Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Juckel's study
#1
Greetings, all,

Here's a very interesting study by Dr. Andreas Juckel.

JUCKEL: A Re-examination of Codex Phillipps 1388
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1Juckel.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1Juckel.html</a><!-- m -->

Juckel examines one of the oldest manuscripts of the Peshitta, known as Codex Phillipps 1388 (5th century), and compares it with the standard Pusey/Gwilliam edition of the Peshitta. And he also brings in comparisons with the Old Syriac Gospels.

This collation by Dr. Juckel offers a total of 387 items where Codex Phillipps is different from the main text of the Pusey/Gwilliam edition of the Peshitta. And yet, in many of these cases, some of the manuscript variations, as listed in Pusey/Gwilliam edition, agree with Codex Phillipps.

Also, Juckel finds that, out of these 387 divergent items in Codex Phillipps, 125 happen to be in common with the Old Syriac gospels.

There is much there to analyse in this very interesting study by Dr. Juckel.

Best wishes,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Yes, we've seen this article before. Unfortunately for the case you're desperately trying to make, Sir Phillipps obtained this manuscript from Mardin, which is a seat of a SOC bishopric. It is currently kept at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. It is a western text.

Here are some quotes from the very same author:

Andreas Juckel Wrote:As it was the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church which was in permanent contact with Hellenistic culture and continuously revised their New Testament to bring it in better line with the Greek text and canon, this 'comparative edition' is dominated by materials of Syriac Orthodox provenance.

Andreas Juckel Wrote:It was the formative period of the Miaphysite Church within the Greek Byzantine Oikumene, which was open to direct Greek influence on the Syriac New Testament and on existing Greek patristic translations.

Akhan Yuri - again, please find us some variants among EASTERN manuscripts......as the WESTERN ones, according to the author of this article himself, are JUNK.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Are you saying that all Western manuscripts of the Peshitta are defective? I thought that you said before that, with an exception of a couple of passages in the gospels, the Western manuscripts are identical with the Eastern manuscripts...

Best regards,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I'm simply quoting the author himself.

Did you not read what he himself said about the western textual tradition - and how they constantly revised their text towards the Greek? I highlighted the important parts in red.

Why should I care about what variants "Phillipps 1388" has - with THAT type of tampering going on in the western tradition?

Give me some eastern variants! Or, aren't there any?

Akhi - out of the 42 manuscripts used by Gwilliam and Pusey in their critical apparatus - do you happen to know how many were eastern? If not, I'll give you a clue - you can count them with one hand if you cut off 2 fingers.

And, all 3 of those agree in reading.

So, we are still waiting for Peshitta variants. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
shlomo,

I've checked the Article out, and I've have compared every passage between the Official Peshitto
and the Official Peshitta that is currently used by the Syriac Churches (East and West). Both Peshitta
and Peshitto passages were identical. This should be proof that the Peshitta text hasn't developped variants,
because the Eastern Peshitta and the Western Peshitto have been seperated for over 1500 years,
and yet they still have the same text, with the exception of the added passages and books in
the Peshitto.

What about variants in the Peshitto?
These variants, aren't Peshitto variants, but were an attempt at revising the Peshitto to
become closer to the Greek text. They were all rejected, and the original Peshitto text was
preserved. As a matter of fact, every translation of the Greek Text into Syriac has been rejected,
and the Peshitto has always won over. The best proof is the fact that after 1500 years, the
Peshitto as preserved identical text, and the extra books and passages was the compromise,
because everyones revision of the Peshitto or translation from the Greek text failed.

Also if our current Peshitto was a product of these revisions, then you would expect it not to agree with the Peshitta,
just like the so called variant text didn't agree with the Peshitta.

Here's the full analysis of the Book of Matthew using the passages in the Article:
===============================================Peshitto and Peshitta Official Text
-----------------------------------------------

Readings:
Matay 2:12: Identical
Matay 2:13: Identical
Matay 2:16: Identical
Matay 2:20: Identical
Matay 4:8: Identical
Matay 5:5: Identical
Matay 5:31: Identical
Matay 5:32: Identical
Matay 5:38: Identical
Matay 5:39: Identical
Matay 5:41: Identical
Matay 5:42: Identical
Matay 5:44: Identical
Matay 6:6: Identical
Matay 6:20: Identical
Matay 8:11: Identical
Matay 8:18: Identical
Matay 8:20: Identical
Matay 8:26: Identical
Matay 8:28: Identical
Matay 8:29: Identical
Matay 8:31: Identical
Matay 9:8: Identical
Matay 9:12: Identical
Matay 9:15: Identical
Matay 9:25: Identical
Matay 9:30: Identical
Matay 11:20: Identical
Matay 11:21: Identical
Matay 12:20: Identical
Matay 12:25: Identical
Matay 12:36: Identical
Matay 12:40: Identical
Matay 12:41: Identical
Matay 13:11: Identical
Matay 13:13: Identical
Matay 13:21: Identical
Matay 13:27: Identical
Matay 13:33: Identical
Matay 13:51: Identical
Matay 13:57: Identical
Matay 14:5: Identical
Matay 14:13: Identical
Matay 14:36: Identical
Matay 15:5: Identical
Matay 15:26: Identical
Matay 15:27: Identical
Matay 15:36: Identical
Matay 16:12: Identical
Matay 17:10: Identical
Matay 17:11: Identical
Matay 17:17: Identical
Matay 17:21: Identical
Matay 17:26: Identical
Matay 18:5: Identical
Matay 18:14: Identical
Matay 18:28: Identical
Matay 18:31: Identical
Matay 19:7: Identical
Matay 19:11: Identical
Matay 19:19: Identical
Matay 19:22: Identical
Matay 19:24: Identical
Matay 19:26: Identical
Matay 20:26: Identical
Matay 20:31: Identical
Matay 21:2: Identical
Matay 21:4: Identical
Matay 21:12: Identical
Matay 21:19: Identical
Matay 21:23: Identical
Matay 21:24: Identical
Matay 21:25: Identical
Matay 21:36: Identical
Matay 21:43: Identical
Matay 22:21: Identical
Matay 23:15: Identical
Matay 23:19: Identical
Matay 23:39: Identical
Matay 24:13: Identical
Matay 24:21: Identical
Matay 25:1: Identical
Matay 25:3: Identical
Matay 25:4: Identical
Matay 25:8: Identical
Matay 25:11: Identical
Matay 25:31: Identical
Matay 25:34: Identical
Matay 25:44: Identical
Matay 26:13: Identical
Matay 26:31: Identical
Matay 26:42: Identical
Matay 26:69: Identical
Matay 26:71: Identical
Matay 26:75: Identical
Matay 27:4: Identical
Matay 27:27: Identical
Matay 27:32: Identical
Matay 27:54: Identical
Matay 27:55: Identical
Matay 27:60: Identical
---
===============================================

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Abudar,

So it looks like the revisionary manuscripts were also rejected by the Western side? Maybe this was some renegade monk who went off doing his own thing?

Also, did you notice how minor 70% of the so-called "variants" really were? I mean, really! A missing Daleth Proclitic or a missing Anticipatory Pronominal Suffix? Big deal. "Malkutheh d'Alaha" and "Malkutha d'Alaha" means the same thing ("Kingdom of God"), even if the latter lacks the pronominal suffix....which is redundant, anyway.

Did you notice the absolutely ridiculuous argument Juckel gave for calling Mattai 2:13 a "variant?" The Phillips codex is simply missing the diacretic point! Big deal! How about Mattai 5:5? A missing Lamedh Proclitic! Woo-hoo!

Great work on the research!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Shlama Akhi Abudar,

Notice this:

Out of the 118 "variants" Juckel argues for in the book of Mattai alone, here is the breakdown by category:

(1) Missing Diacretic Points: 10 instances. Scribal error.

(2) Missing Daleth, Waw or Lamedh Proclitic: 21 instances. Scribal error.

(3) Missing Anticipatory Pronominal Suffix: 2 instances. Scribal error.

(4) Two words reversed in order: 8 instances. Scribal error.

(5) Misspellings: 18 instances. Scribal error.

(6) Missing Words (i.e., "he said" vs. "said"): 34 instances. Scribal error.

(7) Use of synonyms (i.e., "with them" vs. "among them"): 19 instances. Scribal error.

As you can plainly see, 113 of the 118 so-called "variants" are simply the result of poor scribal work.

The other five real "variants" are, in fact, the scribe's attempt to harmonize with other related synoptic passages. (4:8, 15:36, 19:7, 19:11 and 26:31) These, I agree, are a no-no and the scribe should have been skinned alive in the old Assyrian fashion.

So there you have it - 113 of 118 so-called "variants" are not real variants after all, at least not in the Greek sense of "variants!" The meaning, in the vast majority of the cases, remains unaltered so that the passage reads no differently.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
shlomo oh Paul,

Paul Younan Wrote:So it looks like the revisionary manuscripts were also rejected by the Western side? Maybe this was some renegade monk who went off doing his own thing?

It wouldn't be the first time! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

That's what happens to people who lost control of their destiny, they'll appease the authority. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Because of regional pressures on our Patriarch, in the 1950's, Syriac went from being a taught language, to just a liturgical language. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Paul Younan Wrote:Did you notice the absolutely ridiculuous argument Juckel gave for calling Mattai 2:13 a "variant?" The Phillips codex is simply missing the diacretic point! Big deal! How about Mattai 5:5? A missing Lamedh Proclitic! Woo-hoo!

When I write in Syriac I have a tendancy of dotting everything, from qushoyo to rukokho to etc... While someone else might copy my work and not include qushoyo or rukokho dots, although it doesn't change the meaning of what I wrote, but by Juckel's theory we have a variant.
That's what happens when you want to claim that the Peshitta is a revision of Old Syriac which in itself is a translation of the Greek Text, you end up having to construct ridiculous theories to justify your position. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Paul Younan Wrote:Great work on the research!

Tawdi Saggi. w'oomoqokh tobo ahoon Paul,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#9
Paul Younan Wrote:The other five real "variants" are, in fact, the scribe's attempt to harmonize with other related synoptic passages. (4:8, 15:36, 19:7, 19:11 and 26:31) These, I agree, are a no-no and the scribe should have been skinned alive in the old Assyrian fashion.

You're right, a scribe shouldn't adjust verses like that, especially ones in the Holy Bible. If he wants to be creative, he can write a book (ex: Say a haramonized text).
I remember when I was a kid I was told to never write on or highlight or even touch the Bible with dirty hands.

Paul Younan Wrote:So there you have it - 113 of 118 so-called "variants" are not real variants after all, at least not in the Greek sense of "variants!" The meaning, in the vast majority of the cases, remains unaltered so that the passage reads no differently..
[/quote]

Paul, I added an extra point to the above quote at the end, Oh No, not another variant. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#10
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I'm simply quoting the author himself.

Shlama Akhi Paul,

Well, actually, the author said that about the Pauline manuscripts, and not about the gospel MSS. The textual situation with the Pauline MSS is very different, as compared to gospel MSS.

Paul Younan Wrote:Why should I care about what variants "Phillipps 1388" has - with THAT type of tampering going on in the western tradition?

Well, I don't think that the Phillipps 1388 MS is all that different from any other old Aramaic MSS. This is what Juckel said in his article...

Paul Younan Wrote:Give me some eastern variants! Or, aren't there any?

Akhi - out of the 42 manuscripts used by Gwilliam and Pusey in their critical apparatus - do you happen to know how many were eastern? If not, I'll give you a clue - you can count them with one hand if you cut off 2 fingers.

And, all 3 of those agree in reading.

So, we are still waiting for Peshitta variants. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Sorry, akhi, but I'm getting more and more mystified. Gwilliam and Pusey used the total of 42 manuscripts for their authoritative edition of the Aramaic gospels. And now you're saying that only 3 of them were quality MSS, and the 39 were defective?

Gwilliam and Pusey must have been terribly incompetent to use such worthless MSS for their edition? Why didn't they use more of the excellent MSS such as the 3 that you've mentioned?

In any case, what are the numbers of these 3 Eastern MSS in Gwilliam/Pusey catalogue? Maybe I can find some variants there as well?

But, so far, based on what you're saying, it seems like, in general, old Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels must be rather corrupt (39 out of 42?)...

Best wishes,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

yuku Wrote:Well, actually, the author said that about the Pauline manuscripts, and not about the gospel MSS. The textual situation with the Pauline MSS is very different, as compared to gospel MSS.

Oh, I see. So the SOC tradition had no qualms about "continuously revising" (Juckel's words) the "Pauline" books, adding 5 books to the canon from the Greek canon - but the Gospels were off-limits, huh?

Are you sure about this? How about the story of the woman caught in adultery? Does that count as "Pauline", or as being in the Gospels?

yuku Wrote:Well, I don't think that the Phillipps 1388 MS is all that different from any other old Aramaic MSS. This is what Juckel said in his article...

Again, I see. I don't think it's all that different from any other western manuscript, myself.

yuku Wrote:Sorry, akhi, but I'm getting more and more mystified. Gwilliam and Pusey used the total of 42 manuscripts for their authoritative edition of the Aramaic gospels. And now you're saying that only 3 of them were quality MSS, and the 39 were defective?

Gwilliam and Pusey must have been terribly incompetent to use such worthless MSS for their edition? Why didn't they use more of the excellent MSS such as the 3 that you've mentioned?

Do you really not know why the manuscripts available to them at the time were mostly of the western type?

Akhi, Gwilliam and Pusey used the manuscripts from the Nitrian Collection in the British Museum. These manuscripts came from the monastery of St. Mary in the Nitrian desert of Egypt.

Last I checked the map, Egypt is "west" of Mesopotamia. So you should expect that the vast majority of the manuscripts held by this monastery were western Peshitto (and not eastern Peshitta) texts. In fact, St. Mary is an SOC monastery.....heavily Monophysite (in fact, it was later renamed to "Monastery of Theotokos ("Mother of God")."

At the time Gwilliam and Pusey lived, the CoE was isolated in the rugged mountains of Kurdistan in southeastern Turkey. They, and their manuscripts, were inaccessible until 1915 when the genocide forced them out of their mountain striongholds and into the rest of the world where we are scattered today.

Gwilliam and Pusey simply did not have access to them. Do a search on Google for "Hakkari" and take a look at some images and read some history. I can't believe you, an author, do not know these things.

yuku Wrote:In any case, what are the numbers of these 3 Eastern MSS in Gwilliam/Pusey catalogue? Maybe I can find some variants there as well?

I do not have these handy at the moment. I will get back to you.

yuku Wrote:But, so far, based on what you're saying, it seems like, in general, old Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels must be rather corrupt (39 out of 42?)...

Your statement is incorrect. You act as if there is one textual tradition for Aramaic manuscripts. What you should have said is:

Old Western Aramaic manuscripts of the Gospels are corrupt - according to Juckel...and every other person who knows what they are talking about.

And, not just based on what I'm saying, either. Your man "Juckel" agrees with me....as does the Encyclopedia Britannica.....

I found 2 quotes for you (Ency. Britannica and Juckel) that slam western (SOC) textual integrity, quotes which state in no uncertain terms that the textual history of the Peshitto was revisionary, rather than conservatory, in nature.

Can you find any quote from anyone criticizing eastern (CoE) textual transmission?

I wonder why Juckel didn't make a similiar statement about the Church of the East? Does that make you wonder? Why is everyone picking on the SOC?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I have the information about two of the three eastern manuscripts used by Gwilliam and Pusey in their critical apparatus:

Manuscript BL Add. 14460
Location: British Museum
Origin: Beth-Nuhadra
Date: 10th year of Khusraw II (AD 588)

Manuscript BL Add. 14471
Location: British Museum
Origin: Nisibin
Date: 25th year of Khusraw II (AD 603)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I have the information about two of the three eastern manuscripts used by Gwilliam and Pusey in their critical apparatus:

Manuscript BL Add. 14460
Location: British Museum
Origin: Beth-Nuhadra
Date: 10th year of Khusraw II (AD 588)

Manuscript BL Add. 14471
Location: British Museum
Origin: Nisibin
Date: 25th year of Khusraw II (AD 603)

Thank you, Akhi Paul,

Manuscript BL Add. 14460 is listed in Pusey/Gwilliam as MS #7.

And in Juckel's study,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1Juckel.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1Juckel.html</a><!-- m -->

this MS #7 is listed very often as containing variants.

Best wishes,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I fail to see that reference in Juckel's study? Please point it out....and list the "variants" so that we can see if they are truly different from today's modern printed eastern version.

Remember - of course it will have variants from the western texts used in Gwilliam's edition....and of course it will have variants from Codex Phillipps 1388 (a western text.)

You have to demonstrate that this eastern MS has variants from all other eastern manuscripts and from today's modern printed eastern version.

So where are the variants? Book, chapter, verse and Aramaic word that is a "variant", please?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#15
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Yuri,

[snip]

I found 2 quotes for you (Ency. Britannica and Juckel) that slam western (SOC) textual integrity, quotes which state in no uncertain terms that the textual history of the Peshitto was revisionary, rather than conservatory, in nature.

Shlama Akhi Paul,

I'm not trying to deny that Peshitto is somewhat closer to the Greek than the Peshitta. This is pretty obvious, because the Peshitto includes some parts of the NT that are also in the Greek, but not in the Peshitta.

But if closeness to the Greek is "bad", in such a case the Old Syriac must be the best, because it's the furthest from the Greek.

All the best,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)