08-07-2012, 06:20 PM
Hi DC,
Among the western copies (Peshitto) yes, not among the eastern copies.
99% of the ones I've seen are simple spelling changes, word omission (error) or contractions like "isn't" instead of "is not" or "there's" instead of "there is" ... (specifically, "Bar-Nasha" (son-of-man) instead of "Breh d'Anasha" (son-of-man)). It's not a bad situation at all.
It's not often clear in the case of a contraction which reading was original. As in English, both "isn't" and "is not" are valid.
The critical text is not really going to be helpful when studying the eastern copies, because there isn't much variation to speak of (certainly none where the meaning is altered.) You can get an idea of the nature of the differences between the Khabouris text and that of the critical edition of 1905 by looking at the notes Stephen Silver had compiled on dukhrana.com.
+Shamasha
DrawCloser Wrote:Paul, number 3, I honestly messed up in that question, I wasn't thinking clearly. I already knew of Peshitta and Peshitto variations. What I should have asked, is there evidence of standardization among the Aramaic manuscripts (examples: like the Alexandrian and Western differences, but then later manuscripts more in agreement)
Among the western copies (Peshitto) yes, not among the eastern copies.
DrawCloser Wrote:Last question, with the scribal errors present, is it possible to compile a critical text from Peshitta to get exactly what the original autographs had, (or is the scribal mess [unfortunately] in that bad of a situation)?
99% of the ones I've seen are simple spelling changes, word omission (error) or contractions like "isn't" instead of "is not" or "there's" instead of "there is" ... (specifically, "Bar-Nasha" (son-of-man) instead of "Breh d'Anasha" (son-of-man)). It's not a bad situation at all.
It's not often clear in the case of a contraction which reading was original. As in English, both "isn't" and "is not" are valid.
The critical text is not really going to be helpful when studying the eastern copies, because there isn't much variation to speak of (certainly none where the meaning is altered.) You can get an idea of the nature of the differences between the Khabouris text and that of the critical edition of 1905 by looking at the notes Stephen Silver had compiled on dukhrana.com.
+Shamasha