Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Andrew Roth
#5
Shlama Akhi Otto,

You are not alone in this confusion. There are actually cases where Philoxenian traditions are identified as Harkalean and vice versa. The Way International, for example, calls their version Philoxenian but most including Dr. Brock, think they are mistaken and that their text for that portion of the NT is Harkalean. If the Way Intl version has that wrong, then it clearly is a mistake arising from difficult to interpret information. Here are two places to start in dealing with these complexities. This link is for Sebastian Brock:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mHewpd0an9IC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=united+bible+society+syriac+1979&source=web&ots=kzSQsfm7ej&sig=SrVJoYPKSvUGFCUz7WPbcOxsc1Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA50,M1">http://books.google.com/books?id=mHewpd ... t#PPA50,M1</a><!-- m -->

As Dr. Brock says, there are only two mss of Harkalean Revelation that are known to exist. One of these is called "Oxford New College 333", dated to the 11th century. The other is known "Cambridge Add. 1700", dated to 1169-70. Other scholars however disagree on this. Metzger has a related discussion, from pages 65-80 (approx) of this link:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=aMwy-0D_6NEC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=harkel+revelation&source=web&ots=kLdrbHp3nX&sig=zxeqwV0VSkdhp_D1M1UnI2tV6Fg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA71">http://books.google.com/books?id=aMwy-0 ... sult#PPA71</a><!-- m -->.

Metzger contends that there is another mss known as 724 that is probably earlier which is also Harkalean but whether it has Rev or just the Gospels as other Harkalean mss have is not clear from what I read. I only know that Harkalean mss are roughly divided between those that have the Gospels thru Acts and those that have the 4 minor Epistles through Revelation.

I can tell you that 1905 (20) BFBS and SOC 1979 are not completely identical. UBS reads in Revelation 1:10 "b'khad b'shaba" (Sunday) whereas Aramaic New Covenant following 1905-Mosul reads "MaranaYah", and I discuss that variant in Mari. I have read somewhere in these two links for Brock and Metzger that 1979 UBS includes at least two texts that are not from the 1905 Critical Edition, but I think one of these is simply pericopa adultera, for obvious reasons. You might want to read over these papers though for yourself.

To what extent 1905 and UBS 1979 further diverge I am not certain because I have not done a letter by letter comparison. I have not read Bauscher's version nor the ONLINE PESHITTA/BIBLE you mention either. Also, I don't have UBS 1988 at all.

Another complexity is this: When I said earlier that the four minor Epistles were Philoxenian, it was based on taking the BFBS' word for that. However, I have also long believed that Aramaic Peshitto Rev as compiled by BFBS is probably Harkalean and I stand by the general understanding that it is the Harkalean form of Revelation that is used in the SOC versions.

I have used the 1905 transciption of Rev in Midyat form form with permission from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aifoundations.org">www.aifoundations.org</a><!-- w -->, which is now reorganizing their website and transferring to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon site. The 1905 itself is public domain even though BFBS is absorbed by UBS. I am also sort of taking Gwynn at his word (which is compelling) that he had found the Philoxenian versions of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude. However, there have been so many mis-identifications of one for the other, as well as many areas of agreement between them, as to give me pause.

As far as I know the Harkalean mss I mentioned are not online. Khabouris is and I have high image digital files of Crawford that I can consult but not reproduce for publication per Rylands Institute rules. Other online resources though include Gwynn's trancription of the Philoxenian Minor Epistles, and detailed discussions of variants by William Norton, JW Etheridge and James Murdock. I am sorry if I can't clear this up better. That's the best i can tell you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-10-2008, 05:06 AM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Paul Younan - 11-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-14-2008, 05:13 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 11-17-2008, 02:13 AM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-17-2008, 04:47 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-17-2008, 05:08 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by enarxe - 11-17-2008, 10:40 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-19-2008, 10:17 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-20-2008, 06:22 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Paul Younan - 11-20-2008, 07:31 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-21-2008, 09:31 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-22-2008, 10:36 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)