11-23-2008, 01:01 AM
Shlama Akhi Otto,
No problem. I think this is very productive to help clarify these terms. To be honest, the level of seemingly contradictory statements about what came from where (not us brother, I mean the other resources that really seem to skirt around the issue) really surprised me. I knew what I wanted at the textual level but those classifications, well, oy vey, for lack of a better term.
For example, in "Aramaic New Covenant" intro reads on p. iv:
"The old manuscripts of the Peshitta did not contain four of the General Epistles: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude, nor the book of Revelation. These four Epistles were added to the Peshitta from copies of Syriac manuscripts of the revision is AD 616 made by Thomas of Harkel, bishop of Madbog (Hieroppolis)..."
Seems pretty clear right? And so it would remain if they just stopped here and didn't add a confusing statement that takes a few time to sort out:
",OF AN EARLIER RECENSION MAD BY AT MADBOG IN 508 IN THE DAYS OF PHILOXENOS, BISHOP OF THAT CITY, by a certain Polycarpos (who was a chorepiscus). For the four Epistles and the Revelation we have used the 1891 Mosul text."
If you read these two parts together, it is clear that the Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel means that:
1) These manuscripts of W5 are added from Harkel's work.
2) Harkel's work is, in turn, a revision of an earlier work by Philoxenos.
3) OUR version is Harkelean, from the Mosul 1891 text.
But wait, both men were FROM Madbog and headed that church! Then "Madbog" appears twice in two lines, and it is easy for the eye to skip and conclude that PHILOXENIAN Epistles/Rev were used in Mosul text, that was in turn used by Aramaic New Covenant.
And so, it is hardly surprising that some sources on the web have described this book as having Philoxenian sources. But again, you have to connect the top thought through to the bottom that says otherwise.
So you have helped me realize not just the need to sort this out but the need to define terms better to stop the lazy language.
No problem. I think this is very productive to help clarify these terms. To be honest, the level of seemingly contradictory statements about what came from where (not us brother, I mean the other resources that really seem to skirt around the issue) really surprised me. I knew what I wanted at the textual level but those classifications, well, oy vey, for lack of a better term.
For example, in "Aramaic New Covenant" intro reads on p. iv:
"The old manuscripts of the Peshitta did not contain four of the General Epistles: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude, nor the book of Revelation. These four Epistles were added to the Peshitta from copies of Syriac manuscripts of the revision is AD 616 made by Thomas of Harkel, bishop of Madbog (Hieroppolis)..."
Seems pretty clear right? And so it would remain if they just stopped here and didn't add a confusing statement that takes a few time to sort out:
",OF AN EARLIER RECENSION MAD BY AT MADBOG IN 508 IN THE DAYS OF PHILOXENOS, BISHOP OF THAT CITY, by a certain Polycarpos (who was a chorepiscus). For the four Epistles and the Revelation we have used the 1891 Mosul text."
If you read these two parts together, it is clear that the Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel means that:
1) These manuscripts of W5 are added from Harkel's work.
2) Harkel's work is, in turn, a revision of an earlier work by Philoxenos.
3) OUR version is Harkelean, from the Mosul 1891 text.
But wait, both men were FROM Madbog and headed that church! Then "Madbog" appears twice in two lines, and it is easy for the eye to skip and conclude that PHILOXENIAN Epistles/Rev were used in Mosul text, that was in turn used by Aramaic New Covenant.
And so, it is hardly surprising that some sources on the web have described this book as having Philoxenian sources. But again, you have to connect the top thought through to the bottom that says otherwise.
So you have helped me realize not just the need to sort this out but the need to define terms better to stop the lazy language.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth