Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Andrew Roth
#9
Shlama Akhi Otto,

As I mentioned, I dealt with the full text transcription for the Aramaic of 1905 (20). The thing is, if I understand you correctly, you are saying BFBS editors said they fully incorporated Crawford Codex or Crawford Revelation COMPLETELY, as opposed to consulting it in their preparations? I have no doubt that they looked at the Crawford, but a good amount of doubt that they appropriated it en masse. It would seem to my mind to be natural to look at that mss when preparing a critical edition anyway. The rest may simply be the confusion of these versions that I mentioned before. So again, are you sure they mean their Rev is ONLY Crawford????

The reason I ask is simple. I am a member of the MS Affiliate group of the Ryland Institute which has access to high resolution images from both 1905 and Crawford Codex. The DVD that I have color codes transcriptions to show what came from where and also shows the actual mss pages for comparison. The fact is, BFBS 1905 is NOT a transcription of Crawford Codex or Crawford Revelation. I looked at the raw mss and the color coded transcription that show which is which and these are completely different versions of the Western 5.

Mosul Text is what is attached/used in 1905 for the W5 (it has OT books too). Crawford Codex is another version, possibly Philoxenian W5 as we discussed.

BTW the link you gave will not download on my PC. They said I needed access to a second level program but I couldn't find it. I doubt though what they have is superior to my digital files. But in the end this distinction even to Gwynn was less important than what the versions did combined. Gwynn wrote:

"They are (Philoxenian and Harkalean Revelation--AGR) valuable alike in their literary aspect, AS A SUCCESSFUL PRESENTATION OF THE GREEK ORIGINAL IN A SYRIAC VERSION OF ADEQUATE EXACTNESS, without sacrifice of idiomatic purity, and from the point of view of a textual critic, of reproducing the text (or perhaps a combination of two or more texts) that was accessible to a scholar in the Euphratensian province immeidately after the close of the fifth century."

The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac version, p. cv

That for me is kind of a bottom line, in the sense that I don't believe the original Aramaic Rev has survived, and that the oldest remaining is from the Greek families, which Harkel is more faithful to with Revelation generally, but the balance certainly on the Philoxenian side (according to Gwynn's great research) must be looked at some more. Hope this helps.
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 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 Andrew Gabriel Roth - 11-19-2008, 06:17 AM
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)