Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Final Analysis of Juckel's Study
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

The basis for this comparison is flawed (we are not comparing Eastern MS. vs. Eastern Ms.), but here is the final breakdown of the "variants" found in MS. 7 of the Peshitta (an eastern copy):

Out of the 44 so-called "variants", their ranking by frequency:

Missing or transposed Proclitic (Waw, Beth, Lamedh or Daleth): Mattai (2), Marqus (3), Luqa (13). 18 total.

Missing words: Mattai (3), Marqus (3), Luqa (4), Yukhanan (1).
11 total.

Misspelling - Mattai (2), Marqus (1), Luqa (3), Yukhanan (1). 6 total.

Transposed Words: Mattai (1), Marqus (1), Luqa (2). 4 total.

Missing Pronominal Enclytic: Luqa(1), Yukhanan (1). 2 total.

Missing Diacretic marking (Syame, etc.): Luqa (2). 2 total.

Missing Anticipatory Pronominal Suffix: Mattai (1). 1 total.

All of these are scribal errors, Akhi. And even then, we are not comparing MS. 7 to another eastern manuscript - but to a critical apparatus by Gwilliam and Pusey which is based mostly on western texts and to Phillips 1288, a western text!

I thought you said there were "variants" in the eastern textual transmission of the Peshitta, Akhi? I thought you said "We should assume that there are variants, rather than that there are not!" I thought you said the so-called "variants" would be something OTHER than misspellings or simple scribal errors....."variants" along the line of Greek "variants!"

Well, where are they?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Messages In This Thread
Final Analysis of Juckel's Study - by Paul Younan - 04-23-2004, 09:04 PM
Re: Final Analysis of Juckel's Study - by yuku - 05-01-2004, 12:32 PM
[No subject] - by byrnesey - 05-01-2004, 01:23 PM
[No subject] - by yuku - 05-06-2004, 06:17 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)