03-08-2013, 02:23 PM
I just don't seem to have the time to keep up with this thread. :-)
++++++++++
Given each and every one of the variants in the Greek traditions (note plural, as the Greek is not one singular text family as the Peshitta is) one would think that at least one of them would have transliterated /rbwly/. Just *one.*
However, out of all of the permutations, not a single manuscript does.
We see /rabbouni/, /rabbounei/, /rabb?nei/, /rabouni/, and /rabb?ni/ (which are all pretty much phonetically equivalent due to diphthongs in Koine) and some manuscripts even lack "in Hebrew" (like the Old Syriac) so even leaving Syriac as Syriac would have been perfectly fine: But not a single one of them has anything close to /rabbouli/. Thousands of them.
++++++++++
Completely insignificant when it comes to theology and practical personal application.
Very significant when it comes to textual transmission, however, as it's an important marker.
++++++++++
I have looked over all editions with variants that I have access to directly and have asked around. The only known example of the Peshitta purportedly having /rbwny/ can be found in Murdock's translation's footnotes; however, where this reading was supposedly taken from either the British and Foreign Bible Society of London's 1816 text or the subsequent 1824 revision, which were an early critical edition of the Western Syriac text type (Peshitto), the edition I'm able to get my hands on reads /rbwly/. (In other words, Murdock apparently tried to correct this as well, or used another source: see below)
I'm still waiting for a few more inquiries to come back, so we will see if anything changes.
The Arabic Diatessaron has /r)bwny/ where the Latin Diatessaron has /rabboni/.
++++++++++
In any case, /rabbouli/ is a perfectly fine Syriac word, which many historians and lexicographers have simply equated with /rabboni/. It just does not occur anywhere in any contemporary Aramaic to Jesus or Mary (in any dialect) which is what makes it problematic here.
++++++++++
More forthcoming.
++++++++++
Burning one Wrote:but let's cut to the chase and look at the Greek witness, and suddenly the Peshitta's minor apparent scribal error pales in comparison: SIX different readings exist there in this part of the verse (note: not scribal error -- readings), which makes it suddenly a bit more problematic in choosing what to render, if the Peshitta is to be disregarded.
...
that RABBULI is a problem is a red herring. the problem lay with the Greek, which can't decide how to render the term, thus the bazillion* variants there.
Given each and every one of the variants in the Greek traditions (note plural, as the Greek is not one singular text family as the Peshitta is) one would think that at least one of them would have transliterated /rbwly/. Just *one.*
However, out of all of the permutations, not a single manuscript does.
We see /rabbouni/, /rabbounei/, /rabb?nei/, /rabouni/, and /rabb?ni/ (which are all pretty much phonetically equivalent due to diphthongs in Koine) and some manuscripts even lack "in Hebrew" (like the Old Syriac) so even leaving Syriac as Syriac would have been perfectly fine: But not a single one of them has anything close to /rabbouli/. Thousands of them.
++++++++++
Paul Younan Wrote:This is a very insignificant error, all things considered.
Completely insignificant when it comes to theology and practical personal application.
Very significant when it comes to textual transmission, however, as it's an important marker.
++++++++++
Thirdwoe Wrote:Steve, you said they all show this, but how do you know that they all have it this way? Have you checked them all...and if so, tell me how please.
I have looked over all editions with variants that I have access to directly and have asked around. The only known example of the Peshitta purportedly having /rbwny/ can be found in Murdock's translation's footnotes; however, where this reading was supposedly taken from either the British and Foreign Bible Society of London's 1816 text or the subsequent 1824 revision, which were an early critical edition of the Western Syriac text type (Peshitto), the edition I'm able to get my hands on reads /rbwly/. (In other words, Murdock apparently tried to correct this as well, or used another source: see below)
I'm still waiting for a few more inquiries to come back, so we will see if anything changes.
Thirdwoe Wrote:"If both English translations of the Diatessaron are correct in their renderings, then both Manuscripts they come from have/had the "Rabboni" reading, not "Rabbuli". They both have the gloss as the Peshitta does, but also like the Peshitta, they don't have the added gloss as found in the Cureatonian & Sinaitic versions, which further states "and she ran towards him that she might touch him." John 20:16c
The Arabic Diatessaron has /r)bwny/ where the Latin Diatessaron has /rabboni/.
++++++++++
In any case, /rabbouli/ is a perfectly fine Syriac word, which many historians and lexicographers have simply equated with /rabboni/. It just does not occur anywhere in any contemporary Aramaic to Jesus or Mary (in any dialect) which is what makes it problematic here.
++++++++++
More forthcoming.