Juckel's study

[Paul Younan]

It's furthest from the Greek my foot! It's stuck so far up the western Bezan Greek and Latin text it can't see any daylight.....what planet are you living on?

Why do you suppose Old Scratch was scratched off, anyway? Ever gave it any thought? Exactly what about St. Thecla's (!) story was so important that someone would scratch off the Holy Gospels to write her story over them?

Doesn't that say ANYTHING to you?

[yuku]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I fail to see that reference in Juckel's study? Please point it out....and list the "variants" so that we can see if they are truly different from today's modern printed eastern version.

Remember - of course it will have variants from the western texts used in Gwilliam's edition....and of course it will have variants from Codex Phillipps 1388 (a western text.)

In each of these cases, Juckel lists MS #7 as agreeing with Codex Phillipps 1388, a western text.

So where are the variants? Book, chapter, verse and Aramaic word that is a "variant", please?

Mt 5:5; 9:30 13:57 21:2 21:25 21:36 23:19 26:69 26:75, etc.

Best,

Yuri.

[yuku]

It's furthest from the Greek my foot! It's stuck so far up the western Bezan Greek and Latin text it can't see any daylight.....what planet are you living on?

Why do you suppose Old Scratch was scratched off, anyway? Ever gave it any thought? Exactly what about St. Thecla's (!) story was so important that someone would scratch off the Holy Gospels to write her story over them?

Doesn't that say ANYTHING to you?

The fact that SyS is a palimpsest is immaterial to any serious textual scholar. Can you find any published textual scholar who said that because some ancient MS is a palimpsest it should be ignored?

Why SyS was overwritten in A.D. 778? Why should I care? But the answer should be obvious, because whoever had overwritten it, didn't like the old text. But just because someone in 778 didn't like the old text, this doesn't mean that I also shouldn't like it.

Sorry, Akhi Paul, but I find this type of a discussion very strange, and not very productive. Any serious biblical scholar will laugh at me if I say that just because some ancient MS is a palimpsest it should be ignored...

Yours,

Yuri.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You also have to understand that you are not comparing MS. 7 to other eastern manuscripts. You are comparing it to Gwilliam (critical apparatus based 90% on western texts) and to Phillips 1388 (a western text)!

Nevertheless, to show you I am a fair man - here is a breakdown of your "variants" (even though the basis for comparison is flawed!):

(1) Mattai 5:5 (Missing Lamedh Proclitic (one letter) - scribal error)
(2) Mattai 9:30 (Gwilliam text missing Mem character (one letter) - scribal error)
(3) Mattai 13:57 (Gwilliam text missing "if" in "only if" - a very common scribal error)
(4) Mattai 21:2 (Gwilliam text transposed Waw and Qoph characters - a very common scribal/spelling error)
(5) Mattai 21:25 (Gwilliam text missing "men", scribal error - identical to modern eastern printed version)
(6) Mattai 21:36 (Gwilliam text word transposition - "other servants" vs. "servants other" - a very common scribal error....identical to modern eastern printed version)
(7) Mattai 23:19 (Gwilliam missing "gyr" - a very common scribal error)
(8 ) Mattai 26:69 (Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic (one letter) - a very common scribal error)
(9) Mattai 26:75 (Gwilliam missing the Anticipatory Pronominal Suffix (one letter) - "Heh" - a very common scribal error)

Do you have any examples where the so-called "variant" is not due to scribal error or misspelling? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

C'MON, Yuri. This is what you consider "variants?" A missing "to", "of" or "and?"

PA-LEEZE.

Anything else you'd like explanation on, beloved Akha?

Let's get into the meat of some other verses that are bothering you, shall we ?!?!

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Again - although the basis for comparison is flawed, I will now explain to you your "variants" in Marqus:

(1) 1:7 - Gwilliam missing Taw character - scribal error (one letter misspelling)
(2) 5:27 - Gwilliam missing Waw Proclitic - scribal error (one letter misspelling)
(3) 7:36 - Gwilliam missing "Hade" ("this") word - scribal error
(4) 8:20 - Gwilliam missing "to him" in "they said to him" - scribal error
(5) 10:14 - Gwilliam has extra Daleth Proclitic - scribal error (one letter misspelling)
(6) 12:26 - MS 7 missing Waw Proclitic (one letter misspelling)
(7) 14:1 - Gwilliam missing 3rd-person singular enclytic - scribal error
(8) 14:66 - Two words transposed ("a certain girl" vs. "a girl certain") - very common scribal error
(9) 14:71 - Gwilliam missing "to this" in "to this, this man" - scribal error

Shall I go on to Luqa, Akhi? Do we still have any so-called "variants?"

[Paul Younan]

Sorry, Akhi Paul, but I find this type of a discussion very strange, and not very productive. Any serious biblical scholar will laugh at me if I say that just because some ancient MS is a palimpsest it should be ignored...

I'd bet the person who scratched it off would be laughing right now if he knew you were taking his "scratch paper" (no matter what fancy name you attach to it) seriously.

Hey Akhi - I just crumpled up some paper here in the office and threw it in the garbage can - do you want to buy it? It may be very valuable some day to some poor unsuspecting soul. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Again - although the basis for comparison is flawed (we are not comparing Eastern MS. vs. Eastern Ms.), I will now explain to you your co-called "variants" in Luqa:

(1) 1:63 - MS. 7 missing a Waw character (actually, the 3rd-person plural marker) - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(2) 2:4 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(3) 5:13 - MS. 7 missing word ("be cleansed" in "I do desire, be cleansed") - error of omission - very common scribal error
(4) 5:23 - Gwilliam missing Daleth ("of") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(5) 6:7 - MS. 7 missing Daleth ("of") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(6) 6:44 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(7) 7:8 - MS. 7 missing Syame Diacretic Marking (indication of plural) - very common scribal error (two dots)
(8) 7:8 - Gwilliam missing Daleth ("of") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(9) 8:45 - Transposed Diacretic Marking - very common scribal error
(10) 10:10 - Substitution of Beth Proclitic ("in the market") for Lamed Proclitic ("in the market") - both mean the same thing - scribal error
(11) 11:45 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(12) 14:20 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(13) 17:18 - Gwilliam text missing "if" in "only if" - a very common scribal error
(14) 19:15 - Gwilliam has redundant "khad" - scribal error
(15) 20:21 - Gwilliam missing Pronominal Enclytic "-at" - which is redundant anyway. A very common scribal error.
(16) 20:24 - Variation on 3rd-person mascline plural inflection of the verb. Both "-o" or "-in" are proper and mean the same thing. Scribal error.
(17) 20:29 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(18) 20:31 - MS. 7 missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(19) 21:32 - Transposition of two words ("these all" vs. "all these") - very common scribal error
(20) 22:46 - Gwilliam missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)
(21) 23:3 - MS. 7 missing "Yeshua" - error of omission - very common scribal error
(22) 23:56 - Transposition of words. Gwilliam reads "spices and perfume" while MS. 7 reads "perfume and spices." Very common scribal error.
(23) 24:38 - MS. 7 missing Waw ("and") Proclitic - very common scribal error (1 letter)

There are your "variants", Akhi. I'll go on to Yukhanan next so that we can finally put rest to these so-called "variants!"

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Again - although the basis for comparison is flawed (we are not comparing Eastern MS. vs. Eastern Ms.), I will now explain to you your co-called "variants" in Yukhanan:

(1) 4:10 - MS. 7 has redundant 1st-person verbal inflection. Scribal error.
(2) 19:26 - MS. 7 has redundant 3rd-person feminine enclytic. Scribal error.
(3) 21:15 - Gwilliam is missing "to Yeshua" in "he said to him, to Yeshua" - scribal error.

There you have it - your three so-called "variants" in Yukhanan.

[The Thadman]

I must step in here and voice my opinion that these "variants" are of absolutely no similarity to those that appear in Greek manuscript traditions, including the substitution of different words, in some cases radically altering the meaning of a passage. I'd have to agree with Arthur V????bus on this one: The Peshitta has the strongest textual tradition, unmatched.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

[Paul Younan]

The real test will be to compare MS. 7 with another eastern copy. I bet half (if not more) of these so-called "variants" will disappear.

By comparing MS. 7 to Gwillaim and Pusey (or to Phillipps 1388) - it is like comparing apples and oranges. It is useless - because these came from two totally different traditions - and one of those traditions was far more accurate and far less revisionary than the other.

I'm going to compare all these instances from MS. 7 to the Khabouris or some other ancient eastern copy and I will let you know how many of these 44 so-called "variants" are even an issue anymore.

[byrnesey]

Mr. Abudar, when you say that Juckel's Peshitta/Peshitto comparison is flawed because his Peshitto manuscripts are not the real Peshitto, just revisonary manuscripts that were rejected, what is your source for the "real Peshitto" and "real Peshitta"?

What are the names of these documents and where can I get them?

[Phil]

Shlama Akhi Paul,

I'm sorry to bring back this old topic :-S

Here is a facsimile page of the manuscript 7 (Add. 14460) of Gwilliam and Pusey critical edition.

Could you please take a look at and confirm if that is really an eastern ('nestorian') manuscript?

A more detailed description is here (LXXVI)

I'm asking because I've been fooled by those old catalogs before <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="" title="Blush" /><!-- s --> <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- s -->

Shlama

[Paul Younan]

That looks eastern, yes. Plate XI.

[Thirdwoe]

Ok...this has got me wondering a few things.

Paul,

How many Manuscripts exist of the Eastern Peshitta that have come down to today?

And are you saying that these are all copies, that are identical with the original Aramaic New Testament, that has come down to the Modern Printed Eastern Peshitta text, with no REAL variants in any of them?

That this means that the very same text is that given by the Apostles in the 1st century about 78 A.D.?

Also, which copy is the oldest that has survived? How old is the Khabouris Manuscript really?

Does there exist an Eastern Only Peshitta translation in English? Or do all those that are in print today, have Peshitto readings in them? Are each of these translations using Peshitto (Western) readings mixed with Peshitta (Eastern) readings? Lamsa, Murdoch, Etherige, Norton, Migeria, Bauscher, Roth and who ever else has produced one to date???

Thanks,
Chuck