Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Andrew Roth
#3
Shlama Akhi Otto,

Simple answer is this:
For 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude--Philoxenian.
For Revelation--Harkalean (Peshitto)

Now, a little more explanation. As you go through AENT you will see hundreds of places where Khabouris is contrasted with 1905 (1920) CE, and where I choose one or the other, footnote, etc. For the Western 5 though, those are NOT in Eastern canon and thereore NOT in Khabouris, so the four minor epistles have to be Philoxenian assuming BFBS is correct about what is in their 1905, which would include Mosul. Technically speaking the full edition was started in 1905 with the Gospels and finished in 1920 with the rest of NT. The Crawford Codex, as far as I know, is the only Aramaic mss that has all all 27 books. Basically, if I am not footnoting a variance it means I am staying with 1905 but my choice of that doesn't come from Crawford Codex per se as much as it is going with the decision of the 1905 compilers.

For Revelation though, I have a very strong preference for Harkalean-Peshitto version and yes, I think Gwynn is right that what we now call "Crawford Revelation" is in fact Philoxenian Revelation. As you know, in that case, I am showing a lot of the variances between the two Aramaic versions and as you also know, I don't claim either version or the Greek as the original form of that book. I believe that with respect to Revelation the oldest surviving copies are clearly in Greek and both Aramaic versions are definitely translated from that Greek. I also believe the "autograph" of Rev was in Hebrew/Aramaic but is now lost (or hopefully just hiding) and this "Nazarene Rev" as I call it gave birth to both the Greek and the Aramaic versions that have come down to us.

In terms of parsing through these two versions, there are some difficulties. Scholarly consensus exists that both Philoxenius of Madbug and Thomas of Harkel translated the ENTIRE NT and revised/Grecianized it, including the 22. The debate as to where and what belongs to whom seems to my mind to unresolvable at this time. In at least one case, as Bruce Metzger says, a mss actually claims to authored by one of these men and is in fact derived from the other one, leading a minority of scholars to posit the idea that both may be independent versions, as opposed to one being revised/derived from the other.

The other issue is that if you come from a standpoint as I think Bauscher does that all 27 books of the NT are compositional Aramaic, then you have to go with the earliest extant versions of the Aramaic for W5 that you can find, and that means Philoxenian. However, if you believe as I do that the original Aramaic autographs, if they existed for these 5 books, are now lost, then you have to look for which Aramaic version is most faithful to the Greek, and for that, you need Harkelean. Metzger goes so far as to call Harkalean mss "slavish to the Greek, almost to the point of sacrificing clarity". For myself, what Metzger calls "slavish" is for me just what is needed for Revelation, but again, I really strive to have ALL VOICES FOR THIS BOOK HEARD. The other four books seem small enough to be "safe" with the Philoxenian-1905 readings in spite of a "targumistic tendency" that Metzger also mentions for them.

Hope this clarifies as I don't think these matters are as cut and dried as we might otherwise hope for them to be.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-10-2008, 05:06 AM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Paul Younan - 11-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 11-13-2008, 05:32 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-14-2008, 05:13 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-17-2008, 04:47 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-17-2008, 05:08 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by enarxe - 11-17-2008, 10:40 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-19-2008, 10:17 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-20-2008, 06:22 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by Paul Younan - 11-20-2008, 07:31 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-21-2008, 09:31 PM
Re: Question for Andrew Roth - by ograabe - 11-22-2008, 10:36 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)