Peshitta Forum
Khabouris Manuscript - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Khabouris Manuscript (/showthread.php?tid=2848)

Pages: 1 2


Khabouris Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 05-30-2012

One thing I've noticed about a lot of Peshitta primacists is that they claim that they claim that the Khabouris Codex is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament...this manuscript was carbon dated back to the 12th century.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - judge - 05-30-2012

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:One thing I've noticed about a lot of Peshitta primacists is that they claim that they claim that the Khabouris Codex is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament...this manuscript was carbon dated back to the 12th century.

I've not seen anyone claim this. The discussions I've seen here have been that there was an idea that it (or possibly another peshitta mss) may have been around the time of the oldest complete Greek NT mss, but that it probably was in fact much later.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Luc Lefebvre - 05-30-2012

judge Wrote:I've not seen anyone claim this.
I think Andrew and Baruch have made remarks like that to promote AENT.

Anyway, Paul summed up the value of Khabouris best in this post.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Stephen Silver - 06-01-2012

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:One thing I've noticed about a lot of Peshitta primacists is that they claim that they claim that the Khabouris Codex is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament...this manuscript was carbon dated back to the 12th century.


Shlama Akhi SS2:
There is an undeniable problem in trying to find the oldest Peshitta Manuscript of the New Testament. Whereas today we have electronic media, storable printed material and various ways of storing media for very long periods of time, the media used as a substrate for the ancient manuscripts was rather limited. Therefore, the best scribal method of reproduction was to hand copy a new manuscript and bury the older one in a geneza (sacred manuscript )burial plot. Te Jews had the best system for doing this, being passed down from generation to generation, and handled very carefully. This method of scribal copying ensured the most precise transfer of the media to ensure that there were no errors in the new useable copy.
This is true for every every ancient manuscript. Nevertheless, the Jews definitely had the very best system and those that used the Jewish method, which included counting all of the letters per line reduced to a bare minimum, the errors that might crop up. Each manuscript after being copied was carefully proof-read by more than one scribe to verify the count per line.
Now, when we look at the Khabouris Codex we can safely assume that it was copied under very careful scrutiny, using the Jewish method, the method of the Sofer. When taking this into account we can be reasonably sure that what we have now is an 11th or 12th century copy of a Fifth Century Manuscript and that Fifth Century copy can be knowledgably traced to the First Century. It's reasonable to assume that at the time of copying, several new manuscripts were scribed and passed around to various congregations throughout
What little we know about the Yonan Codex seems to correspond verbatim with the Khabouris Codex. The Yonan, as far as is known is from the Fifth Century and is the oldest known manuscript of the Eastern Peshitta New Testament. I have a lot of confidence in the Jewish Scribal tradition but do not have the same confidence with any of the Greek manuscripts because the Greeks were not as careful in there copying procedures.

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - IPOstapyuk - 06-02-2012

Stephen Silver wrote
Quote:I have a lot of confidence in the Jewish Scribal tradition but do not have the same confidence with any of the Greek manuscripts because the Greeks were not as careful in there copying procedures.

I have a lot of confidence that the Jewish Scribal tradition was good until Christ. Then they produced pretty corrupted Masoretic text, see examples here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/septuagint-vs-masoretic-which-is-more.html">http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02 ... -more.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/">http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/20 ... etic-text/</a><!-- m -->

On the other side I do not believe that Greek speaking Christians corrupted the New Testament.
The special forces designed for this purpose gradually were poisoning the Greek New Testament.
The same forces did not succeed in corruption of the Peshitta, therefore they were trying to abolish those who has this book. But their plans failed.

Now we have original Gospel (22 books Peshitta, NOT Peshitto) of Jesus Christ that mightily shines and represent salvation to all the mankind.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 06-05-2012

I don't really think the claims that Greek is a defiled language have any validity. Aramaic (or Chaldee) originated in Babylon, which we all know was also a pagan nation. I could be wrong about that but I think that is true (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)...I believe Matthew and possibly John and Hebrews were probably written in Aramaic, but with the others I'm pretty certain that they are Greek. I heard and Aramaic primacist claim that this manuscript was written around 165 AD...based on what Roth has wrote in his translation of the Peshitta, the date of the Khabouris is quite controversial.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 06-05-2012

Hummm...So, if that is true, then Y'shua spoke and taught the Gospel in a "pagan language" on earth before and after his resurection and even to men from Heaven itself? Interesting.

I think a good case can be made that Abraham, the direct descendant of Noah, through Shem, spoke the ancient form of the Aramaic Language, Aram also was one of the sons of Shem, and I think his name is where the name "Aramaic" originates, if I'm not mistaken. Asshur was another son of Shem, and I think he is the forefather of the Assyrians, who spoke the same language as Aram (Aramaic) and their father, Shem, the son of Noah...


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 06-05-2012

:

From an article I just read:

"Aramaic is a sister language of Hebrew. It shares many vocabulary words and grammatical features. Someone who knows Hebrew very well can transition into Aramaic probably just by reading it a lot. It wouldn't take a whole new language course to get to the point of reading and understanding Aramaic."


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Paul Younan - 06-05-2012

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I don't really think the claims that Greek is a defiled language have any validity. Aramaic (or Chaldee) originated in Babylon, which we all know was also a pagan nation. I could be wrong about that but I think that is true (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)...

Consider yourself corrected. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Sumerian and Akkadian were the languages of Babylon. Aramaic was adopted much later in Mesopotamian history.

Aramaic originated among the Aramean tribes, from whom also originated the Hebrew people (Deuteronomy 26:5). That's why Aramaic and Hebrew are such closely related languages.

All human languages, Hebrew and Aramaic included, are pagan in origin.

+Shamasha


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Luc Lefebvre - 06-05-2012

Paul Younan Wrote:
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:All human languages, Hebrew and Aramaic included, are pagan in origin.
Hmmm, but if God confused all the langauges though, would they not be classified as having their origin in Him? Just a fun thought; I get what you're saying and I agree. There are pagan origins and connations in all languages, despite what sacred namers like to promote. I wonder what was spoken before the Tower of Babel, and if it was the same language all the way back to Gan Eden? Oh the fascinating mystery of the first language. That would surely be the one we could classify as not being pagan in origin.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 06-06-2012

I think Noah spoke the same language as his Great, great, great etc...GrandSon Abraham did, who was in his mid 50s when his Great, great, great, etc...GrandFather Noah died at 950 years old. And I think Noah spoke the same language as his Great, great, great, etc...GrandFather Adam did.

Aramaic or Hebrew? which came 1st?


Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Burning one - 06-07-2012

Shlama,


the whole idea of one language being somehow inherently superior over another is very strange. words are just vehicles for ideas, are they not? it is the intent behind the word that matters. to me, languages are a gift from Alaha. obviously He gave Adam the first tongue, and if we're honest with Scripture, He is responsible for the multiplication of tongues in the earth at the Tower - so couldn't we rightly say that all those which sprang from Babel were actually divinely-inspired, as well?

i love the Hebrew tongue, and i love the Aramaic tongue. i love English. I love American Sign Language. i'm still working on developing feelings for Greek. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> any tongue that you can praise Alaha in can become a holy tongue - by sanctifying our means of communication it doesn't matter what language we speak --- we make it what we want of it. differing languages have the capacity to convey subtle nuances of meaning in different ways - how blessed we are to be able to use all these forms of communication to address Alaha! being deaf in one ear myself, i had the opportunity a few years ago to really learn American Sign Language (hoping to make an interpreter career out of it, but it was not to be...), and had some really cool experiences with the Deaf community. when you are able to sit and have a deep and heartfelt conversation with someone who is not only deaf but ALSO blind and do it all through tactile means, you come away with a realization that the vehicle of language / communication is a blessing beyond description!

as for which language came first, i tend to think something like what is called Old Negev Hebrew would be approximate, though i could be wrong. if one is really interested in this subject google Isaac Mozeson and his work on Edenics, which seeks to show Hebrew as the primary tongue from which all others sprang. he has some very cool ideas worthy of attention when it comes to how the ancient languages came about - surprises abound! i've been following his research now for about 8 years and am impressed.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 06-08-2012

Thanks for the correction! I have read that Aramaic is the oldest surviving written language (because, as Paul Younan and the late George Lamsa would know, is still spoken), but that Sumerian is the first language. I honestly sort of wonder if Adam and Eve spoke in what we know as tongues.


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 06-08-2012

Quote:I honestly sort of wonder if Adam and Eve spoke in what we know as tongues.

You mean the ecstatic sort, where it is no known language? I would like to see someone try to write that all out on paper and then develop a dictionary for the words. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Khabouris Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 06-09-2012

I've seen some pretty amazing things in church that make it hard for me to doubt...I'm truly blessed, but I'm glad that I didn't have to see these things to believe. Jesus said, "Blessed are those have not seen and yet believe!".