Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matay 19:9 -- Khabouris
#1
shlom lkhun oH Lars woH Stephen,

In Matay 19:9 the Khabouris reads
?????? ???????? ????????

And in the Western Text it Reads
?????????? ?????????????? ??????????????

Here the word "????????" doesn't make any sense at all, while the word "??????????????" makes perfect sense. I know that in Stephen's transcription he noted the difference, but for the sake of the text giving on Dukhrana in the "Peshitta Tool" I would use "??????????????" instead. I've checked against another Eastern Text, and it reads like the Western Text. What we have here is a copying mistake done by a scribe (I would also add it as a note to the transcription of the Khabouris.)

Conjecture: Most likely the scribe read "adultery", and usually if a women commits adultery it is with a man, which is how the scribe ended up with the word "man" instead of the word "adultery.

push(w) bashlomo,
keefa bar morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Keefa:
See if you can distinguish between a Vav and a Beth in this short selection of the Crawford Codex. The word "gbra" or gora" is in the middle, to the left of "antata dla".
?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ??????

.png   19a. gora.png (Size: 56.05 KB / Downloads: 1,075)

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#3
abudar2000 Wrote:shlom lkhun oH Lars woH Stephen,

push(w) bashlomo,
keefa bar morun

Hi Abudar,

Can you point me to the translation of those two differences? I cannot quite get the whole sentense <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thanks!
Reply
#4
shlom lokh oH Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama Akhi Keefa:
See if you can distinguish between a Vav and a Beth in this short selection of the Crawford Codex. The word "gbra" or gora" is in the middle, to the left of "antata dla".

I'm a bit at a loss as to the point that you're trying to make with respect to what I wrote.

pS. This Crawford Codex manuscript, is that the same as that version which is called "the Separated Gospels"?

tawdi,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#5
shlom lokh oH Distazo,

distazo Wrote:Can you point me to the translation of those two differences? I cannot quite get the whole sentense <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thanks!

Go onto the <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w --> website, and select both "UBS 1905 Peshitta" and " Khabouris Peshitta text", for Matthew 19:9.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Keefa:
Let's start with the differences between the UBS 1905 and the Khabouris Codex.

UBS
?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ??????

Khabouris
?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ??????

Crawford Codex

.png   19a.png (Size: 60.55 KB / Downloads: 1,383)

The Crawford Codex is primarily the Eastern Peshitta text, as is the Khabouris. However, there are some variants, so I use it as a control text against the Khabouris when there is a variant in the UBS. One of the problems with this particular passage, as you can now see, is that it is faded and is illegible where we want to see if there is a Vav or a Beth. So is it GWRA ???????? or GBRA ???????? in the Crawford Codex? It is reasonable to assume that the Khabouris Codex reveals a scribal error.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#7
Shlama,

The Kabouris codex clearly has a Beth.

As for the Crawford codex, there actually is enough information in that image to make it out. When I tilt my laptop screen to an extreme angle, it brings out the contrast between the background and the extremely faded text. This is enough to clearly see a very nice curved Waw. Thus, the Crawford has GWRA, so it seems further support that the Kabouris' GBRA is in error.

It's also interesting to note that the vowel points for these two words are exactly the same, at least in the western vowel system, so the words would be pronounced identically. (A fluent speaker can correct me on this one.)

bar Sinko
Reply
#8
shlom lokh oH Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote:The Crawford Codex is primarily the Eastern Peshitta text, as is the Khabouris. However, there are some variants, so I use it as a control text against the Khabouris when there is a variant in the UBS.

I didn't know that, thanks for the information. Any possibility of making its text available on Dukhrana?

Stephen Silver Wrote:One of the problems with this particular passage, as you can now see, is that it is faded and is illegible where we want to see if there is a Vav or a Beth. So is it GWRA ???????? or GBRA ???????? in the Crawford Codex?

You're right, it's hard to make out the characters, but it seems like a "W".

One interesting thing with this picture is that the "dolath" in "DLA" is written like the "dolath" in the Serto script.

Stephen Silver Wrote:It is reasonable to assume that the Khabouris Codex reveals a scribal error.

I would agree with that! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I believe the current Peshitta used by the COE also uses "GWRA".

Here's a sample from a COE Peshitta (17th Century)

.jpg   gawro_matay_19_9.JPG (Size: 36.68 KB / Downloads: 1,331)

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#9
Quote:Stephen Silver wrote:
The Crawford Codex is primarily the Eastern Peshitta text, as is the Khabouris. However, there are some variants, so I use it as a control text against the Khabouris when there is a variant in the UBS.

I didn't know that, thanks for the information. Any possibility of making its text available on Dukhrana?

Shlama Akhi Keefa:
I am presently working on a transcription of the Crawford Codex. Dukhrana Biblical Research would also like to make the manuscript pages of the Crawford Codex and the Yonan Codex available to the public.

Do you have a full copy of the 17th century manuscript from which you have just shown Matay 19:9?

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#10
Shlama alokhun,

Not to make things more confusing, but lets think about other ways to read this verse. Don't get me wrong, it could definitely be a scribal error, but before making that assumption lets put this all in context.

Standard Interpretation:
And I say to you but that whoever leaves his wife, without adultery, and takes another, committes adultery. And he that takes a divorced women, committes adultery.

Alternative Interpretations:
And I say to you but that whoever leaves his wife, without ________, and takes another, committes adultery. And he that takes a divorced women, committes adultery.

GBRA
1. husband
2. man
3. adult
4. elder of a household
5. father

And I say to you but that whoever leaves his wife (remove the ,) without a husband, and takes another, committes adultery. And he that takes a divorced women, committes adultery.

Or, since a lot of things in Aramaic are said backwards could this be understood in English as...?

"And I say to you but that whoever leaves his wife, and takes another without a husband, committes adultery. And he that takes a divorced women, committes adultery."

Please refer to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Gabra.htm">http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Gabra.htm</a><!-- m --> for my selection in "subsitution words".

Honestly, I haven't spoken to a priest about any of this, so I don't know if this can even be read this way, but just thought it might add a little more flair to the discussion.

Push b'shayna,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#11
I think that Jeshua commented on some tolerance of Moses, to allow divorce just because somebody did not -like- his wife.

If a wife or husband committed adultery, he/she would be free to remarry. But adultery was no longer the only reason for divorce. This is why the disciples answered; "Then it would be better not to marry at all!"

So Jeshua added, "What God has united cannot divided by a man."

So of course, if a married man 'takes an unmarried woman', he commits adultery. I think this is rather obvious for those who listened to Jeshua?

Just my 2 cents.
Reply
#12
Lets not forget that even God got a Divorce and Married another. But that may be a little too much to chew on.

Former Wife:
Thus says YHWH: "Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, and for your transgressions your mother has been put away. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. Isa 50:1 Jere 3:8

New Wife:
I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, and you shall know YHWH. It shall come to pass in that day that I will answer," says YHWH; "I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth. The earth shall answer with grain, with new wine, and with oil; they shall answer Jezreel. Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; then I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they shall say, 'You are my God!'

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. Hosea 2:19-23, Rev 21:2-3
Reply
#13
brikh saphro oH Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote:I am presently working on a transcription of the Crawford Codex. Dukhrana Biblical Research would also like to make the manuscript pages of the Crawford Codex and the Yonan Codex available to the public.

As always, I'm grateful to all the work that you and aHun Lars are doing over at Dukhrana.com

Stephen Silver Wrote:Do you have a full copy of the 17th century manuscript from which you have just shown Matay 19:9?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/">http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/</a><!-- m -->

This COE Peshitta is very important (Massora Text), has important margin notes and Biblical notes. Have a look at P.225 you'll see a nice surprise.

push bshayno,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#14
shlom lokh oH Nimrod,

I guess we can try to analyse the Aramaic of this verse, and then find a way to place "GBRA" in it, but the simple fact is that the 3 major Peshitta Traditions all agree on the use of "GWRA". I think only the Khabouris manuscript has "GBRA" in it.

If we had other instances in other Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts where "GBRA" is present in this verse, then it would make sense to analyse it, but this seems like a clear case of a scribal error.
Also the fact that the current edition of the COE Peshitta has "GWRA" in it seems to support this as well.

push bshayno,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#15
Just a comment: Andrew Roth's AENT has GWRA.

Otto
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)