Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Final Analysis of Juckel's Study
#1
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]
Reply
#2
shlomo oh Paul,

Yuri seems to have skipt my early analysis between the current official Peshitta and Peshitto which have been seperated by over 1500 years. The Official Peshitto doesn't have the variants of these so called variant manuscripts. Why would anyone want to use a manuscript which hasn't influenced the Official Peshitto version. The fact that Peshitto agrees with the Peshitta after more than 1500 years apart, demonstrates that these variant manuscripts are useless.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Paul Younan Wrote: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?
Reply
#3
abudar2000 Wrote:shlomo oh Paul,

Yuri seems to have skipt my early analysis between the current official Peshitta and Peshitto which have been seperated by over 1500 years. The Official Peshitto doesn't have the variants of these so called variant manuscripts. Why would anyone want to use a manuscript which hasn't influenced the Official Peshitto version. The fact that Peshitto agrees with the Peshitta after more than 1500 years apart, demonstrates that these variant manuscripts are useless.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Greetings, Abudar,

This whole argument is really rather strange IMHO...

I think we all agree that the Aramaic textual tradition of the Peshitta is very stable and uniform, much more so than the others. But it's certainly not _completely_ stable and uniform. There are some variants in the Peshitta textual tradition, as well, although most of them are rather minor.

I can even grant to Akhi Paul that the eastern Peshitta textual tradition may be somewhat more uniform than the western Peshitto textual tradition... but it's only a matter of degree. Fundamentally IMHO these two traditions are very similar in their uniformity.

But OTOH very few people outside of Peshitta.org would be impressed by such uniformity of the Peshitta textual tradition. Among the professional biblical scholars, such uniformity is certainly not considered as a big sign of distinction. Indeed, if uniformity were to be prized highly, then we should see the Byzantine text as the winner among all Greek texts. But it isn't.

Once again, I would like to call on all supporters of the Aramaic textual tradition to try to focus on what we all have in common, rather than on our differences. Let's focus on what unites us, rather than on what divides us.

Because if we only bicker and fight among each other -- "My text is better!", "No, my text is better!", "No, my text is the best!" -- then, unfortunately, we will miss the real enemy.

The real enemy is not your fellow Aramaic supporter. Our real target should be the 99% of professional biblical scholars who've never been exposed to anything outside of Greek dogma. But, if we just keep fighting among each other, I'm afraid that we'll never make any progress in advancing our case to the biblical mainstream.

I think all Aramaic/Hebrew supporters should try to build some sort of a common front, that might also include even some Byzantine text supporters. Then the Alexandrian Greek zombies will really start shaking in their boots... They are really very vulnerable to criticism, because their Alexandrian Greek text is full of holes. Their text is a dud. So _this_ should be our main target of criticism!

Myself, I also find many problems with what Trimm is doing. But sometimes he also gets some things right, so I prefer to stress that, rather than focus on his faults.

Of course, my own criticism of Trimm is the opposite of what some people here are saying. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> They criticise Trimm for allegedly embracing the Old Syriac, but I criticise him for not embracing it enough!

In fact, Trimm of course only pays the lip-service to the Old Syriac. In fact, AFAIK his gospels that he's publishing are 99% Peshitta, so he's not really pushing the Old Syriac in any big way at all.

There seems to be a very big gap between what he says and what he does...

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
Quote:I think all Aramaic/Hebrew supporters should try to build some sort of a common front, that might also include even some Byzantine text supporters. Then the Alexandrian Greek zombies will really start shaking in their boots... They are really very vulnerable to criticism, because their Alexandrian Greek text is full of holes. Their text is a dud. So _this_ should be our main target of criticism!

You contradict yourself and just have answered your own question, so are wasting people's time by continuing the discussion. You speak of unity yet you criticise the Alexandrian. As you see the Alexandrian, so we see the Old Syriac. As you see the Alexandrian to contain errors, we see the Old Syriac, Alexandrian and even Byzantine to be full of errors. If you are going to "fight" wrong versions, you had better be honest with yourself and fight your precious Byzantine also. There can only be one...

I have nothing else to say, I just wanted to make known the uselessness of this discussion.
Reply
#5
yuku Wrote:I think all Aramaic/Hebrew supporters should try to build some sort of a common front, that might also include even some Byzantine text supporters. Then the Alexandrian Greek zombies will really start shaking in their boots... They are really very vulnerable to criticism, because their Alexandrian Greek text is full of holes. Their text is a dud. So _this_ should be our main target of criticism!

And I hope that once the problems with the XIKI are fixed that we may have a place to unite that front. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
'Just your average Antithetical Italian "Protestant" House-churching Charismatic Evangelical Karaite "Fundamentalist" for Aramaic Primacy... Drat I think I left something out... One sec.. I'll add on more as I think of it.
Reply
#6
byrnesey Wrote:You contradict yourself and just have answered your own question, so are wasting people's time by continuing the discussion. You speak of unity yet you criticise the Alexandrian. As you see the Alexandrian, so we see the Old Syriac. As you see the Alexandrian to contain errors, we see the Old Syriac, Alexandrian and even Byzantine to be full of errors. If you are going to "fight" wrong versions, you had better be honest with yourself and fight your precious Byzantine also. There can only be one...

I have nothing else to say, I just wanted to make known the uselessness of this discussion.

Shlama, Byrnesey,

In the academic world, 99% of scholars use only the Alexandrian Greek text, which is highly problematic. But this is the only thing that they know about. So the question is, How to open up their eyes and minds, so that they may recognise the value of the ancient Aramaic textual tradition of the gospels.

Now, what I'm suggesting is that this can best be done by building alliances with others who understand just how problematic Alexandrian text is. OTOH, if we only spend most of our time on fighting other Aramaic supporters, all those lazy academic mainstreamers will be left alone, and will never even get a chance to hear about the great value of the Aramaic textual tradition of the gospels.

Yes, I understand that you dislike the Old Syriac, and I'm _not_ trying to change your mind about it. Rather, I'm suggesting that your dislike of the Old Syriac, alone, is not going to advance the cause of making the value of the Aramaic textual tradition of the gospels better understood among the mainstream biblical scholars. Or among the general Christian public, who mostly listen to what these scholars are saying to them.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)