Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels
#1
Does this have both the Aramaic text of the various versions and the English translations of each in parallel or is it Aramaic only? I'm thinking about possibly getting them if they have the English, but if not I'll probably need to wait until I get a better command of Aramaic. Also, is George A. Kiraz an Aramaic primacist?
Reply
#2
Not in English. Here is Matthew for a preview.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=fYwFh8GGnesC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=fYwFh8 ... &q&f=false</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
#3
I've been trying to compare these 4 editions, but I cannot find the Peshitta version, it differs from the text which is at dukhrana.com.
Can somebody see what's going on? How many 'peshitta's do we have?
Reply
#4
Which verse did you see was not the same as at Dukhrana?

Here's Mark, Luke, and John. Scroll down to the bottom for the start of the book, then go up. The Peshitta text is the text with the letter P shown to the far right of the page.

Mark: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2HzjE7wuCNwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=2HzjE7 ... &q&f=false</a><!-- m -->

Luke: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=D4Tinn6jKgoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Comparative+edition+of+the+Syriac+Gospels:+Luke&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Myg_UunkLaOriQKosoDQDA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Comparative%20edition%20of%20the%20Syriac%20Gospels%3A%20Luke&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=D4Tinn ... ke&f=false</a><!-- m -->

John: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=0JzbUMwL3xEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22George+Anton+Kiraz%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Sc_UsHEGuSdiQK1o4CQCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=0JzbUM ... &q&f=false</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
#5
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Does this have both the Aramaic text of the various versions and the English translations of each in parallel or is it Aramaic only? I'm thinking about possibly getting them if they have the English, but if not I'll probably need to wait until I get a better command of Aramaic. Also, is George A. Kiraz an Aramaic primacist?

Indeed, the Comparative Edition does not have any English translation in it. It's solely for the purpose of comparing the major Syriac versions. I actually obtained my copy directly from Dr. Kiraz as a gift after working on the original eBethArk? project with him many years back (back when *I* was a Peshitta primacist... wow that was a long time ago). He is a first class scholar of more conventional contentions and is certainly not a Peshitta primacist. As to his thoughts on the broader spectrum of Aramaic source criticism, I'm not sure he'd self-identify as an Aramaic primacist, either (with all that tends to entail). However, I could not not speak for him.
Reply
#6
distazo Wrote:I've been trying to compare these 4 editions, but I cannot find the Peshitta version, it differs from the text which is at dukhrana.com.
Can somebody see what's going on? How many 'peshitta's do we have?

Dukhrana uses the standardized Peshitta text that most editions do and that the Comparative Edition labels as "P".

If you want a copy with textual variants (yes they do exist) you'll be hard-pressed to find one as they're either obscure, out of print, or both. The Leiden editions are hard to come by and are mostly for the Peshitta OT. Most variants are found within early manuscripts as the Peshitta was standardized very early on in its life.
Reply
#7
SteveCaruso Wrote:
distazo Wrote:I've been trying to compare these 4 editions, but I cannot find the Peshitta version, it differs from the text which is at dukhrana.com.
Can somebody see what's going on? How many 'peshitta's do we have?

Dukhrana uses the standardized Peshitta text that most editions do and that the Comparative Edition labels as "P".

If you want a copy with textual variants (yes they do exist) you'll be hard-pressed to find one as they're either obscure, out of print, or both. The Leiden editions are hard to come by and are mostly for the Peshitta OT. Most variants are found within early manuscripts as the Peshitta was standardized very early on in its life.

Steve, just curious, do you have some samples of the superiority of the Greek text?
Reply
#8
:

I would like to know that too, Steve.

Also, by variants, do you mean the early Manuscripts of the Eastern Peshitta tradition, I've been finding a number of them between the Eastern and Western versions, as I go through them line by line, word by word...but not in the Eastern text itself, not a true variant anyway, just one word split into two words, like everything/every thing, something/ a thing, or someone/man...stuff like that.

I would like to know any and all of them that you might have found, which would be a real variant in a verse.

Mrs. Magiera said she knows of some as well, but couldn't provide any examples to me, only saying that Mrs. Barbara Aland has listed them someplace in her research papers.

In any case, I don't think we are talking about much of anything significant, as we see in the Greek versions, not as to the scale or the importance of the variants themselves.

If you were told that you could choose and only have one copy of a Greek and one copy of an Aramaic Manuscript, and were denied any access to any others, which ones would you chose? Which is best overall?

.
Reply
#9
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Does this have both the Aramaic text of the various versions and the English translations of each in parallel or is it Aramaic only? I'm thinking about possibly getting them if they have the English, but if not I'll probably need to wait until I get a better command of Aramaic. Also, is George A. Kiraz an Aramaic primacist?

Shlama Akhi:
To my knowledge, George Kiraz is a Greek Primacist as well as an Aramaic scholar. BTW, if you can master learning the Hebrew and Aramaic alep-bet, along with K'tav Ashuri and Estrangelo glyphs, you can begin to recognise word roots by using the various lexicons both here and at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->. There are only 22 letters to memorize.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#10
I have learned Ashuri and am still learning Estrangela. Warrantless is much prettier script.
Reply
#11
distazo Wrote:Steve, just curious, do you have some samples of the superiority of the Greek text?
Thirdwoe Wrote:I would like to know that too, Steve.

This thread isn't the place to debate this and I presently do not have the time. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I'm not an Peshitta Primacist nor a Greek Primacist.

Thirdwoe Wrote:Also, by variants, do you mean the early Manuscripts of the Eastern Peshitta tradition, I've been finding a number of them between the Eastern and Western versions, as I go through them line by line, word by word...but not in the Eastern text itself, not a true variant anyway, just one word split into two words, like everything/every thing, something/ a thing, or someone/man...stuff like that.

In the earliest Peshitta manuscripts (c. 5th century; holdovers from before the East/West split in the Syrian Church) there are some examples of transitional texts between the Old Syriac and Peshitta forms where the overall form is distinctly Peshitta but contains a large number of Old Syriac-like and unique readings. Such examples are Codex Phillipps, MS Dawkins 3, MS Vat. Syr. 12, etc.. Sadly, none of these to my knowledge are digitized in searchable format, so I can't do a quick side-by-side glance to come up with examples (I'd have to get my hands on some scans). What the literature says is that we see texts like this quoted in the homilies of the early Syriac Church Fathers all over the place, and these kinds of variants are quite in character with what we see between Greek manuscript traditions. The Peshitta, however, was standardized and then popularized during the life of Rabbula, where it came to supplant all other versions for a while (that is, before a new translation from the Greek was "needed" which resulted in subsequent translations such as the Philoxenian, Harklean, and several others whose names are lost to time).

Thirdwoe Wrote:If you were told that you could choose and only have one copy of a Greek and one copy of an Aramaic Manuscript, and were denied any access to any others, which ones would you chose? Which is best overall?

Well I would choose the Peshitta for the selfish reason that my Syriac is better than my Koine Greek. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Further still, I'd prefer a compiled version of the Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament fragments as that language is much closer to what Jesus and his early Disciples spoke than Syriac was (and closer to what I speak with my kids <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> ).

However, for accuracy's sake, regardless of the language, I'd prefer a critical edition with a good apparatus if at all possible.
Reply
#12
I may be able to get a copy in PDF format of Vat 12...just sent an email to Kristian at BYU. Looks like it may have been digitized. It is just the Gospels though, and its from 548 A.D. looks like, so some time after the split. Do you know if this would be an Eastern or Western Manuscript?

And concerning Codex Phillipps, it is also just the Gospels. I would like to see a list of these 70 or so readings said to be "old syriac" readings, to see what they might be dealing with. It seems to be in the Berlin Royal Library.

Have you see this? What do you think of it?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No1/HV12N1Juckel.pdf">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No1/HV12N1Juckel.pdf</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
#13
I don't identify myself as a Peshitta primacist either but it seems to be the oldest Aramaic text of the New Testament to study.
Reply
#14
Thirdwoe Wrote:I may be able to get a copy in PDF format of Vat 12...just sent an email to Kristian at BYU. Looks like it may have been digitized. It is just the Gospels though, and its from 548 A.D. looks like, so some time after the split. Do you know if this would be an Eastern or Western Manuscript?

If it is digitized, Heal would certainly know how to get his hands on it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> If memory serves, it was copied from an earlier text that is pre-split, and that it is vocalized with both Eastern and Western vowel pointing sporadically in places by later scribes (but don't hold me to that; we'll find out if scans come in-hand).

Quote:And concerning Codex Phillipps, it is also just the Gospels. I would like to see a list of these 70 or so readings said to be "old syriac" readings, to see what they might be dealing with. It seems to be in the Berlin Royal Library.

Remember that the earliest "full-length" Peshitta we have is dated ~534 AD. Everything before the 6th century we have are sets of Gospels or fragments.

Quote:Have you see this? What do you think of it?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No1/HV12N1Juckel.pdf">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No1/HV12N1Juckel.pdf</a><!-- m --> .

I had the pleasure of meeting Juckel at the first Hygoye Symposium where he was showing off some of his work on dating Peshitta manuscripts (of which skill I would call him an authority). I haven't read that particular article, however, so once I have some time to sit down and read it I'll share my thoughts. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#15
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I don't identify myself as a Peshitta primacist either but it seems to be the oldest Aramaic text of the New Testament to study.

The Old Syriac is conventionally acknowledged as the oldest Syriac text of the NT. There are also portions of the Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament that date as early or earlier than our earliest Peshitta manuscripts. The CPA NT, however, makes itself an obvious (if early) translation from the Greek. For example, all names are transliterated literally, so instead of Yeshua, we see Yesous; instead of Yohanan, we see Yohannes, etc.. Then again the "Melkites" received the New Testament in Greek.

Ironically, despite that the actual Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect is much closer to the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus and his disciples spoke than Syriac is (grammatically and vocabulary-wise).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)