Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Philoxian vs harklean Revelation
#1
Stephen Silver Wrote:There is no definitive proof that the Aramaic of Gilyana (Book of Revelation) has an Aramaic original. There are onlt remnants of Aramaic ideas and idioms which were translated from Aramaic into Greek. The two main manuscripts are the Harklean and some would say the Philoxinian is the second most widely used translation. The Harklean (616 A.D.)) is believed by some scholars to be a revision of the Philoxinian (508 A.D.)

Does anybody have any more insights about the differences?

I know that G.D. Bauscher based his translation from the 5 books which are not in the Canon of the East, using the Philoxian, but thus far, I've not seen any other comparitive study done by anybody.
It seems to me, based on his work, that the Crawford (philoxian?) revelation is too Aramaic and to authentic to ignore it.
Reply
#2
I don't think we have any Philoxenian manuscripts of Revelation. I don't think Crawford Revelation is Philoxenian Version. As you know, Bauscher pointed out several examples.
Reply
#3
That's true, it is not sure,

however, the crawford manuscript breaths an original breath.

Too many samples here to mention.

For instance, Bible critics say that the Greek Revelation 20:5 has an non-original 'thousand years' addition.

It happens to be, this 'adding' is not in the Crawford manuscript.

Again, did anybody but G.D. Bauscher really a comparitive study?
Reply
#4
I think George Bauscher is the only person who did extensive study on Revelation. As you know, Crawford Revelation also points out that Yukhanan Shlikha wrote Crawford Revelation when he was banished by Nero Caesar. Not Domitian. And the Aramaic poetry in Crawford Revelation is remarkable.
Reply
#5
distazo Wrote:That's true, it is not sure,

however, the crawford manuscript breaths an original breath.

Too many samples here to mention.

For instance, Bible critics say that the Greek Revelation 20:5 has an non-original 'thousand years' addition.

It happens to be, this 'adding' is not in the Crawford manuscript.

Again, did anybody but G.D. Bauscher really a comparitive study?

Shlama distazo:
Yes, John Gwynn wrote a book comparing both the Philoxinian and the Harklean and from his research determined that the Crawford Codex is indeed the Philoxinian Version from which the Harklean Recension was copied to conform with the existing Greek manuscripts at the time.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#6
Hello Stephen,
I thought John Gwynn was a greek primacist. Maybe I am wrong. But Dave Bauscher strongly disagrees with John Gwynn in Page 364 of his book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English."

Dave Bauscher says like this "I have a different view of the nature of this text which Gwynn?s findings support; for instance, Hebraisms (or Aramaisms) would not come from
Greek, they would come from Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic idioms, of which Gwynn lists a considerable number specifically, are evidence of original Aramaic, not Greek. The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek. Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed."
Reply
#7
konway87 Wrote:Hello Stephen,
I thought John Gwynn was a greek primacist. Maybe I am wrong. But Dave Bauscher strongly disagrees with John Gwynn in Page 364 of his book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English."

Dave Bauscher says like this "I have a different view of the nature of this text which Gwynn?s findings support; for instance, Hebraisms (or Aramaisms) would not come from
Greek, they would come from Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic idioms, of which Gwynn lists a considerable number specifically, are evidence of original Aramaic, not Greek. The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek. Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed."

Shlama:
I'll keep this brief and it is not written to offend David Bauscher, however I am not a fan of his books. I understand that John Gwynn was a Greek Primacist as was John Wesley Etheridge and James Murdock. I see far more indepth scholarship in both John Wesley Etheridge as well as James Murdock. James Murdock was used as a cornerstone by Andrew Gabriel Roth in his rewrite of the Peshitta New Testament. Both Roth and Bauscher are top grade scholars but I just don't agree with some of their writings. Neither is an authority on the Peshitta, but they both have made considerable contributions to Aramaic Primacy.
Being a Greek Primacist in the middle of the 19th Century is far different than being an Aramaic Primacist today. For one thing, any scholar of the 19th Century was expected to hold at high esteem the KJV. Today there are many more accepted versions from Greek to English.
That to say this, just because John Gwynn was a Greek Primacist doesn't mean that his grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic as well as Semitic idiomatic expressions was lacking. It was just the immense pressure placed upon the Christian clergy that made it quite difficult to go it alone. Aramic Primacy is a relatively new concept in Western Christianity. I don't think the scholars of today come close to the exhaustive work done by 19th Century scholars like Etheridge, Murdock and John Gwynn. This is just my opinion and in no way is meant to undermine the works of Roth or Bauscher. However, I have read enough of both to know that I strongly disagree with both on major points. I have had lengthy dialogues with both and it was a very trying experience for me because as I have said they are both top notch scholars.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#8
Hello Stephen,

Maybe I get the feeling of what you mean? They sometimes interprete too freely. E.g. such as 'Jehovah' or 'Master YHWH'?

But still, I would like to see and do more comparitive study on Revelation.
The arguments G.D. Bauscher had on Revelation, are too serious to ignore.

However, I cannot read Syriac script and I cannot compare it myself (I can read Ashuri however).

And, it would be a nice feature to have the Crawford codex rendered on dukhrana.com like the kahbouris and the UBS <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Just for studying <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
Hello Stephen,
I do disagree with Dave Bauscher on certain things. But I do feel that he is right when it comes to Revelation. This is because of the Aramaic poetry and other interesting things in Revelation.

I believe Revelation was written in Aramaic, because of several reasons.

Let me give some outside reasons. Apollonius of Tyana was a Greek philosopher who lived during the time of Nero. He calls Nero a "Beast." He says like this about Nero - "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen man, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. ... And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."

Also More about Nero and 666 can be seen in this link.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(preterism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(preterism</a><!-- m -->)
Reply
#10
konway87 Wrote:Hello Stephen,
I do disagree with Dave Bauscher on certain things. But I do feel that he is right when it comes to Revelation. This is because of the Aramaic poetry and other interesting things in Revelation.

I believe Revelation was written in Aramaic, because of several reasons.

Let me give some outside reasons. Apollonius of Tyana was a Greek philosopher who lived during the time of Nero. He calls Nero a "Beast." He says like this about Nero - "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen man, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. ... And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."

Also More about Nero and 666 can be seen in this link.

Shlama:
Excellent insights. However, I don't spend very much time with the Western Five (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and the book of Revelation. So far, in repeat, there is no proof that any present version of the book of Revelation is the Original Aramaic. It is more likely that they were written after 70 A.D. and were not hand delivered by an Apostle to the Church of Babylon as was the 22 book Aramaic Peshitta by the Apostle Peter. Therefore they do no have the same authority as the Peshitta New Testament. To teac otherwise is speculative at best and David Bauscher seems to have done just that. Western Christianity is absorbed by the Book of Revelation because of the way it ties end times together into a seeming chronological prophetic message. However, I think that it was written around 70 A.D. and refers to Caesar Nero and was not written in 95 A.D. In my honest opinion the W-5 were late books originally written in Aramaic which were not included with the 22 bok Aramaic New Testament. Again, in my personal opinion, in spite of David Bauscher's claims to the contrary, the Book of Revelation in it's original K'tav Ashuri were copied into Greek, before the end of the first Century. The Church of the East has had no knowledge of them till they circulated in Europe around 1000 years later. There may have been at that time in Europe Aramaic translations from the Greek. This is why the Assyrian Church of the East uses the Western-5 but not to the degree of authority that the 22 book Aramaic Peshitta New Testament is held as the absolute authority. There is no ambiguity with any of the books of the 22 book Aramaic New Testament Peshitta used by the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East today. However Western Christianity is absolutely fascinated by the Book of Revelation as the quintessential prophetic text of End-Time events. I just don't buy into the Revelation teaching.
I'm not a preterist in all things but I am concerning what is written in the Book of Revelation.
As for II John and III John, there is no proof that John the Presbyter is the same John that wrote the Gospel of John and who wrote the book of Revelation. There are repeated portions between Jude and II Peter and so there is doubt in my mind that either book is originally Apostolic.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(preterism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(preterism</a><!-- m -->)

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#11
Hello Stephen,
Sorry for the late reply. I have to agree with you about Western Four. There are certain things in 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, and Jude that raises questions whether they were written by Apostles of Yeshua Mshikha. But Revelation is where I think differently. This is because of some of prophecies in it. As you know, there is a high possibility that "666" was referring to Neron Caesar (Nero). And in Crawford Revelation, we see Yukhanan Shlikha was banished to Patmos by Nero. Before I get into this subject, I have a question about Revelation in Harklean Version, Stephen.

Was Revelation originally part of Philoxenian and Harklean version? Or was it translated later from Greek? Here is an information from this book (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/details/newtestamentino00west">http://www.archive.org/details/newtestamentino00west</a><!-- m -->) that I found interesting. In Page 39, We see Philoxenian/Harklean Version . Here is the information.


"The Philoxenian or Harclean version, so called from its patron Philoxenus, Monophysite bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis), in Eastern Syria (488-518), and from Thomas of Harkel, a subsequent editor, who was likewise a Monophysite bishop of Mabug. It is "probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made" (Scrivener). It is
based upon the Peshito, and forces it into rigorous conformity with the letter of the Greek at the expense of the spirit. It dates from A.D. 508, and was revised by Thomas of Harkel, 616. It contains the whole New Testament, except the Apocalypse, and is therefore more complete than the Peshito, which omits four Epistles besides. The
only edition of the Philoxenian is that of Joseph White, printed by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1778-1803, 4 vols. 4to. Bernstein has published the Gospel of John (Leips. 1853)."

I believe Joseph White thought that Philoxenian and Harklean version were one and the same. What he published was actually Harklean version. Not Philoxenian Version. But it says it contains whole New testament except Apocalypse. So my question is Was Apocalypse part of Philoxenian Version and the early Harklean Version? or was it translated from greek later? I am sure you can clear my doubts.

Back to Revelation, One of the interesting points about Revelation is Revelation 17:10 (Lamsa Translation) - "And there are seven kings, of whom five have
fallen and one "is" and the other has not yet come; and when he comes he shall continue only for a short time."

Bauscher points out that Nero was the sixth "Caesar." Julius "Caesar" was the first "Caesar." But after that, Augustus Caesar (First Emperor of Roman Empire and Second Caesar), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. We read that seventh has not yet come. And When he comes he shall continue only for a short time. Seventh was Galba. he only ruled Roman Empire for 6 to 7 months.

Revelation 17:11 (Lamsa) - "And the wild beast that was, and no longer is, even he is the eighth and is one of the seven "destined" to be
destroyed." After Galba, Otho became Eighth Caesar of Rome. Otho only ruled upto 3 months. After that, he "killed himself."

Dave Bauscher points out that in Thayer?s Greek-English Lexicon under the entry for laodikeia - ?Laodicea? documents that Laodicea, Colossae and
Hierapolis were destroyed by an earthquake in AD 66 . Laodicea was not rebuilt until 120 years later by Marcus Aurelius (Nicknamed Caracalla). This little known fact is extensively documented by Bishop Lightfoot in His commentary on Colossians and Philemon, pp 274- 300."

What do you think about it, Stephen? I am interested in hearing your opinions about it.
Reply
#12
There is a lot more to say about the 5 books.

Take 3 john. A short letter which contains 3 differences which make the letter more clear.

Were they 'harmonized' or corrupted by a scribe to make the crawford codex sound superior ot the Greek 3 john? If that is true, that could be said of the whole peshitta <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Revelation contains real jewish words while the greek has descriptions.

1: 15.And his feet were in the form of the brass of
Lebanon
which is heated in a furnace, and his
voice was like the sound of many waters.

Greek has '?Burnished brass' and bad grammar.

1:13 And in the midst of the menorahs as the
likeness of a man, and he wore an ephod and
he was girded around his chest with a golden
wrap

Greek has 'fine linnen'
There are too many samples to dismiss this crawford codex as a translation of Greek.
Reply
#13
distazo Wrote:There is a lot more to say about the 5 books.

Take 3 john. A short letter which contains 3 differences which make the letter more clear.

Were they 'harmonized' or corrupted by a scribe to make the crawford codex sound superior ot the Greek 3 john? If that is true, that could be said of the whole peshitta <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Revelation contains real jewish words while the greek has descriptions.

1: 15.And his feet were in the form of the brass of
Lebanon
which is heated in a furnace, and his
voice was like the sound of many waters.

Greek has '?Burnished brass' and bad grammar.

1:13 And in the midst of the menorahs as the
likeness of a man, and he wore an ephod and
he was girded around his chest with a golden
wrap

Greek has 'fine linnen'
There are too many samples to dismiss this crawford codex as a translation of Greek.

Shlama:
I don't buy it. The Book of Revelation was not revealed to the Assyrian Church of the East until the Middle Ages. The II Epistle of John spells Antichrist as antichristos while the I Epistle of Peter uses the phrase "Mashikha d'gala". If they were written by the same author then why is the I Epistle of John spelled in the Semitic form while the II Epistle of John spelled in the Greek form? I John is written originally in Aramaic while II John is written in Greek and translated or originally written in Greek. The Book of Revelation did not appear to the Assyrian Church of the East till the Middle Ages. They had no knowledge of it. However the W-5 and Psalms are in the modern Peshitta (Little Red Book). With a discrepancy that leaves the W-5 out of the Aramaic Peshitta it is difficult for me to believe that it was in the Aramaic Peshitta when the Apostle Peter handed the 22 book Peshitta to the elders in Babylon. So, I will go with the 22 book Aramaic Peshitta. One has to find a more convincing way to explain the Aramaic words which were translated from the Greek. It's possible that the Greek Scribe had an excellent background in Aramaic when he tramscribed the Book of Revelation. There is sone evidence that the Book of Revelation existed as far back as the II Century A.D. while Aramaic was a living language and was well understood and could be easily translated while using the Aramaic idioms.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver,
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->.
Reply
#14
Hello Stephen,
But what about the things I wrote?
Reply
#15
konway87 Wrote:Hello Stephen,
But what about the things I wrote?

Shlama:
Be specific. Refresh my memory. To be quite honest I have a very poor memory. You wrote many things and I can't recall may of your main points. Take one point at a time and write it in as few words as you can. It's a complicated subject.

1) I don't follow much of the teaching of DG Bauscher and it would appear that you have a great deal of respect for his point of view.
2) What is motivating you to spend so much time in your centralization of the Book of Revelation in the first place?
(The Book of Revelation is actually a collage of sayings, quotes and prophesies from the TaNaK (the Jewish Bible).
3a)I do believe that the Book of Revelation is for the most part pretrist and was written at a time when the Temple stood). It's content is prophetic and is speaking about two main things. Most assuridly it speaks about the return of Christ. Also it elaborates to some degree about the 1000 year reign of Christ which is to come so it is not entirely preterist in this particular context.
3b) The book of Revelation speaks about a New Heaven and a New Earth and this must take place in due time.
3c) The Book of Revelation is an accurate expose of of Heaven and earth in the end of days and this ties it together with the book of Daniel, II Thessalonians, the prophetic book of Zechariah and the other prophets which fortell of the second coming of Christ, which is soon to take place historically. When? We do not know precisely but it will take place in due course.
3d) Much of the Book of Revelation is allegorical and its context follows a literal bodily return of the LORD Yeshua Meshikha where his feet will stand on the mount of Olives.
3e) It's critical to read the Book of Revelation keeping the allegory in mind and not let personal interpretaton or conjecture dominate our thinking. If we link any passage of the Book of Revelation to the Jewish Bible (Old Testament it is virtually impossible to go astray.

There is a wealth of topics in the Book of Revelation and it's wise not to get hung up on any single theme in spite of its prominence. A careful study of the Book of Revelation will bring blessing as long as we do not become isogetic in our summary. Always read the Book of Revelation in light of the entire context of the Bible and we will nor go astray.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)