Version Analysis/Summary

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhay,

A few observations pertinent to Andrew's translation are in order, and related to what Jeremy just wrote:
Andrew's translation of Revelation (actually Murdock's revised) is based on the Harklean Version (Greek to Aramaic translation done in AD 616), not on the Crawford ms. contained in the 1905 Peshitta edition which he displays on the right hand pages. There are many places where the Harklean differs from the Crawford text, and Murdock followed the Harklean, as the Crawford had not been discovered and published until more than 40 years after Murdock translated the Peshitta, yet Andrew presents the Crawford Aramaic text next to the translation on the left, as the text from which it was supposedly translated, when it is plain in many places that the English translation was not and could not have been from the Crawford of the 1905 Peshitta edition. In Rev. 1:10, Andrew has edited the 1905 Peshitta edition to the Harklean Version.
Examples of the mismatched Aramaic edition to English are in Rev. 1:13 (2 words),3:17 (2 words -"I am" is "you are" in his Aramaic text)and "blind" is not in Aramaic), 5:9- "tongue" is not in Crawford; in Rev. 6:5 "and see", plus "and I looked" are not in the Aramaic text. 6:7 does not have "and see" in the Aramaic text. 6:8 does not have, "and behold" in Aramaic. 7:17 "fountains of living water" is not in Aramaic, which has "beside Life and beside fountains of water". This same verse has "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes", in Aramaic, referring to "The Lamb in the midst of the throne", but Andrew's English text has "Elohim will wipe away..." 9:11 in English has "in Greek", where the Aramaic text has "Aramayth" (Aramaic).
I am sure there are lots of other examples like these, as John Gwynn has noted more than 350 differences between the Harklean Version and the Crawford manuscript in Revelation. Gwynn makes plain that the Crawford is very Peshitta like in its Aramaic syntax and idioms, and extremely Semitic:
"this version (Crawford ms. of Apocalypse) is idiomatic, following along the lines of the Peshitto, while that (codex Sigma S, representing the Harklean Version) is graecized, identifying itself with the Harkleian."- Gwynn's intro. to the Apocalypse of St. John, p. xxvii.
It cannot be an overstatement to say that Gwynn, who discovered the Crawford and published it, translating it into Greek and analyzing and comparing it to the Harklean and Greek manuscripts in the Apocalypse, was very impressed with its character and quality as an Aramaic document. What he says of the Crawford text of Revelation, he affirms equally of its text in the other of the "Western five" books. He wrote:
"I suspect that if the first editor of the Syriac New Testament in 1555 had had in his hands this or a similar ms. these Epistles would have been unhesitatingly included by him, and accepted by Biblical scholars without question, as an integral part of the Peshitto." ?Ibid, page xvi

He also wrote: "The Syriac of the Apocalypse of the printed editions (prior to this one of the Crawford) is unsparingly graecized (made "Greek like"), and its method is severely (even servilely) literal. The Syriac of the four Epistles is idiomatic and its method combines faithfulness with freedom." - Gwynn, page xvi

The four Epistles in the printed editions of the Peshitto, according to Gwynn, were very like the Crawford manuscript (the Crawford is actually a complete 27 book Aramaic New Testament, whose text in the 22 book Eastern canon is Eastern), and very natural and idiomatic Aramaic, like the Peshitto, whereas the text of those edtions in the book of Revelation was very different from the Peshitto, being from the Harklean Version, which is very unnatural Aramaic, because it is a very literal translation of Greek, and is almost Greek written in Aramaic letters, it is so slavish to Greek syntax, grammar and word order.

Gwynn continues to describe the Crawford text of Revelation: "What has been said in the previous chapter, of the resemblance to the Peshitto borne by the "Pococke" Epistles (one of the 17th century printed editions of the "Western four" Epistles), may be affirmed with at least equal confidence of the Apocalypse in the version which I now publish (the Crawford)." -p.xvii
He says of the Crawford manuscript as a whole (the only known complete 27 book Aramaic New Testament manuscript): "Had that Patriarch, instead of this copy, possessed, like the Patriarch of fifteen years earlier, and sent to Europe, the Crawford Ms., or one of equivalent contents, it may safely be presumed that Widmanstad would have, on its authority, given to the world, without doubt and in all good faith, a Syriac New Testament complete in all parts and commensurate with the Greek canon as commonly received. Thus the Editio Princeps would have exhibited, with the Peshitto and distinguished from it by no external indications, not only the Four Epistles, but the Apocalypse, in a version so closely akin in style and language to the Books of the Peshitto proper, that even an accomplished Semitic scholar might readily fail to discover in the supplementary matter the traces of a later hand." -pp.xvii,xviii

And there is more: His scrupulous fidelity to the substance of the Greek has
nowhere betrayed him into the adoption or imitation of Greek constructions,
by which the Syriac of the other version of the Apocalypse (in
common with the Harkleian) is systematically debased. With him, every
word, as well as every phrase, is, with rare exceptions, represented by a
purely Syriac equivalent ; and the expedient of naturalizing Greek words,
adapted or transliterated, is resorted to only in the two extreme cases?of
words which have absolutely no Syriac equivalent, such as crusoprasov
(xxi. 20)?and of words which, by the usage of good writers, have been
admitted into the Syriac vocabulary, such as diayhkh, stadion stolh
(xi. 19, xiv. 20, vi. 11) ; to which are, perhaps, to be added some words of
doubtfully Greek origin, such as aqinyov, kibwtov (viii. 11, xi. 9) and some
names of precious stones in xxi. 19, 20, and elsewhere. But this practice
is with him less frequent than even in the Peshitto New Testament."
And-" The result is, that it would be difficult for a reader unacquainted with the Greek of the
Apocalypse to discover that he had here before him a translation, and not an original document." -p.xix

These are very telling statements, especially in light of the fact that Gwynn was a Greek primacist, believing that the entire Peshitta and the Crawford ms. represented a translation of Greek originals.
Gwynn also analyzed the Crawford text of Revelation with regard to the Peshitta OT, and found that it uses the vocabulary of the OT Peshitta along with that of the Peshitta NT, and that the Crawford Revelation has closer affinities with the Peshitta OT than even with the Peshitta NT. One observation he makes about the Peshitta OT is: "it is more purely Aramaic in the Old Testament than in the New." -p.xxi
This he explains by saying that the OT was translated from Hebrew, which is certainly true, but he also says the NT was translated from Greek, thus explaining certain graecisms. But some graecizing is to be expected in the context of first century Aramaic as spoken in various Greek cities and districts where Greek and Aramaic had coexisted in many places for centuries. There was bound to be some Greek influence on the Aramaeans & Jews and vice versa. The OT Peshitta, on the other hand, was not so much a reflection of spoken language, but of written language used in translation of Hebrew, so Graecisms would be much less frequent than when representing the common spoken tongue on the street, which is often represented in the NT. Some may explain these facts as showing that the OT Peshitta was translated at an earlier time than the NT Peshitta was written, before Greek was able to infiltrate the Eastern culture.
I will reproduce the section on the affinity of the Crawford text of Revelation to the Peshitta OT here, simply because it is so interesting:

"III.?Its special Affinity to the 0. T. Peshitto".
"Careful scrutiny discloses a further characteristic of this version.
Among the Books of the New Testament, the Apocalypse is not only the
most Semitic in form, phrase, and spirit, but it is the one in which,
though by indirect citation, the language of the Old Testament is most
freely appropriated. No reader can fail to observe how it reproduces the
imagery and the visions?often almost in the words?of the Hebrew
Prophets, especially of Daniel and of Ezekiel. For adequately rendering
such a Book into Syriac, therefore, an intimate knowledge of the Peshitto
Old Testament would be invaluable?almost indispensable. This qualification
our translator proves to have possessed in an eminent degree.
His work has some closer affinities, bespeaking a more habitual familiarity,
with the Peshitto of the Old Testament than of the New.
This is not the place to discuss the question whether the Old Testament
Peshitto is, in whole or part, an earlier work than the New (earlier even,
as some Syriac writers claimed, than the Christian era),?or a later work,
as J. D. Michaelis and other critics of the last century held;?or whether
they were contemporaneous and in fact parts of one great work of one
translator, or company or series of translators, which opinion Gregory
Barhebraeus, the great scholar of the Jacobite Church of the thirteenth
century', was disposed to adopt;?following (as it seems) the still higher
authority of Jacob of Edessa, six centuries earlier, and followed by (I believe)
the majority of Biblical scholars who have studied the matter.*
For my present purpose it suffices to note the fact, which is beyond
question, that, while the diction of the Peshitto Bible as a whole is fairly
homogeneous, it is more purely Aramaic in the Old Testament than in
the New. Some may see in this a mark of higher antiquity; others (as
it seems to me, with better judgment may regard it rather as a necessary
result of the fact that in the Old Testament the basis on which the
Peshitto rests is Hebrew, while in the New Testament it is Greek.
Hence the task of translation, In case of the Old, was simpler and easier
than in that of the New. The former passed readily and without effort into
a cognate Semitic tongue : in the latter, the translator (whether we are or
are not to suppose one translator to have dealt with both), however steadfast
in his adherence to the Syriac idiom, could hardly avoid occasionally
introducing Greek words,?such as, in point of fact, are not infrequent in
his work.^ Now in this respect, as I have said, the Crawford Apocalypse
follows a stricter usage than that of the Peshitto New Testament; it conforms
more nearly to that of the Old, now and then even adopting from
the Old a Syriac equivalent for a word (as euagglion, yronov, kubhrnhthv,
ciliarcov) which, in the New, is (at least sometimes) represented by a
transliteration. And, more generally, whenever its vocabulary passes
outside the range of the Peshitto New Testament, it proves in most cases
to have borrowed from the vocabulary of the Old. In the instances, not
of frequent occurrence, where it uses words that are not to be met with at
all in the Peshitto, Old or New Testament, it will be found usually to have
the authority of one or more good Syriac writers of the best period of
the language. The very few words employed in it which are unknown
to Syriac literature and lexicography, are correctly formed, and from
known roots.
' See the passages cited from Barhebraeus on Ps. x, and from the Preface to his Horreum
Mysteriorum, by Walton, Prolegomena, ? 13, par. 16 ;?also by Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, II, ? ii,
pp. 87, 103. See also tbe citation from Soadcd [Jesudad] in the Prefatio ad Libr. Psalmorum
of Sionita {Ad Lectorem, p. 3).
For J. D. Michaelis, see his Introduction to the JY.T., vol. II, pt. i., ch. vii. ? 2 [Marsh's
Translation]." - p. xxi

Distinguishing again between the Harklean (which for Revelation was always used up until Gwynn's edition of 1896) and the Crawford:

"The result of this investigation proves to be, as a matter not of theory but of fact,
that on the whole, and with but a few unimportant exceptions, our
Apocalypse stands to the Harkleian in a relation of strong contrast, but to
the Peshitto at large (putting aside the distinction between Old and New
Testament) in a relation of no less strong resemblance: while the other
version (Codex Sigma S) no less definitely (probably more definitely) parts company with
the Peshitto, and sides with the Harkleian. " -p.xxvi

Remember that Codex Sigma S represents the text of Revelation printed and translated up until the Crawford ms. was published in 1896. It is as strongly contrasted with the Crawford as with the Peshitta NT as a whole, and the Crawford is as like the Peshitta as it is unlike the Harklean.

VI.?General Contrast between this Version (Crawford) and the rival Version (Sigma). -p.xxvii
The Notes, in which I have indicated the successive instances as they
occur of contrast between these rival versions, S (Crawford) and S(Sigma), will serve to bear
out the comparison which I have above drawn between them; and they will,
at the same time, supply the readiest illustrations of the character and
method of the version S, its habitual conformity to Peshitto usage, and its
exceptional deviations from the same. I proceed to summarize the main
heads under which the points of contrast may be reduced. It will be seen
that their nature may be briefly expressed by the statement, that this
version is idiomatic, following in the lines of the Peshitto, while that is
graecized, identifying itself with the Harkleian. And this is so, alike
as regards their grammar and their vocabulary, and as regards their
general method.

In closing this investigation, I may be permitted to quote the concluding
sentences of the Memoir I have already referred to" :
?
" We justly claim [for this Version], as regards its general tone and
manner, that it approaches the excellence of the Peshitto ; and in point
of force, directness, and dignity, that it gives worthy expression to the
sublime imagery of the Apocalypse. It has strength and freedom such
as few translations attain ; such, in fact, that it would not be difficult to
make out a plausible case for accepting it as the Aramaic original, or a
close reproduction of an Aramaic original, of the Book. In it, far more
fully than in the cramped and artificial diction of its reviser, the Aramaic
idiom asserts its power to supply for the burden of the divine visions an
utterance more adequate than could be found for them in the Greek which
is their actual vehicle. From it, as a comparison of the two versions
shows, the latter one has borrowed the touches of simple majesty which
ever and again raise it out of its usual level of painstaking and correctness :
in it, I may almost venture to say, more perfectly than in the written
Greek, we may read ' the things which shall be hereafter', well-nigh in
the form in which St. John first apprehended the divine word that came to
him, and inwardly shaped into speech the revelation of ' the Lord God,
which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.'" -p.cv

John Gwynn is very eloquently expressing his view of the Crawford Aramaic text, which though a translation of Greek, rises above the Greek in expressing more perfectly the original form of the word of God as came to St. John and "

inwardly shaped into speech the Revelation of ' the Lord God,
which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty."

This is an amazing statement coming from a Greek primacist, and the one who was more intimately acquainted with this manuscript than anyone in the world. One gets the impression that a mere breath of Peshitta primacy whispered before him might have tipped the scales of his judgement entirely the other way onto the Peshitta primacy side; nevertheless, the spirit of his remarks are definitely not of Greek primacy, but of Aramaic primacy, for he claims the Aramaic of the Crawford is superior to the Greek in expressing the original inspired word of God.

This man was an Aramaic primacist in spirit, if ever there was or can be such a thing.

Many thanks to Stephen Silver for making Gwynn's books available online as pdf files on Dukhrana.com
I have the books in print, but the pdf's make copying and pasting the text so much easier than having to type it all out. I would not have copied so much of it if Stephen had not made them available. Gwynn's books are really invaluable in studying the Western five Epistles and learning the difference between the Harklean Version and the Pococke and Crawford ms. editions, and hence, the need for translations of the latter, as opposed to the many translations of the Harklean Version of those books.

I hope no one takes offense at my pointing out the discrepancies in Andrew's translation and Aramaic text. I think they are perfectly understandable, given that very few have researched the Crawford and the variations from the Harklean, and understand that almost all the older English translations of the Apocalypse are from the Harklean Version. All translations of the Aramaic Apocalypse prior to 1892 are from the Harklean Version, as the Crawford's unique text was unknown and unpublished prior to that date.

Burkta b'Maran
Blessings in our Lord,

Dave