Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cod. Plut. I No. 58
#1
Here is Pehitta manuscript with four Gospels in aramaic. Why canon tables from Eusebius are used there?

http://aramaico.wordpress.com/2010/10/21...-peshitta/
Reply
#2
It's probably a western copy. Does it say the origin of the manuscript?
Reply
#3
Shlama g_a_kowalski and Paul,

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 -->)

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 -->
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhan Phil,

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:

[Image: eusibian_canons.jpg]

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Paul Younan Wrote: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.
Could you please post some images showing eastern and western ways of writing Kaph and Aleph? This is may be very helpful.
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Paul.

Thank you very much for the clarifications!

Paul Younan Wrote: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.

So this may explain the eastern vowel points, they were added by a later hand??

Edit: and of course you are right, akhi Paul <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> I take a look at the critical apparatus of the Pusey and Gwilliam editiion of the Gospels corresponding to Add. 7157, and some passages like Mt. 6:32, Mt. 21:4, Mk. 4:18, etc. were corrected by a later hand to match the eastern reading.
Reply
#7
g_a_kowalski Wrote:Could you please post some images showing eastern and western ways of writing Kaph and Aleph? This is may be very helpful.

Shlama Akhi,

Below is an image from Luqa 18:42 ("What do you want Me to do for you?"):

[Image: mark18-41.jpg]

In the western final Kaph, there is a horizontal line across the top.

The eastern Aleph tends to be more aligned with the bottom, the western Aleph tilts upward.

Small little differences, but I can usually tell right away just from a few simple tests where a manuscript originates from, even the Estrangelo has regional nuances.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
Phil Wrote:Edit: and of course you are right, akhi Paul <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> I take a look at the critical apparatus of the Pusey and Gwilliam editiion of the Gospels corresponding to Add. 7157, and some passages like Mt. 6:32, Mt. 21:4, Mk. 4:18, etc. were corrected by a later hand to match the eastern reading.

Yes, makes sense. Maybe it was purchased by someone in the CoE at some point, but it definitely originates within the western tradition not the eastern. I don't think any eastern manuscripts would have Eusebian Canons (no offense intended, but Eusebius was relatively unknown in the east.) It would be like finding Aaphrahat in a Greek manuscript.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)