03-29-2011, 03:24 AM
Shlama Akhan Phil,
No, this is a western copy too. I can tell from the final Kaph and also the Aleph. We easterners never write the final (connected) Kaph in that way, it's a much different shape in our script. That manuscript may have been in the possession of the Church of the East at one point, perhaps from a convert or as a library edition for reference. But it certainly was written by the hand of a western scribe. That would explain the Eusebian Canons being present. That would never happen in a manuscript from the hands of a CoE scribe.
Reference the following from the same book:
![[Image: eusibian_canons.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/eusibian_canons.jpg)
+Shamasha
Phil Wrote:That is indeed a manuscript of the Western tradition. But Eastern Peshitta manuscripts also sometimes have the Eusebian Canons. See for example B.M. Add. 7157 (a facsimile page here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofsyria03brituoft#page/n70/mode/1up">http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogue ... 0/mode/1up</a><!-- m -->)
No, this is a western copy too. I can tell from the final Kaph and also the Aleph. We easterners never write the final (connected) Kaph in that way, it's a much different shape in our script. That manuscript may have been in the possession of the Church of the East at one point, perhaps from a convert or as a library edition for reference. But it certainly was written by the hand of a western scribe. That would explain the Eusebian Canons being present. That would never happen in a manuscript from the hands of a CoE scribe.
Phil Wrote:For more about the Eusebian Canons in Aramaic manuscripts, see this work:
The Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons and Harmonizing Tables in the Syriac Tetraevangelium [G. H. Gwilliam] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/studiabiblicaess02univ#page/241/mode/1up">http://www.archive.org/stream/studiabib ... 1/mode/1up</a><!-- m -->
Reference the following from the same book:
+Shamasha