Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Post-scription notes (of the Gospels) in the Khabouris
I went to the Dukhrana site a few times and opended up the copy (on the internet) of the Khabouris manuscripts and there are prescription notes and postscription notes for each of the 4 Gospels. The post-scription notes add just a little more information than the prescription notes. But concerning each of post-scription notes they are not written off at the column or off to the side. The notes are written right along with the text or one could say they are imbedded along with the the Gospel writings as if one were reading the text right from Matthew all the way to the end of John's Gospel. IOW, they would appear to be part of the scriptures along with the rest of what we know as scriptures(but I know these notes would not have the same weight as the actual scriptures. You guys still with me?)

For example, "post" Matthew remarks at the end of his gospel reads (along with the text), " Completion of the proclomation of Matthew the Apostle, that was spoken and preached in Hebrew in Palestine; restored. . . ."

Mark's postscription remarks are, "Completion of the proclomation of the blessed Mark, the Apostle, that he proclaimed to the Romans - in Rome. . ."

I wish to ask that, since these notes are written right along with the text and with, basically no interruption and blends in from one Gospel to another, would these notes also be in all other Aramaic Peshitta manuscripts (in addition to the Khabouris)?? I mean, is the tradition geniune and reliable concerning the postscription remarks of the Gosepls?? Anyone know?? Is the information genuine and true that are described in these notes? Thank you.


Mike Karoules
Mingana 148 also has postscriptions
and very detailed. But these notes are in different color
than the usual text.
Plus it has brief history of 70 Apostles' lives at
the beginning of the manuscript. Very interesting.
What is Mingana 148, IPO? Would you be able to give just a little more information. At the outset I know it is an Aramaic Peshitta manuscript but I would think these notes would be the same (both prescription and postscription) or virtually the same seeing that the textual copying tradition of New Testament Aramaic Peshitta is so accurate and meticulous.

A little more detail?


Mike Karoules
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 148/table/</a><!-- m -->
PM me if you need all the downloaded file.

Thanks, can you check and see if the postscription remarks are the same in each of the 4
Gospels in BOTH manuscripts (Khabouris and Minguana/Mingana)?

Also, these remarks in the pre and postscription reliable or can they be taken to be accepted as true?


I believe they are reliable and they did not come from nothing but
from some knowledge.
Lets me check Mingana 148.
Mingana 148

Page 54. Completion of the euangellion of Matay that
spoke Hebrew in Palestine.
Holy euangelion and preaching of Markos.

Page 74. Completion of preaching of Markos that spoke Roman language in Rome.
Holy euangelion and preaching of Luka.

Page 123. Completion of euangelion of Luka that preached and spoke in Greek
in Alexandria the great.
Holy euangelion and preaching of Yahanan.

Page 160.Completion of holy euangelion preaching of Yohanan.
that spoke and preached and proclaimed in Greek in Ephesus.
Preaching of the truth and proclaimers Matay, Markos, Luka and Yohanan.
Ivan, seems that these postscription remarks are pretty much word for word the same postscription remarks as in (also ) the Khabouris. Thank you for doing this for me, Ivan.


IPOstapyuk Wrote:Mingana 148

Page 54. Completion of the euangellion of Matay that
spoke Hebrew in Palestine.

Palestine? So this is post-Hadrian comment because the Philestines/Kanaan nation died out long before. It was emperor Hadrian who mocked Israel by naming them Palestine or does it not really say Palestine?
Also it was used by Ancient Greek writes
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Actually, these comments originated from Eusebius and made their way by scribes into later copies of the Peshitta. (No one actually believes the Gospel of Mark was penned in Latin.)

Any proof that they came from Eusebius?
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Any proof that they came from Eusebius?

Read his history of the church. He says Matthew in Hebrew, Mark in Latin (written in Rome while he was with Peter!), and Luke and John in Greek.

This legend ultimately made its way into the east, and some later copyists added these post graphs to the gospel copies.

Most people don't seem to consider the fact that Luke was Syrian lol.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)