Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
J. D. Michaelis' Intro. to N. T.
Shlama l' Khulkhon,

I've been looking over 'Introduction to the N. T.' by J. D. Michaelis and found an interesting quote....

"Charlemagne made use of the Syriac version for the purpose of correcting the Vulgate."

He lived from 742-814 A. D.

Bro. Larry
Is this from a book? If so which one? can u please post the ISBN as well, thank you in advance.

Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2, Part 1 By Johann David Michaelis
and Dissertation on the First Three Gospels by Herberts Marsh

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 22&f=false</a><!-- m -->
Also look at this:

Answer to several objections in regard to the antiquity of the Syriac version.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... g=PA33&dq=</a><!-- m -->"Answer+to+several+objections+in+regard+to
Quote: ... g=PA33&dq="Answer+to+several+objections+in+regard+to
Fixed link:

Could we actually have a copyist error in the Peshitta of Matthew 27:65 ?!?!?
Thanks to Jennings' dictionary we have the two manuscripts he's referring to, namely, the Philoxenian and Sinaitic Palimpsest (OS-S) - Old Syriac- Sinaiticus. Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the word "quaestionarius" was NOT used before the Middle Ages as he has stated is my next concern. "Custodia" would be more natural since this would indicate a guard as opposed to a tormentor / executioner status of a "quaestionarius." "Resh" and "daleth" look quite a bit alike. Reading "kap" for "qoph" seems a bit strained but quite possible I suppose.
If this is a MAJOR OBJECTION to the antiquity of the Peshitta it seems to be a very important matter.

Bro. Larry
Long ago in this forum Paul has proven that the Old Syriac New Testament text is a bogus translation based on some Greek version. The famous Sinaiticus Palimpset is also well-known to be a faulty translation based on the Greek Sianatiicus version, and them witten over in Greek. These are not Peshitta manuscripts.

Shlama Otto,

Sorry to arouse your anger...and rightly so...OS-S and OS-C are both pitiful in my estimation. I was merely pointing out the two manuscripts they were talking about in the book by Michaelis. OS_S has misspelled qostodia by omitting waw after qoph and the final alap is supplied in brackets (By Jennings or whomever). Our English word 'custodian' of course is very similar to Greek 'koustodia' but the word is of Latin origin just like 'quaestinarius'. I'm still wondering if this is a goof in the Peshitta because a 'quaestionarius' is an interrogator who often uses brutality or torture to get answers. A Roman 'custodia' would answer better to a 'guard.'

Shlama w'Burkate, Bro. Larry

What makes this even more alarming is the multiple uses of 'quaestionarius' in the Peshitta. Matthew 27:65 & 66 as well as Matthew 28: 11 & 12
Hmmm...a word for an 'interrogator' substituted for a word meaning 'guard' with the main insinuation being that 'quaestionarius' was NOT used before the Middle Ages. I think we need to send an SOS to akhay Paul, Andrew, and Glenn. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Bro. Larry
In the Peshitta Matthew 27: 65 begins:

.....[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rnw=sq Jwkl ty0 Sw=lyp Jwhl rm0[/font]

The words are read from right to left: [said] [to him] [Pilate] [You have] [guards].....

Is there really a problem with this word for guards or soldiers as it is a semitic version of the Roman (Latin) word "quaestionarius" ?

Shlama akhi Otto,

My main concern was the statement made by the person Michaeli is referring to. If 'quaestionarius' comes from the Middle Ages and not from the 1st century, that's a pretty hot issue, right? <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->

Bro. Larry

Well, as it turns out, 'quaestionarius' is not a term of the Middle Ages after all. Rank #152 of page 39 of this PDF sheds some light. These are a huge listing of orders and ranks on a stone inscription dated 210 A. D. if I remember correctly....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ha=emardso</a><!-- m -->

Also Wikipedia gives a list of Roman army unit types and military ranks FROM THE ROMAN REPUBLIC TO THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Under 'quaestionarius' it reads "an interrogator or torturer".

Bro. Larry

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)