Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books
#12
Quote:The Revelation of The Apostle John

p.724

The Nature of The Crawford Manuscript

John Gwynn has written at length concerning this unusual manuscript in his The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown. Gwynn believed the manuscript to be a copy of an early 7th century translation from Greek, yet significantly and radically different from The Harklean Syriac Version translated in A.D. 616. He notes that the book contains more Hebraisms than any other NT book and that it is idiomatic-Aramaic used throughout, unlike The Harklean Version which is Graecianized (conformed to Greek language). He also is of the opinion that the writer was thoroughly familiar with the Peshitta O.T. and used its vocabulary and style extensively, listing dozens of words peculiar to that version found only in Crawford Revelation and not in The Peshitta N.T.

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.

Now, I myself can be critical of these ideas from differing perspectives, and I???ll try to let Dave???s upcoming examples speak for themselves. What I might firstly notice, for instance, is that
Quote: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.

could be put on trial against the Greek N.T.???s prolific use of the Greek LXX???s vocabulary/grammar (translational), which Greek Primacists just so happen to use in their polemic. Of course, this is silly, considering that the LXX is known by all to be a TRANSLATION of the HEBREW. To my mind, this should be a dead giveaway when it comes to N.T. originality, but nonetheless, moving on, I also don???t think that this does any necessary disqualifying to the Crawford Ms. as to being a non-Greek-first rendition. The 22 speak for this, I think.

However, what Dave points out most strongly is the ensuing truth that:
Quote: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.

This IMMEDIATELY brings to mind Gwynn & Co.???s beloved scholarship, and its obvious BIAS from the start. So, for all fairness??? sake, moving on to examples ??????....
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books - by Amatsyah - 09-10-2008, 06:22 AM
Aramaic New Testament - by Stephen Silver - 10-19-2008, 03:49 AM
Re: Aramaic New Testament - by positron - 10-19-2008, 11:39 AM
Re: Aramaic New Testament - by distazo - 04-22-2009, 10:53 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)