Peshitta Forum
The Crawford Codex of Revelation ? Glaser Transcript - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The Crawford Codex of Revelation ? Glaser Transcript (/showthread.php?tid=3300)

Pages: 1 2


Re: The Crawford Codex of Revelation ? Glaser Transcript - distazo - 05-06-2015

You are a blessing Greg!
Thank you


Re: The Crawford Codex of Revelation ? Glaser Transcript - gregglaser - 05-10-2015

Thank you Egbert, you are so kind!

I?ve felt very blessed in this process of translating the Crawford Codex of Revelation! And the process continues? my next steps with the Codex involve various layers of code analysis (i.e., extended Fibonacci patterns).

Next year I?d also like to make time to build upon the excellent work of David Bauscher showing split-word evidence of Aramaic primacy in Revelation. It?s a great project for an Aramaic student ? identifying split words in the different Greek manuscripts (much of this work is already done ? see here for example), and then compare the single words in the Crawford Codex that have multiple definitions (my spreadsheet presents many examples of natural multiple definitions). It would be great for David Bauscher to do this -- publish a thorough line-by-line analysis of Crawford (see preliminary examples here) to really dig deep into the Greek polysemy.

Indeed, such a split-word analysis is absent from John Gwynn?s famous 1897 dissertation because his comparative details were focused in a different direction (often grammatical) and began with the assumption that Revelation was written in Greek, which is why he expressly based his comparative textual analysis of Crawford upon certain questionable Aramaic translations from Greek (e.g., the Harklean). There are also several un-cited bits of history and historical gaps in the book, especially in Chapter VII as Gwynn attempts to trace Crawford to the Philoxenian and yet still must acknowledge, ?I am unable, however, to point to any evidence in the writings of Philoxenus to show that he knew the Apocalypse in any form.?

In my opinion, Gwynn?s dissertation neither proves nor disproves Aramaic primacy. It is rather an impressive comparative analysis of Greek and Aramaic grammar against several Greek texts (based on an assumption of Greek primacy), a useful discussion of various Aramaic idioms, etc, and so it?s a helpful study aide.