09-20-2011, 04:47 PM
Hi Chuck,
I am sending you via your regular email the corrections I have saved since Dec. 2008 in three brief one page files. They are self explanatory.
I have used the 1905 critical edition of the Peshitta NT as supplied by Online Bible in Hebrew characters. You should really do some research on it to appreciate its value. It is not one manuscript; it is an edition based on approx. 84 Aramaic manuscripts; about 77 of them are Peshitta mss., some Eastern, most Western. I don't think you appreciate how close the Eastern and Western manuscripts are to each other in their texts. On any one page of the NT, you may find one meaningful variant between the Khabouris and the 1905 Peshitta edition. I do not count a compound word in one that is separated in the other, as there is no difference in meaning in such cases. I count twenty differences in Matthew 1-6 (thirteen & a half pages), including three differences in the spelling of Jerusalem between the two Peshittas, three one letter proclitic differences (two w's-"and" & one infinitive marker "l" (not necessary grammatically), and two other one letter spelling differences that do not change the sense. That leaves thirteen somewhat significant variants between the two in thirteen + pages. There are more than 1400 words in those six chapters, and 13/1400 means 0.9% of the words are affected and 38 letters of 9696 letters are involved, or 0.4% of the letters. That puts agreement between the Khabouris and the 1905 (Western) edition at 99.1% to 99.6%.
The Khabouris is a single Eastern manuscript, and a standard Eastern edition (1886 Peshitta NT with Psalms in Nestorian script, printed in NY city) agrees with the 1905 edition in nine of the thirteen places where the Khabouris differs from the 1905 edition, so the 1905 is actually closer in agreement with the Eastern Peshitta than is the Khabouris! That is because the 1905 text of the Gospels is based on 42 manuscripts, which weeds out individual copyist errors encountered in any individual manuscript by comparing readings with many manuscripts in every place.
If we subtract the nine idiosycrancies of the Khabouris, we have only four significant differences between the Eastern & Western texts of Peshitta; that is only 0.3% variation, or 99.7% substantive agreement!
We should not get too excited about any one manuscript, Khabouris, or otherwise, as no one single witness will be completely reliable, as compared to the agreement of many witnesses. This Khabouris rage will pass, and the 1905 critical edition will gain more and more respect among Peshitta scholars.
I have not deviated from the text of the Online Bible 1905 Peshitta edition in my interlinear. Others who profess to follow it have deviated from it in omitting Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, and in the readings of Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, and other places. I have never changed a reading in Aramaic in favor of another text; all of it was as supplied in the module Online Bible provides to users of the program, and its Hebrew font was used, as is, also. It was not my purpose to play the role of textual critic, merely to translate this critical edition of the western Peshitta, which contains the 27 book canon, which canon I accept as divine Scripture, and whose text , based on comparisons of some 84 Aramaic manuscripts, I believe is the most reliable to be found of any complete New Testament extant.
I have several different digital copies of the 1905 Peshitta edition by British and Foreign Bible Societies, and they all have Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34 & 28:29, and the western readings of Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Since the 1905 edition has these verses, I included them. The only Syriac source I know for Acts 15:34 is the church father, Ephraim, who died AD 373. It was included in Tremellius' Peshitta edition of 1569, as was Acts 28:29.He quoted the Peshitta extensively. Acts 8:37 is not found in any Peshitta ms, but is in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1600, the Greek uncial E and the Itala Version (2nd century).
If I am going to err in this matter of whether to accept a verse or passage as original scripture or not, I have made it my policy to give the benefit of the doubt to the verse, unless it is obviously incoherent and out of context with the passage surrounding it. I know that opens a can of worms for some, but my conscience feels better so doing. I cannot reject a passage or verse by Peshitta textual testimony alone. I consider Greek, Latin and other versions as well, along with church fathers, for they are all witnesses as well. If Tremellius saw fit to put these verses in the Peshitta NT, I give him the benefit of the doubt also, believing he was a devout believer in scripture and Christ, who would not dream of adding a verse or verses without any manuscript authority whatsoever. Perhaps the manuscript he used has been lost since 1569.
I do have a printed edition printed 1979, and it is identical with the others, except that Acts 8:37 is separated from the text and put at the bottom of the page. The Luke and John passages are included in the text within brackets. The electronic digital editions have no brackets anywhere in any of these passages, and include all the verses in the main body of the text. One such edition is the beautiful - The Ancient P'shitto in Levistam Hebrew font with vowel pointing and spirant marks.
The church of the East did a great job of preserving the 22 books of their canon; the Western church apparently kept Aramaic manuscripts of the other five books accepted as inspired by the Western churches, to which Aramaic text the Greek manuscripts testify as their original, as they do in the 22 book canon to the Peshitta.
No NT book was originally written in Greek. The Greek NT is written in translational Greek, very like that of the LXX, and the Greek manuscripts bear witness to less than excellent grammar, syntax, facts of names of persons and places, currencies, and the Divine Name is altogether missing in Greek! The Semitic syntax and word order is easy to see in all the Greek NT books, as are variant readings, based on different understandings and translations of Aramaic words found in the 1905 Peshitta edition.
But the Greek itself bears witness to the language of the people of Israel ("Hebrais"-defined as Aramaic in Greek lexicons occurs seven times in the Gospels and Acts)and its environs of Samaria, Syria and Asia, and even among the Barbarians on the island of Malta, as Aramaic. Paul and his Jewish and Syrian companions were able to communicate with the people in all those places, because the Aramaic language had been established as the language of commerce throughout the ancient world from the Assyrian Empire onward, to the Babylonian Empire, through the Persian Empire and onward to the Roman times.
Enough for now.
Blessings and Peace,
Dave
I am sending you via your regular email the corrections I have saved since Dec. 2008 in three brief one page files. They are self explanatory.
I have used the 1905 critical edition of the Peshitta NT as supplied by Online Bible in Hebrew characters. You should really do some research on it to appreciate its value. It is not one manuscript; it is an edition based on approx. 84 Aramaic manuscripts; about 77 of them are Peshitta mss., some Eastern, most Western. I don't think you appreciate how close the Eastern and Western manuscripts are to each other in their texts. On any one page of the NT, you may find one meaningful variant between the Khabouris and the 1905 Peshitta edition. I do not count a compound word in one that is separated in the other, as there is no difference in meaning in such cases. I count twenty differences in Matthew 1-6 (thirteen & a half pages), including three differences in the spelling of Jerusalem between the two Peshittas, three one letter proclitic differences (two w's-"and" & one infinitive marker "l" (not necessary grammatically), and two other one letter spelling differences that do not change the sense. That leaves thirteen somewhat significant variants between the two in thirteen + pages. There are more than 1400 words in those six chapters, and 13/1400 means 0.9% of the words are affected and 38 letters of 9696 letters are involved, or 0.4% of the letters. That puts agreement between the Khabouris and the 1905 (Western) edition at 99.1% to 99.6%.
The Khabouris is a single Eastern manuscript, and a standard Eastern edition (1886 Peshitta NT with Psalms in Nestorian script, printed in NY city) agrees with the 1905 edition in nine of the thirteen places where the Khabouris differs from the 1905 edition, so the 1905 is actually closer in agreement with the Eastern Peshitta than is the Khabouris! That is because the 1905 text of the Gospels is based on 42 manuscripts, which weeds out individual copyist errors encountered in any individual manuscript by comparing readings with many manuscripts in every place.
If we subtract the nine idiosycrancies of the Khabouris, we have only four significant differences between the Eastern & Western texts of Peshitta; that is only 0.3% variation, or 99.7% substantive agreement!
We should not get too excited about any one manuscript, Khabouris, or otherwise, as no one single witness will be completely reliable, as compared to the agreement of many witnesses. This Khabouris rage will pass, and the 1905 critical edition will gain more and more respect among Peshitta scholars.
I have not deviated from the text of the Online Bible 1905 Peshitta edition in my interlinear. Others who profess to follow it have deviated from it in omitting Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, and in the readings of Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, and other places. I have never changed a reading in Aramaic in favor of another text; all of it was as supplied in the module Online Bible provides to users of the program, and its Hebrew font was used, as is, also. It was not my purpose to play the role of textual critic, merely to translate this critical edition of the western Peshitta, which contains the 27 book canon, which canon I accept as divine Scripture, and whose text , based on comparisons of some 84 Aramaic manuscripts, I believe is the most reliable to be found of any complete New Testament extant.
I have several different digital copies of the 1905 Peshitta edition by British and Foreign Bible Societies, and they all have Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34 & 28:29, and the western readings of Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Since the 1905 edition has these verses, I included them. The only Syriac source I know for Acts 15:34 is the church father, Ephraim, who died AD 373. It was included in Tremellius' Peshitta edition of 1569, as was Acts 28:29.He quoted the Peshitta extensively. Acts 8:37 is not found in any Peshitta ms, but is in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1600, the Greek uncial E and the Itala Version (2nd century).
If I am going to err in this matter of whether to accept a verse or passage as original scripture or not, I have made it my policy to give the benefit of the doubt to the verse, unless it is obviously incoherent and out of context with the passage surrounding it. I know that opens a can of worms for some, but my conscience feels better so doing. I cannot reject a passage or verse by Peshitta textual testimony alone. I consider Greek, Latin and other versions as well, along with church fathers, for they are all witnesses as well. If Tremellius saw fit to put these verses in the Peshitta NT, I give him the benefit of the doubt also, believing he was a devout believer in scripture and Christ, who would not dream of adding a verse or verses without any manuscript authority whatsoever. Perhaps the manuscript he used has been lost since 1569.
I do have a printed edition printed 1979, and it is identical with the others, except that Acts 8:37 is separated from the text and put at the bottom of the page. The Luke and John passages are included in the text within brackets. The electronic digital editions have no brackets anywhere in any of these passages, and include all the verses in the main body of the text. One such edition is the beautiful - The Ancient P'shitto in Levistam Hebrew font with vowel pointing and spirant marks.
The church of the East did a great job of preserving the 22 books of their canon; the Western church apparently kept Aramaic manuscripts of the other five books accepted as inspired by the Western churches, to which Aramaic text the Greek manuscripts testify as their original, as they do in the 22 book canon to the Peshitta.
No NT book was originally written in Greek. The Greek NT is written in translational Greek, very like that of the LXX, and the Greek manuscripts bear witness to less than excellent grammar, syntax, facts of names of persons and places, currencies, and the Divine Name is altogether missing in Greek! The Semitic syntax and word order is easy to see in all the Greek NT books, as are variant readings, based on different understandings and translations of Aramaic words found in the 1905 Peshitta edition.
But the Greek itself bears witness to the language of the people of Israel ("Hebrais"-defined as Aramaic in Greek lexicons occurs seven times in the Gospels and Acts)and its environs of Samaria, Syria and Asia, and even among the Barbarians on the island of Malta, as Aramaic. Paul and his Jewish and Syrian companions were able to communicate with the people in all those places, because the Aramaic language had been established as the language of commerce throughout the ancient world from the Assyrian Empire onward, to the Babylonian Empire, through the Persian Empire and onward to the Roman times.
Enough for now.
Blessings and Peace,
Dave