+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Matay 19:9 -- Khabouris (/showthread.php?tid=2173)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Matay 19:9 -- Khabouris - Stephen Silver - 10-11-2009
Shlama Akhi Keefa:
This is the best representation of the Eastern Peshitta I have ever seen.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/">http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/</a><!-- m -->
Although it is not as old as the Khabouris, Yonan or Crawford it appears to be of an impeccable ACoE scribal tradition.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Re: Matay 19:9 -- Khabouris - Nimrod Warda - 10-12-2009
Shlama alokhun,
I personally don't mind it being read either way, since it basically conveys the same message, which is don't committe adultery.
Honestly, I never knew about this "scribal error" before, but like I said previously, I would not rule that out. I am a member of the COE, so I would have to agree with our tradition as well. I only brought up my point before for "fun" <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> .
Happy Columbus Day (for those in the Americas),
*unfortunately this is a sad day of rememberance for all those innocent Native Americans that were slaughtered in the name of "Christian nations" and "manifest destiny"
-Nimrod Warda-
Re: Matay 19:9 -- Khabouris - Qadi$aAlaha - 05-23-2013
bar Sinko Wrote:Shlama,
The Kabouris codex clearly has a Beth.
As for the Crawford codex, there actually is enough information in that image to make it out. When I tilt my laptop screen to an extreme angle, it brings out the contrast between the background and the extremely faded text. This is enough to clearly see a very nice curved Waw. Thus, the Crawford has GWRA, so it seems further support that the Kabouris' GBRA is in error.
It's also interesting to note that the vowel points for these two words are exactly the same, at least in the western vowel system, so the words would be pronounced identically. (A fluent speaker can correct me on this one.)
bar Sinko
yes as a speaker of bphtan-neo-aramaic i can say that in modern aramaic we have those 2 words: GURA (wich means a man) and GAWRA (wich means a husband) so its pronounced diferently and has diferent meaning, if y say you are not a 'GURA' that means you are not a 'man', if i saw are you 'GWIRA'? that means 'are you married'?? (that comes from GAWRA wich means husband'
Bshaina