10-28-2012, 05:49 PM
Shlama Chuck,
Oh yeah, I've noticed those instances as well. There's also a verse in Matthew where there is a "Marya mix-up". I e-mailed Andrew and Baruch about some of the instances I found (we'll see if it's fixed in the latest edition coming out in a month or two), and I'm pretty sure one of those Revelation passages is already corrected.
In any case, I agree that it would have been good to stick to Khabouris and give variants in footnotes, and then have the Aramaic be strictly the Khabouris as well. As far as I was aware I think it's the 1905 critical edition though, so wouldn't that explain why it doesn't read like any single manuscript?
Oh yeah, I've noticed those instances as well. There's also a verse in Matthew where there is a "Marya mix-up". I e-mailed Andrew and Baruch about some of the instances I found (we'll see if it's fixed in the latest edition coming out in a month or two), and I'm pretty sure one of those Revelation passages is already corrected.
In any case, I agree that it would have been good to stick to Khabouris and give variants in footnotes, and then have the Aramaic be strictly the Khabouris as well. As far as I was aware I think it's the 1905 critical edition though, so wouldn't that explain why it doesn't read like any single manuscript?