Peshitta Forum
late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Printable Version

+- 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: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript (/showthread.php?tid=3275)



late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 03-04-2014

I just found this...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.e-corpus.org/notices/98095/gallery/">http://www.e-corpus.org/notices/98095/gallery/</a><!-- m -->

.


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Aramaic - 03-05-2014

Based on a look at Romans chapter 13 there, this manuscript looks to be a copy of the Western Syrian Orthodox version. It does not match up with a number of variant spellings of words which are always found in The Church of the East's manuscripts.


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Paul Younan - 03-06-2014

Pretty much anything found in the Egyptian Sinai monastery collection is going to be SOC, not eastern.

+Shamasha


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 03-06-2014

Is it possible that confusion among Western scholars between Eastern and Western Peshitta manuscripts has lead to a lot of misconceptions about the Peshitta's history?


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Paul Younan - 03-07-2014

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Is it possible that confusion among Western scholars between Eastern and Western Peshitta manuscripts has lead to a lot of misconceptions about the Peshitta's history?

I don't think it's confusion as much as it is purposeful deception, Akhi. The so-called scholars are very well aware of the two distinct transmission histories, yet conveniently lump them together because it suits their purpose.

Any manuscript found west of the Euphrates, especially that hornets nest called Egypt, should be treated as highly suspect. I don't care what language it's in. They corrupted everything they touched.

+Shamasha


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - SteveCaruso - 03-07-2014

Paul Younan Wrote:I don't think it's confusion as much as it is purposeful deception, Akhi.

I'm not quite sure folks who have dedicated their lives to this sort of thing like Brock, Heal, Kiraz, Taylor, Juckel, etc. are perpetrating a conspiracy, Akhi. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Paul Younan - 03-07-2014

SteveCaruso Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:I don't think it's confusion as much as it is purposeful deception, Akhi.

I'm not quite sure folks who have dedicated their lives to this sort of thing like Brock, Heal, Kiraz, Taylor, Juckel, etc. are perpetrating a conspiracy, Akhi. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

While not speaking directly of the scholars who dedicate their research to Aramaic (I was referring to the general NT scholarship), but since you mentioned it ....

While it is hard to paint all of the above authors with the same general brush, I have to disagree with you, Akh. Anyone who treats the two distinct lines of text as if they were one contiguous textual tradition, does a disfavor not only to their reputation, but also to the truth.

Brock often times speaks and writes of the Peshitta without any differentiation between eastern vs. western transmission, as if it were a single entity. Kiraz used a hybrid "critical" text of the Gospels in his comparative edition, aligning it with the OSc and OSs, etc. What he should have done, in fact, was separate the two lines of transmission - they are not the same. Any co-mixture of the eastern text with the western dilutes it, and stains it.

Juckel is perhaps the most careful to differentiate, at least when he wrote the article detailing the variants in Codex Phillips 1388, he admitted it was a Monophysite text and that it was the product of a revisionary transmission history....we treated that topic a decade ago on this forum:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=685

Quote:As it was the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church which was in permanent contact with Hellenistic culture and continuously revised their New Testament to bring it in better line with the Greek text and canon, this 'comparative edition' is dominated by materials of Syriac Orthodox provenance.

It was the formative period of the Miaphysite Church within the Greek Byzantine Oikumene, which was open to direct Greek influence on the Syriac New Testament and on existing Greek patristic translations.

That type of differentiation and clarity is what I appreciate. Calling something the "Peshitta" which is found in Egypt is at best, a disservice to the Peshitta as we know it in our eastern tradition, which by *all* accounts is vastly superior in faithful transmission.

I don't mind something found in Egypt, or Mardin, being called the "Peshitto", after their mangling of the proper pronunciation of the letter Aleph, but I don't like it being called the "Peshitta." It creates confusion. That text would not be allowed on our altars, nor would it be allowed to be read from.

+Shamasha


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 03-08-2014

I think of the Peshitta as a textual family composed of distinct Eastern (Peshitta) and Western (Peshitto) manuscripts. As far as I can tell, the Peshitto only has two theologically motivated changes (Acts 20:28 and Hebrew 2:9) and the rest of them are not very big. Even the theological changes should not, in my opinion, be seen as heretical. Anyway, the Western Peshitto seems to be the most popular with scholars. It doesn't really make sense why, as the Eastern Peshitta is clearly the older of the two.

The Old Syriac Curetonian and Sinaitic, which is viewed as so much better textually than the Peshitta, is of so much lower quality. The Sinaitic Palimpsest didn't seem very important to the monks that threw it in the dump. I don't see how they can be so certain that they are older than the Peshitta with only one manuscript of each set of Gospels.


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Aramaic - 03-08-2014

The more one learns about the Eastern Peshitta text, and realize what it truly is, the more one comes to love and revere it.


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - ScorpioSniper2 - 03-08-2014

It's beautiful even to just look at LOL. I love pronouncing the Aramaic (still lacking in vocabulary). It's an extremely beautiful text written in a beautiful language.


Re: late 4th to early 5th century Peshitta Manuscript - Thirdwoe - 03-08-2014

I'm a guitar player, and own a true Gibson Les Paul Guitar, and if you want to play a true Gibson Les Paul, you need to buy a true Les Paul. Yes, you can buy a certain version called a "Les Paul" guitar from China, but, what you will get is not a true Gibson Les Paul...even though at 1st glance it might look like a true Les Paul, ...you have to look close, But, those who know what a true Gibson Les Paul Guitar looks and sounds like, know right off when some guy comes in with his Chinese made knockoff, which is called a "Les Paul" guitar.