12-25-2013, 01:22 AM
Steve,
I keep hearing this line from you, that what we see in the Eastern MSS such as the Khabouris Codex, the Houghton 1199 (Ashael Grant's MSS), and the Mingana 148, is some type of "standardized", text of the Aramaic NT, which some think has something different than what is found in the earlier dated Eastern Peshitta MSS.
I believe that the Eastern text is the older form, which was maintained in the transmission of MSS copies by the Church of the East, not the Western Syriac Orthodox revised copies, which I see has been at times mixed in with some Greek readings.
What I am asking you, Steve, is not to give more statements like, what you said here:
I'm looking for some real examples of these supposed 10% differences that might exist in the Eastern MSS witnesses, if you know what they are. Eastern I mean, not the Western variety....But, if you don't have any that's fine, but if you do, please show us some actual examples that you might know of.
You can put them up on another thread for our consideration.
As to P&G's 1901-1920 A.D. edited version of the Aramaic NT text, I think you know that they added some Greek readings into their text, where it didn't exist, as well as adding the western five books to it, which comes from Greek sources, putting them into the appendix section of their production.
I don't consider their patchwork of a text to be "the standard" form of The Peshitta, but see it as their form, being part Aramaic NT part Greek NT in origin. Thus a hybrid text.
Shlama,
Chuck
.
.
I keep hearing this line from you, that what we see in the Eastern MSS such as the Khabouris Codex, the Houghton 1199 (Ashael Grant's MSS), and the Mingana 148, is some type of "standardized", text of the Aramaic NT, which some think has something different than what is found in the earlier dated Eastern Peshitta MSS.
I believe that the Eastern text is the older form, which was maintained in the transmission of MSS copies by the Church of the East, not the Western Syriac Orthodox revised copies, which I see has been at times mixed in with some Greek readings.
What I am asking you, Steve, is not to give more statements like, what you said here:
Quote:...and a few of them, such as Paris, Bib. Nat. Ms Syr 30 (which is dated early) differ almost as much as 10% from the "standard" text...
I'm looking for some real examples of these supposed 10% differences that might exist in the Eastern MSS witnesses, if you know what they are. Eastern I mean, not the Western variety....But, if you don't have any that's fine, but if you do, please show us some actual examples that you might know of.
You can put them up on another thread for our consideration.
As to P&G's 1901-1920 A.D. edited version of the Aramaic NT text, I think you know that they added some Greek readings into their text, where it didn't exist, as well as adding the western five books to it, which comes from Greek sources, putting them into the appendix section of their production.
I don't consider their patchwork of a text to be "the standard" form of The Peshitta, but see it as their form, being part Aramaic NT part Greek NT in origin. Thus a hybrid text.
Shlama,
Chuck
.
.