11-28-2004, 05:50 PM
Shlama team!
I noticed some differences in 1st Cor. 1:18-
1905 SP has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nnyyxd[/font] while the Khabouris Codex has the same word only without the final nun and with an extra word, namely [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nnx[/font]
Akhan Alan Aldawood showed me how this was acceptable. He directed me to lesson 130 of level 5.
Evidently dropping a nun and creating a second word is perfectly acceptable Aramaic. I thought the difference in text was interesting, though.
Also there is no 'hi' in the Khabouris text of 1st Cor. 1:20. Three missing "hi's" to be exact. Also, instead of 'aika' the Khabouris text has 'aiko'
Also, the seventh line from the bottom of JPG #388 has 'lo' instead of 1905's 'la'
Small but interesting differences, no?
Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
I noticed some differences in 1st Cor. 1:18-
1905 SP has [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nnyyxd[/font] while the Khabouris Codex has the same word only without the final nun and with an extra word, namely [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nnx[/font]
Akhan Alan Aldawood showed me how this was acceptable. He directed me to lesson 130 of level 5.
Evidently dropping a nun and creating a second word is perfectly acceptable Aramaic. I thought the difference in text was interesting, though.
Also there is no 'hi' in the Khabouris text of 1st Cor. 1:20. Three missing "hi's" to be exact. Also, instead of 'aika' the Khabouris text has 'aiko'
Also, the seventh line from the bottom of JPG #388 has 'lo' instead of 1905's 'la'
Small but interesting differences, no?
Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey