recent photos of the Khabouris manuscript

Anything - almost.

recent photos of the Khabouris manuscript

Postby Dave » Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:44 pm

Wanted to post these for some of the language gurus to see. My question is, can anyone find anything different with this than what is already brought down in the peshitta? Is this manuscript different than the other peshitta manuscripts???

http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php
Dave
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Diego Garcia

Re: recent photos of the Khabouris manuscript

Postby Paul Younan » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:24 pm

Dave wrote:Wanted to post these for some of the language gurus to see. My question is, can anyone find anything different with this than what is already brought down in the peshitta? Is this manuscript different than the other peshitta manuscripts???

http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php


Hi Akhi Dave,

Thanks for the link to the great photos!

We have the Khabouris available on the bookstore thanks to Akhan Dean's hard work. I use it in comparison with the modern printed version, and both he and I have been going over it line by line.

You'd be amazed - there are only very small spelling differences. Mostly things like spelling convention (things like "bar Nasha" for "Son of Man" vs. "Barnasha".......i.e., one word vs. two words spelled out).

Other than that, there are no differences at all that we've observed. The manuscript is 100% in agreement with what has come down to us in the modern printed versions.

They've been very very careful in the transmission of the text.
User avatar
Paul Younan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 3:07 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postby Dave » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:34 pm

Ahhh thanks Paul :D

I ran into that a while back and it dawned on me to post it here and ask today. I routinely use Murdocks translation (I'm not the language savvy one such as you guys are), so i wanted to know if it was in any way different. Hope the photos are of use also for you guys.

Was surprised that they would be posted from this sight since the guy running it is pretty much a kook with his beliefs, heh, but our Lord works in great ways for us :)
Dave
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Diego Garcia

Re: recent photos of the Khabouris manuscript

Postby Craig » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:26 am

Paul Younan wrote:[You'd be amazed - there are only very small spelling differences. Mostly things like spelling convention (things like "bar Nasha" for "Son of Man" vs. "Barnasha".......i.e., one word vs. two words spelled out).


Shlama Paul,

I'm currently using "Bar Enasha" to transliterate "The Son of Man" based on the below:

"It is generally considered that the Greek is a translation of bar 'enosh, but as used in the emphatic state, which is used in Aramaic instead of the definite article with a noun, hence bar 'enasha'. These forms are characteristic of Middle Aramaic. Later, during the first centuries C.E., the initial aleph disappeared, and thus from 200 C.E.onwards the expression was bar nash instead of bar Gnash, or bar nasha' instead of bar 'enasha'. Cf. Maurice Casey, Son of Man, the Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 224-28; Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Co., 1983), 17-28, and 194, n. 2; and Alger F. Johns A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1972), 9-10."

Would you agree this is accurate? If so this would seem to date the Khabouris manuscript to post 200 AD (I have heard it was dated to about 310 by a reference to a persecution prior to being damaged).

On a different note it would really appreciate someone giving me the transliterations for the Aramaic of:

1. Sadducee/s
2. Scribe/s

Shlama, Craig
Craig
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 7:12 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA

Re: recent photos of the Khabouris manuscript

Postby Paul Younan » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:26 am

Craig Amanyahu wrote:Would you agree this is accurate? If so this would seem to date the Khabouris manuscript to post 200 AD (I have heard it was dated to about 310 by a reference to a persecution prior to being damaged).

On a different note it would really appreciate someone giving me the transliterations for the Aramaic of:

1. Sadducee/s
2. Scribe/s

Shlama, Craig


Shlama Akhi,

The Khabouris' colophon states that it was made from a copy that originated during the Great Persecution. There is only one massacre of Persian Christians that earned that name - it was carried out by Shapur the Shah of Persia. Persecution of Christians by Shapur began about 339, after the Roman emperor Constantine I converted to Christianity, and lasted until Shapur's death in 379.

The Khabouris is not itself from the 4th century - it was a direct copy of a 4th-century manuscript that had fallen apart by the time the Khabouris was commissioned to replace it - around the 11-12th century.

The Aramaic transliteration for "Saducee(s)" is "Zadokaya(e)"

For "Scribe(s)" it is "Sapra(e)".
User avatar
Paul Younan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 3:07 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests