10-02-2014, 10:18 PM
Shlama Akhi Chuck,
The Khabouris is certainly not anywhere near the oldest manuscript. It is almost certainly an 11th-12th century copy. In fact I believe it was carbon dated to that period.
What's important about the Khabouris, is that like all manuscripts, it is copied from one that became too old to continue using. The investigation into the colophon (which, contrary to what Akhan Steve said, are usually very accurate) is important because they usually contain the name of the scribe, his bishop/elder, the date he made the copy and sometimes what he made it from.
Unfortunately for the Khabouris, the colophon was the most severely damaged, wrinkled and water-damaged page in the entire manuscript.
So again, it's not the age of the Khabouris that is important. It's the age of the parent manuscript that it was copied from. If that date was, say, 350 - then we have a manuscript that is (at most) 2-3 copies away from the original 1st century autographs.
The same thing is what is important about the Arabic translation of the Diatesseron. It's not that the Arabic copy age is important. It's that the colophon states the name of the translator, the fact that he translated from an Aramaic source that reads exactly like the Peshitta Gospels, and that gives us insight into the age of the Peshitta itself which Tatian the Assyrian from Nineveh, used.
I'll be callin Eric on Saturday. Then Qasha Antwan Latchin and I can examine the contents on Sunday when I head into Mar Yukhnannan Church. I can also take it to the Patriarch for examination.
+Shamasha
+Shamasha
The Khabouris is certainly not anywhere near the oldest manuscript. It is almost certainly an 11th-12th century copy. In fact I believe it was carbon dated to that period.
What's important about the Khabouris, is that like all manuscripts, it is copied from one that became too old to continue using. The investigation into the colophon (which, contrary to what Akhan Steve said, are usually very accurate) is important because they usually contain the name of the scribe, his bishop/elder, the date he made the copy and sometimes what he made it from.
Unfortunately for the Khabouris, the colophon was the most severely damaged, wrinkled and water-damaged page in the entire manuscript.
So again, it's not the age of the Khabouris that is important. It's the age of the parent manuscript that it was copied from. If that date was, say, 350 - then we have a manuscript that is (at most) 2-3 copies away from the original 1st century autographs.
The same thing is what is important about the Arabic translation of the Diatesseron. It's not that the Arabic copy age is important. It's that the colophon states the name of the translator, the fact that he translated from an Aramaic source that reads exactly like the Peshitta Gospels, and that gives us insight into the age of the Peshitta itself which Tatian the Assyrian from Nineveh, used.
I'll be callin Eric on Saturday. Then Qasha Antwan Latchin and I can examine the contents on Sunday when I head into Mar Yukhnannan Church. I can also take it to the Patriarch for examination.
+Shamasha
+Shamasha