo certain idiomatic expressions with an ease that Greek translators could not. This closeness sometimes produced renderings that feel intuitively like what one might expect from speakers in that cultural sphere. Yet the differences in dialect, vocabulary, and period must not be overlooked.

In some verses, a Syriac translator might introduce clarifications that would not be self-evident to a Greek audience. Expressions implying honor, shame, or familial ties might be expanded to mirror the elaborate web of social relationships in a Semitic society. That phenomenon partly explains the expansions found in the Old Syriac. The translator was not necessarily trying to add theological content but to ensure that the meaning felt plain to native speakers.

Relevance for Modern Readers

Modern readers benefit greatly from the continued study of the Syriac versions. Beyond showcasing how the text of the New Testament was understood in another language family, these versions offer glimpses of interpretive traditions that might otherwise be lost. For instance, an Old Syriac reading might highlight which aspects of a passage fourth-century believers found crucial to emphasize.

In an age when many consult multiple English translations for deeper comprehension, the Syriac evidence underscores how textual traditions can illuminate different facets of meaning. Though the Peshitta sometimes paraphrases, it remains a principal witness to the early text, often used by conservative scholars seeking to confirm the reliability of Scripture’s transmission. Indeed, the widespread retention of the Peshitta, even after the creation of more literal versions, demonstrates the text’s acceptance and perceived fidelity to apostolic teaching.

Avoiding Speculation and Upholding Scripture’s Authority

From a conservative standpoint, the multiplicity of ancient versions, including Syriac, does not undermine Scripture’s reliability. Rather, it attests that God’s Word, as preserved in the manuscripts, maintained consistent teachings despite variations in wording. The existence of small expansions and paraphrases in certain Syriac lines does not signal an irreparable corruption of Scripture. Instead, such variations often clarify the underlying sense without contradicting the fundamental message.

If a fourth-century writer added “by them” in quoting 1 Corinthians 1:27, this was likely an interpretative flourish to highlight how God uses the humble to shame the wise. The overarching theology of the text remains intact. The relevant question for modern scholarship is how best to reconstruct the earliest forms of the text, not to question the inspiration behind the text’s message.

Confirming the Historical-Grammatical Method

A conservative approach to exegesis, grounded in the historical-grammatical method, reveres the literal sense of Scripture as the intended meaning. Examining ancient Syriac versions aids in reconstructing what the Greek text likely read and how it was understood by the earliest believers. These comparisons shine a light on linguistic choices and highlight how certain Greek phrases were rendered in a Semitic environment.

By concentrating on the grammar and historical context, one can detect that certain variants likely represent legitimate attempts to convey meaning, rather than theological manipulations. Instances of added pronouns or reworded syntax can usually be traced to the translator’s desire for clarity or to the scribal practice of smoothing the text. The tension in Hebrews 5:7, for example, underscores that translators had to decide how best to render “in the days of his flesh,” a phrase with theological depth.

Concluding Thoughts on Syriac Transmission

The ancient Syriac versions reveal a rich panorama of textual development. An Old Syriac tradition, partially recoverable through patristic citations, preceded the standardized Peshitta. The Peshitta, in turn, reigned among Syriac-speaking churches as a balanced text that was neither slavishly literal nor freely paraphrased. Over the centuries, theological debates, especially Christological controversies, led to more literal revisions under the aegis of Philoxenus and Thomas of Harkel. These subsequent versions, while never displacing the Peshitta in widespread usage, remain vital for understanding how textual concerns and doctrinal convictions informed the translation process.

The question of how accurately these Syriac versions preserved the New Testament cannot be answered in a single phrase. They preserved it faithfully in broad doctrinal and narrative terms, while also demonstrating small-scale variations that reflect normal scribal and translational activities. Indeed, the process highlights the providential care that Scripture received across linguistic and cultural boundaries. While each translation stage introduced nuances, the essential testimony of the New Testament remained intact.

The intricate journey of the Syriac text shows that the living faith of the churches sustained Scripture even under pressures from controversies, scribal limitations, and geographic spread. Syriac-speaking believers cherished the Word they had received, whether in an Old Syriac form, the Peshitta, or a more literal revision. Though questions remain about the earliest state of the text and whether certain expansions might represent a now-lost Greek tradition, the enduring message of the New Testament resonates. These details confirm that the Scriptures were transmitted with remarkable consistency, guided by the devotion of those who endeavored to keep it accurate and comprehensible for God’s people.

Bibliography

• Aland, Barbara, and Andreas Juckel. Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung. Teil III.2: Die Paulinischen Briefe, 1. Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.
• Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. 2nd rev. ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006.
• Brock, Sebastian P. “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, 291–338. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
• Gwilliam, George H., and John Pinkerton. The New Testament in Syriac. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1920.
• Kiraz, George A. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
• Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible In Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Baker Academic, 2001.
• Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origins, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

You May Also Enjoy

Category: NT Versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.)

About the author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION