06-17-2008, 04:59 PM
Shlama all,
Gwilliams and Pusey's critical edition of the Gospels (Tetraeuangellium Sanctum) lists 42 mss. they used and describes each one. Gwilliams later published an edition of Paul's epistles using 7 mss. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies has an article on the variant readings of those plus 5 other Peshitta mss.. The Peshitta mss. are each dated and briefly described. Three of the 12 mss. are Eastern. The mss. average about 1 variant reading for every 3 pages from the majority Peshitta text. There are no places where the majority reading is not discernible. The Eastern mss. average 1 variant for every 10 pages of text! The Eastern mss. represented were certainly more carefully copied than the Western text mss.; the Western mss. average 1.5 variants for every page of text.
The above information also demonstrates that an Eastern ms. is much closer to the Critical Majority Peshitta collation edition than a typical Western ms. is. As we compare a sufficient number of Western mss. together and ascertain the majority reading, we come up pretty much with an Eastern text!
It is true that the long codes I found depend on the exact letter number of the slightly flawed original Codefinder edition I used (It had 50 extra letters due to the repeated verse of Luke 6:14) . The subsequent short Name codes experiment I performed does not depend on that same text; it works for both an Eastern text, like Khabouris or the edition Paul has on Peshitta.org as Word documents with just the 22 book canon, and it works as well for the critical edition based mostly on Western mss. with the 27 book canon. It is for this reason that I accept all 27 books of that edition as part of the original inspired Aramaic New Testament, and the text of the majority collation as the original text of The Aramaic NT. This does not mean that the edition is letter perfect as currently presented; it does mean that this 27 book canon is original and that the text is extremely close to its original state, and that the real differences are relatively insignificant.
I personally believe God put codes in the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures as a sign of His authorship of those scriptures, though not to prove the text is in perfect condition as currently constituted. This means He providentially encoded the editions used to be discovered in our time by computer, to encourage us to see His omniscience in foreknowledge and His guidance in preserving the Holy books intact. I believe He also wants us to more carefully ascertain the original readings using all the materials and technology at our disposal; most of all, He wants us to see the Divinity of the message we have in The Holy Bible and to accept it as such, to live by the faith and hope it gives us, and to practice the love to which it enjoins us.
I would slightly revise my original conclusion in my introduction to read:
???I believe what I have in my possession and from which I have translated here (The Aramaic text, not the translation itself) is the exact, phrase for phrase, (not word for word,letter for letter) original and Divinely authored New Testament! It contains no errors historical, grammatical, geographical, scientific, or theological!???
There may yet be a few minor textual errors and mis-spellings. I know this is true in The Hebrew TaNaKH; I suspect it is true of The Peshitta NT in a few places. I believe we can correct those errors and that the original New Covenant -(Dyatheeqee khadatha) is has been perfectly preserved for us to discover, and is nearly accomplished.
The most problematic text to ascertain is Revelation. The best we have so far is The Crawford ms. which contains all 27 books of The NT. Its text of Revelation is far more Semitic in nature than The Harklean, which is more Hellenized, due to being a revision of a Crawford type text toward Greek readings via Greek translation of certain parts. The places where the Crawford and Harklean agree I would accept as genuine and original; where they differ, generally I accept The Crawford, but there must be places where we cannot be sure of the original, as there is no other ms. like the Crawford ms.. John Gwynn's book The Apocalypse of St John in A Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown is a definitive work on the Crawford, which he first published to the world in 1897. Gwynn was of the opinion that the Crawford of the Western 5 epistles represented the Philoxenian version (A.D. 508) from which The Harklean was taken and revised (A.D. 616). No one believes we have any copies of The Philoxenian version with which to compare these; it was Gwynn's theory alone.
While he believed the ms. was translated from Greek, as was The Peshitta, he characterized its text and style to be very Peshitta like, as compared to The Harklean.
It is markedly superior to the Harklean; see pp. xvi-xxvii in his introd.
Gwynn quotes a Maronite Monk in 1625 concerning the manuscript:
"It would not be difficult to make out a plausible case for accepting it as the Aramaic original. In it, far more fully than in the cramped and artificial diction of its reviser (Thomas Harkel) 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..... 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.'"
Gwynn says The Crawford is of the same character and Aramaic quality as The Peshitta, yet he cannot account for it properly, as he was bound and gagged by Greek primacy dogma. Yet he presents the text, data and a Greek translation beautifully in a critical edition and comparison with The Harklean version.
I know some will want to jump all over me for mentioning Bible codes again & for modifying my original statement about the infallibilty of The Aramaic text I used.
Hey, knock yourselves out.
Blessings,
Dave
Gwilliams and Pusey's critical edition of the Gospels (Tetraeuangellium Sanctum) lists 42 mss. they used and describes each one. Gwilliams later published an edition of Paul's epistles using 7 mss. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies has an article on the variant readings of those plus 5 other Peshitta mss.. The Peshitta mss. are each dated and briefly described. Three of the 12 mss. are Eastern. The mss. average about 1 variant reading for every 3 pages from the majority Peshitta text. There are no places where the majority reading is not discernible. The Eastern mss. average 1 variant for every 10 pages of text! The Eastern mss. represented were certainly more carefully copied than the Western text mss.; the Western mss. average 1.5 variants for every page of text.
The above information also demonstrates that an Eastern ms. is much closer to the Critical Majority Peshitta collation edition than a typical Western ms. is. As we compare a sufficient number of Western mss. together and ascertain the majority reading, we come up pretty much with an Eastern text!
It is true that the long codes I found depend on the exact letter number of the slightly flawed original Codefinder edition I used (It had 50 extra letters due to the repeated verse of Luke 6:14) . The subsequent short Name codes experiment I performed does not depend on that same text; it works for both an Eastern text, like Khabouris or the edition Paul has on Peshitta.org as Word documents with just the 22 book canon, and it works as well for the critical edition based mostly on Western mss. with the 27 book canon. It is for this reason that I accept all 27 books of that edition as part of the original inspired Aramaic New Testament, and the text of the majority collation as the original text of The Aramaic NT. This does not mean that the edition is letter perfect as currently presented; it does mean that this 27 book canon is original and that the text is extremely close to its original state, and that the real differences are relatively insignificant.
I personally believe God put codes in the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures as a sign of His authorship of those scriptures, though not to prove the text is in perfect condition as currently constituted. This means He providentially encoded the editions used to be discovered in our time by computer, to encourage us to see His omniscience in foreknowledge and His guidance in preserving the Holy books intact. I believe He also wants us to more carefully ascertain the original readings using all the materials and technology at our disposal; most of all, He wants us to see the Divinity of the message we have in The Holy Bible and to accept it as such, to live by the faith and hope it gives us, and to practice the love to which it enjoins us.
I would slightly revise my original conclusion in my introduction to read:
???I believe what I have in my possession and from which I have translated here (The Aramaic text, not the translation itself) is the exact, phrase for phrase, (not word for word,letter for letter) original and Divinely authored New Testament! It contains no errors historical, grammatical, geographical, scientific, or theological!???
There may yet be a few minor textual errors and mis-spellings. I know this is true in The Hebrew TaNaKH; I suspect it is true of The Peshitta NT in a few places. I believe we can correct those errors and that the original New Covenant -(Dyatheeqee khadatha) is has been perfectly preserved for us to discover, and is nearly accomplished.
The most problematic text to ascertain is Revelation. The best we have so far is The Crawford ms. which contains all 27 books of The NT. Its text of Revelation is far more Semitic in nature than The Harklean, which is more Hellenized, due to being a revision of a Crawford type text toward Greek readings via Greek translation of certain parts. The places where the Crawford and Harklean agree I would accept as genuine and original; where they differ, generally I accept The Crawford, but there must be places where we cannot be sure of the original, as there is no other ms. like the Crawford ms.. John Gwynn's book The Apocalypse of St John in A Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown is a definitive work on the Crawford, which he first published to the world in 1897. Gwynn was of the opinion that the Crawford of the Western 5 epistles represented the Philoxenian version (A.D. 508) from which The Harklean was taken and revised (A.D. 616). No one believes we have any copies of The Philoxenian version with which to compare these; it was Gwynn's theory alone.
While he believed the ms. was translated from Greek, as was The Peshitta, he characterized its text and style to be very Peshitta like, as compared to The Harklean.
It is markedly superior to the Harklean; see pp. xvi-xxvii in his introd.
Gwynn quotes a Maronite Monk in 1625 concerning the manuscript:
"It would not be difficult to make out a plausible case for accepting it as the Aramaic original. In it, far more fully than in the cramped and artificial diction of its reviser (Thomas Harkel) 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..... 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.'"
Gwynn says The Crawford is of the same character and Aramaic quality as The Peshitta, yet he cannot account for it properly, as he was bound and gagged by Greek primacy dogma. Yet he presents the text, data and a Greek translation beautifully in a critical edition and comparison with The Harklean version.
I know some will want to jump all over me for mentioning Bible codes again & for modifying my original statement about the infallibilty of The Aramaic text I used.
Hey, knock yourselves out.
Blessings,
Dave