08-08-2011, 05:53 PM
Thirdwoe Wrote::
Also I am confused with what I have read so far from Brother Younan & Brother Silver's statements on what the Colophon of the Khabouris acctually says.
Brother Paul states that it says there that the Khabouris is a copy of an early 5th century text...but Brother Silver says it says that it is a copy of a 2nd century text....165 A.D.
So, what is the truth about what the Colophon reveals? does it ssay that its a Copy of a 165 A.D. or 400+ A.D. text?
I don't want to go around telling people something that is not true...and until I can read Aramaic myself good enough to check these things out...I must rely on my Brothers. <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
Blessings,
Chuck
Shlama Akhi Chuck:
The info I posted was a copy from Michael Rice's site accompanying the pages of the Khabouris manuscript. It is incorrect because it has interpreted the date of the original copy from which the Khabouris was transcribed (copied). The time frame is based upon the idea that the Roman persecution is what is referred to. However, as Akhi Paul has correctly stated it is referring to the Persian monarch Sapur II, who was a contemporary of Constantine. Hence, the confusion. So the original from which the Khabouris text was copied was in the fifth century, not the second century.
The Khabouris Peshitta text, as well as the Mingana Peshitta text are virtually the same. My preference is the Mingana for its textual clarity in Estrangelo (very easy reading), marginal notes and its completeness.
Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->