James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 12:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
I have held codex Khaboris in my bare hands and flipped through its pages on a number of occasions. I served on the Codex Khabouris project team in 1995 which was commisioned by the codex owner, the late Dan McDougald, to reasearch the codex in detail. I have all of the documents from the projects research and results. I also have (given me by the codex owner) most if not all documents from previous work done on Khaboris by Rev. Sadook De Mar Shimmun and by Norman Yonan, including Norman Yonan's hand written notes. I will tell you that the project concluded that the codex is NOT a 4th century codex. Paliograsphic evidence placed its date at about the 12th Century C.E.. Codex Khabouris is a very old and very complete witness to the Peshitta text, but it is NOT a 4th century text. Believe me I wanted badly to provethat it was. James Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 02:10 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
The myth that Khaboris dates to the fourth century originates by a statement maed in 1965 by the late Rev. Sadook De Mar Shimun B.A.B.D. This statement was made in a document by him titled A PRELIMINARY REPORT (on Codex Khaboris) The document was wruitten in 1965 and McDougald purchased the manuscript in 1966 so it would seem that the document was used to promote the sale of the manuscript to McDougald. In the document the late Sadook states: Its colophon which ascribes it to the first decade of the 3rd century, makes it the oldest Syriac-Aramaic known to exist.However I was comissioned to translate the badly damaged colophon in 1995 and found no such reference. The codex owners actually published the following statement about its age: "No claim as to its age has been made by the foundation..." ("the foundation" refers to McDougald's YONAN CODEX FOUNDATION) Now before obtaining Codex Khabouris in 1966 McDougald had been owner of the Yonan Codex which he sold at auction (I belkieve sometime in the 1980's) There were claims made by the Yonan Codex Foundation that the Yonan Codex dated to the fourth century, however these claims were also questionable (I have documentation on this issue as well). Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 04:54 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, I personally know the Mar Shimun family, and I attend Mar Yukhanna parish in Chicago, which Rev. Tzadok d'Mar Shimun had originally started, and which his family still functions in today. Regardless, I won't go into that. Let's assume that no damage happened to the colophon in the 30 years between 1965 (when Rev. Tzadok originally examined it) and 1995, when you examined it. Let's assume that Rev. Tzadok d'Mar Shimun was a flat-out liar, and that the colophon of the Khabouris never made such a claim. Let's also assume that the date you came up with, by whatever methods, in your Aramaic expertise, is correct, and Rev. Tzadok (a native speaker) is wrong. So what? You've just pushed back the oldest manuscript age of the Peshitta by 50 years. So, from now on, I'll stop claiming that the oldest one we have is from 390.....I'll start saying from 431 (Sinai Syriac 2). It still beats out the Old Syriac, Shem Tob and Dutillet by centuries. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 05:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
There are any number of variables that could have occurred. Even if Zadook was correct and in 1965 the colophon did give this date it wiould not matter. The colophon could have itself been copied by scribes for generations, it may not have actually applied to Khaboris. The Paliographic evidence was not ESTANGELO in general but had to do with certain details about how certain letters and vowels were written that dated the script to the 12th century. No carbon dating was permitted by the owner. I agree that there are some Peshitta manuscripts which may date to the fourth century or perhaps the fifth century. The two Old Syriac manuscripts date to the 4th and 5th centuries respectively. Age of manuscripts is not the issue. There are much older Greek manuscripts of the NT. Moreover until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest manuscripst of Tanak books only dated to the middle ages and the oldest Tanak manuscripts by FAR were Greek LXX manuscripts dating to the 4tyh century. I cannot say whether Zadook lied or not and would not venture to make any such accusation. I could not find such a reference on the damaged colophon that I saw. Even if it was there it would not be helpful in datingh the manuscript since colophons themselves are often copied by scribes from manuscript to manuscript. Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 08:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Akhi Yaqub, Our scribes (Eastern - COE) always included their own information. Secondly, we no longer used skin to write manuscripts by the 12th century. We used skins only between the 4th-9th centuries. The Khabouris is on deer-skin. I have not examined the manuscript for myself, but I am now very interested in seeing it, so I will be contacting the current owners and try to arrange a meeting. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 09:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Regarding the medium of writing: You are correct. It was on that basis that I initially dated the text to the 4th to 9th centuries. I was hesitant to buy into the paliographic evidence. But when I noticed that the text had our modern chapter divisions marked with a special mark I had a real problem, since chapter divisions were first introduced to the NT in the early 13th century. Please prove me wrong... I would LOVE for Khaboris to be as third to fourth century text. Vellum was not used until the fourth century though, which in itslef contrasts the statement Zadook claimed was in the colophon
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 04:48 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Dear Dr. Trimm: Can you please elaborate on this a bit more? My understanding is that the materials of the Khaborris were dated to the year 464. Isn't it also true that the script's earliest precedents go back to 6 CE? It looks like estrangela to me after all. Or was it the carbon dating what determined the later date? If so, there are certain factors that can throw such a reading off. You may have heard of bio plastic coatings for example. I am no authority on this subject, but I would like to know what exactly created this result from a technical standpoint. "paleographic" evidence seems to imply the date of the script's usage and how it evolved over time. I apologize if I have somehow misunderstood you however. Finally, why have I seen the year 464 attested to in a variety of sources as the date of the mss if the foundation that holds it made no such claim or if an erroneous third century claim was made and never contested? I'm not saying you are wrong. I just would like some clarifications. Shlama w'burkate Andrew Gabriel Roth
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2001 at 06:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
I flipped through the Khabouris Project commission file and found the material on the date. Using THE DIACRITICAL POINT AND THE ACCENTS OF SYRIAC by Judah Segal the commission was able to determine that certain diacritical markings used in Khaboris, which appeared to be from the original hand, were of a type not used until the twelfth century. There were also marks on the manuscript in the original hand, dividing the yext by chapter divisions. The Chapter divisions of the NT were introduced in 1226 AD... We just could not sell ourselves on a 4th century date. Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|