Article about Old Syriac in Hugoye

[Vsanzcm]

Shlama Akhi Paul:
I found this article in Hugoye. I didn't have time to study it, but you (and everyone) might be interested on it:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html</a><!-- m -->

Ms. Sch??yen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshitta

Andreas JUCKEL

Poush bshlama!
Ab. Valentin

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Paul:
I found this article in Hugoye. I didn't have time to study it, but you (and everyone) might be interested on it:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html</a><!-- m -->

Ms. Sch??yen 2530/Sinai syr. 3 and the New Testament Peshitta

Andreas JUCKEL

Poush bshlama!
Ab. Valentin

Shlama Akhi Valentin,

Yes, I read this article back a couple of months ago. I was totally unimpressed by what the author classified as "variants". Most of them seemed like scribal errors (notice the missing "Waw/Beth/Lamedh Proclitics") the omission of pronouns ("hu/hy") and the like. Some missing/additional prepositions.

Seemed like the work of a sloppy scribe. I think it was found at St. Catherine's - that sloppy-scribe hangout. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Did anything in it seem to you to be a true "variant" in the sense of Greek "variants" - where the actual meaning of the verse is affected? I didn't see any, personally.

Anyway, seemed to me to be the work of a Western scribe.

[Vsanzcm]

Shlama Akhi Paul:
Thanks for your comments about the Juckel???s article in
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol6No2/HV6N2Juckel.html</a><!-- m -->

I???ll study it with more detention, when I have time, but in a quick reading I have remarked this statement in the final or the third paragraph:

???The impact of 'criticism' on the text, however, mainly derived from the general critical value of the ancient codices by which Gwilliam for the first time could prove the general antiquity and authenticity of the traditional Peshitta text. His printed text is not based on the 'critical' evaluation of single variants but on the majority vote of readings. According to this editorial policy, the Peshitta text substantially remained the same without revisional development from the fifth to the sixteenth century when the first edition of the Gospels (Widmanstadt, 1555) was printed. Gwilliam is well aware of peculiar readings in all of the early manuscripts, but as many of them are corrections by later hands to the overwhelmingly attested text they rather seem to confirm than to affect its originality.???
I wonder: What about BEFORE FIFTH CENTURY? If from that time the Peshitta text remained the same, could we think that before that time was different? A simple mathematical point: more mss = more variants; less mss = less variants. But the question is, WHY this text remained the same?

In my Thesis I had quoted V????BUS (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, Louvain 1951), about this Gwilian, claiming that he had studied 42 mss of the Peshitta and the result was ???that the number of variants and instabilities in the Peshitta is exceedingly small??? and the conclusion of V??obus is: ???...It???s text was copied with great care and handed down from generation to generation more correctly than the Bible text of any other version??? (The emphasis in red is mine, p. 46). Further on, he speaks about the resistance to the Hellenistic influences in several aspects (monachism, dogmatic conceptions, ecclesiastical and canonical discipline, etc.) and underlines the PARADOX of the ecumenical acceptance of the Peshitta text (Maronites, Jacobites, Orthodox and Melquites). He ???explains??? the paradox with another paradox (!): ???Such adherents came from circles which believed that the text of Scripture was most conform to the Greek original writings of the Christian faith??? (p. 60). My question was ???it is, again???How could those ???adherents??? so reactionaries against the ???Greek fashion??? accepted this text just because it was ???most conform to the Greek original writings of the Christian faith???? Mr. V????bus really deserves this emoticon <!-- stupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="tupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- stupid: -->
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] Fwx0b [/font]
Ab. Valentin

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Valentin,

I agree with you about Voobus! Sometimes he was "Way out there" <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

In regards to the comment made by Juckel, I have only one comment:

If you compare the western manuscripts against the eastern manuscripts, you will find variances according to the magnitude found by that author.

However, if you compare manuscripts only within the eastern tradition, you will find very little variants, mostly scribal conventions/spelling.

It is universally recognized that the manuscripts of the east are far superior and much better preserved than those of their western counterparts. (hence, the reason for the small number and degree of severity of variants among the eastern texts.)

The problem with Juckel is that the author fails to make a distinction between the two very different communities, and their very different textual tradition and practices.