Subject: tc-list Mt 23.24 syriac: camel or camels?

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Ven, 16 Jul 99 22:54:43 +0200

A little question about Mt 23.24 in the Syriac versions. The Grrek text 
has "camel" in the singular. The peshitto has a plural. Until now, 
everything is clear. But then, when I look at the old Syriac version, the 
editions don't seem to agree:
- Mrs Smith-Lewis (sy.s) has no seyome: thus it's a singular. Nothing in 
the apparatus, so sy.c has a singular too.
- Cureton has the seyome: so, according to him, sy.c has a plural.
- Burkitt puts no seyome on his text. He agrees thus with Mrs Smith-Lewis.
- Finally, Legg in his apparatus says that all three version, sys, syc 
and syp have a plural.

I can understand that, being a palimpsest, sys can be difficult reading 
when it comes to a seyome. I understand less what happens with sy.c - 
even though it seems that there's a lacuna short after. May be the ms is 
becoming difficult to read because of that.
Finally, Legg should have mentioned that there is a problem, if there's 
any, instead of being so affirmative.
Can anybody, may be who has access to copies of those mss, give me some 
information about thier correct readings? Thank you.

Jean V.

_______________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
tel. 32-2-280.01.37
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: "DGK TAYLOR" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:55:09 GMT

Dear Jean,

>When I look at the old Syriac version, the 
I have just checked Burkitt, and he DOES put a seyome on the word 
(and this is repeated in George Kiraz' "Comparative Edition", which, 
incidentally, also shows that the Harklean has the singular form for 
both nouns). When it comes to matters of detail I would trust Burkitt 
rather than Lewis every time, and so syc almost certainly has the 
seyome which its two editors, Cureton and Burkit, give to it. As for 
sys given that it is a palimpsest the uncertainty about whether the 
dots occur is, as you say, understandable. Given that 'gnats', baqe, 
is clearly in the plural I suppose Legg thought it reasonable that 
this plural would be parallelled by the plural 'camels'. It is 
not an accurate record of the textual evidence, and as such is not 
good practice, but it is not a bad piece of reasoning or an unlikely 
conclusion.

Best wishes,

David

***************************************************************************
Dr David G.K.Taylor               email: [email-masked]                    
Department of Theology,       tel:   0121-414 5666                                  
University of Birmingham,    fax:   0121-414 6866                                   
Birmingham B15 2TT,                                                                 
U.K.                                                                                
***************************************************************************