10-21-2011, 09:10 PM
Shlama Chuck,
The Crawford is a very faithful copy of the Eastern Peshitta in its 22 book canon and also, I believe, a faithful copy of the original Aramaic scriptures in the Western five books. Its readings are practically identical to the 1905 edition in the Western four Epistles. Some of the few differences Stephen has highlighted in the Western four are actually 1905 readings as well, and most of those that are different are either spelling variations or the addition or omission of a prefix letter, or a different suffixed pronoun letter. I have not done an extensive comparison in the 22 books canon, though from what Stephen Silver has informed us of it, and I have verified in a few places, it appears to be Eastern in its text in those books.
The Crawford is a Jacobite manuscript written in Tur'abdin (now "Jebel-Tur") in the hills of north east Mesopotamia (now in south-eastern Turkey). It is written in a modified Estrangelo script, Jacobite in style & origin. It is one of the manuscripts Gwilliam & Pusey used for their 1901 Peshitta Gospels edition, labeled #12. It has first, the four Gospels, then Revelation, Acts & seven Catholic Epistles, and then the Pauline Epistles. The Apocalypse has a subscription assigned to "Saint John the Evangelist" & the subscription to "Saint John Apostle and Evangelist".
1st Peter is "the First Epistle of Peter", "the First Epistle of John", connecting them respectively to 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John which follow.
I have just finished a comparison of the Crawford with the 1905 Peshitta edition in Matthew 1-7, similar to the comparison I did with the Khabouris. I used Gwilliams & Pusey's 1901 Tetraevangelium Sanctorum which is their critical Peshitta edition of the Gospels used in the 1905 Peshitta. The apparatus has the collated readings of 42 Peshitta mss., and the Crawford is one of the mss. collated.
In the seven chapters, there are 13 total variants in the Crawford from the 1905 edition. Eleven of those are spelling and orthographical style differences- i.e. an Alap added at the beginning of a word, which does not affect the meaning, or, separating compound words into the two component words.
This leaves only two significant variations from the 1905 edition. What is really interesting is that the Eastern 1886 Mosul edition of the Peshitta agrees with the Crawford in eight of the thirteen Crawford variants. This is not surprising to me, as the Crawford is a very Eastern Peshitta in its text. Nevertheless, there are only two significant variants out of 15 pages of Peshitta text between the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta. Even the 13 total, with eleven superficial variations, amounts to less than one percent variation- 0.5%. Two somewhat significant variants amounts to 0.07% of the 2800 words in the seven chapters of Matthew. So the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta are at 99.5% agreement in Matthew 1-7; the Eastern Mosul Peshitta appears to be even closer, agreeing in eight of those thirteen readings where the Crawford differs from the 1905 edition, though overall I have not compared the Mosul and the Crawford in those seven chapters, so I cannot give a true statistic for their comparison.
I can, however, compare the Khabouris results in Matthew with the Crawford results. The Khabouris varies a total of 20 times from the 1905 in Matthew 1-6. There are 2500 words in those 6 chapters, so there is a total variation of 0.8%; the Crawford is closer to the 1905, with only 0.5% variation. Moreover, the Crawford not only agrees more closely with the 1905 edition than does the Khabouris, but also with the Eastern Mosul 1886 edition, which agrees with the Crawford in 8 out of the 13 where the Crawford differs from the 1905. The Mosul agrees with the 1905 in nine of those places where the Khabouris differs significantly from the 1905.
The bottom line is that the Mosul Eastern Peshitta agrees with the 1905 Peshitta more closely than with the Khabouris ms.. I think it is wrong to classify the 1905 Peshitta as Western. Its text is apparently more Eastern than the Khabouris, at least in Matthew 1-6. Remember too, that the verses such as the Pericope de Adultera, Acts 8:37, etc., are not in Western Peshitta mss. or Eastern Peshitta mss. They are from other Aramaic mss. (in the case of Acts 8:37- a 1600 edition of the Peshitta supplies the Aramaic text), but it is incorrect to label those mss. as Western Peshitta; they are not Peshitta at all. Including them in the 1905 Peshitta edition does not make it a Western Peshitta. It simply means non Peshitta text is included from other sources. The Pericope de Adultera is collated from 8 Aramaic mss., two of which are labeled "Peshitta NT" by Gwynn, and are relatively recent- AD 1611 & 1675. These two have the pericope in the traditional place at the end of John 7. Most Peshitta mss., Eastern and Western, do not have the pericope.
The Western Five books are not in most Western Peshitta mss. either. No Peshitta ms. contains them, unless we label the entire 27 book Crawford ms. as Peshitta; it certainly is for the 22 book Eastern canon. There is another Peshitta ms. called the Peckover ms. of 26 NT books (no Apocalypse), dated 1475 by its Scribe at Tur Abdin (north east Mesopotamian monastery), whose subscription at the very end of the volume reads,"The New Testament, The Peshitta Version, exceedingly accurate." This Scribe also wrote before the Western four Epistles, "Four Epistles of the Apostles which are not found in all copies". John Gwynn writes: "Apparently therefore, our Scribe regarded our Epistles as belonging to that version, though not always included in all copies of it."
Personally, I think that this Scribe reflects an old tradition, at least of the Jacobite Syrian church, that considered at least 26 books, if not the 27 books, as Peshitta. It is incorrect to say the Eastern Peshitta included 27 books, but apparently it is not incorrect to say so of the Western Peshitta. I cannot be dogmatic on this point, however.
Burkta b'Pruqan
Blessings in our Savior,
Dave
Quote:Dave, are you saying that the Crawford Manuscript is a faithful copy of the Aramaic Scriptures as written by the Apostles and their helpers in all its 27 books or just the 5 not present in the Eastern Peshitta Text?
How much does the 1905 Critical Text you used for your translation of the NT and the Crawford Manuscript differ?
The Crawford is a very faithful copy of the Eastern Peshitta in its 22 book canon and also, I believe, a faithful copy of the original Aramaic scriptures in the Western five books. Its readings are practically identical to the 1905 edition in the Western four Epistles. Some of the few differences Stephen has highlighted in the Western four are actually 1905 readings as well, and most of those that are different are either spelling variations or the addition or omission of a prefix letter, or a different suffixed pronoun letter. I have not done an extensive comparison in the 22 books canon, though from what Stephen Silver has informed us of it, and I have verified in a few places, it appears to be Eastern in its text in those books.
The Crawford is a Jacobite manuscript written in Tur'abdin (now "Jebel-Tur") in the hills of north east Mesopotamia (now in south-eastern Turkey). It is written in a modified Estrangelo script, Jacobite in style & origin. It is one of the manuscripts Gwilliam & Pusey used for their 1901 Peshitta Gospels edition, labeled #12. It has first, the four Gospels, then Revelation, Acts & seven Catholic Epistles, and then the Pauline Epistles. The Apocalypse has a subscription assigned to "Saint John the Evangelist" & the subscription to "Saint John Apostle and Evangelist".
1st Peter is "the First Epistle of Peter", "the First Epistle of John", connecting them respectively to 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John which follow.
I have just finished a comparison of the Crawford with the 1905 Peshitta edition in Matthew 1-7, similar to the comparison I did with the Khabouris. I used Gwilliams & Pusey's 1901 Tetraevangelium Sanctorum which is their critical Peshitta edition of the Gospels used in the 1905 Peshitta. The apparatus has the collated readings of 42 Peshitta mss., and the Crawford is one of the mss. collated.
In the seven chapters, there are 13 total variants in the Crawford from the 1905 edition. Eleven of those are spelling and orthographical style differences- i.e. an Alap added at the beginning of a word, which does not affect the meaning, or, separating compound words into the two component words.
This leaves only two significant variations from the 1905 edition. What is really interesting is that the Eastern 1886 Mosul edition of the Peshitta agrees with the Crawford in eight of the thirteen Crawford variants. This is not surprising to me, as the Crawford is a very Eastern Peshitta in its text. Nevertheless, there are only two significant variants out of 15 pages of Peshitta text between the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta. Even the 13 total, with eleven superficial variations, amounts to less than one percent variation- 0.5%. Two somewhat significant variants amounts to 0.07% of the 2800 words in the seven chapters of Matthew. So the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta are at 99.5% agreement in Matthew 1-7; the Eastern Mosul Peshitta appears to be even closer, agreeing in eight of those thirteen readings where the Crawford differs from the 1905 edition, though overall I have not compared the Mosul and the Crawford in those seven chapters, so I cannot give a true statistic for their comparison.
I can, however, compare the Khabouris results in Matthew with the Crawford results. The Khabouris varies a total of 20 times from the 1905 in Matthew 1-6. There are 2500 words in those 6 chapters, so there is a total variation of 0.8%; the Crawford is closer to the 1905, with only 0.5% variation. Moreover, the Crawford not only agrees more closely with the 1905 edition than does the Khabouris, but also with the Eastern Mosul 1886 edition, which agrees with the Crawford in 8 out of the 13 where the Crawford differs from the 1905. The Mosul agrees with the 1905 in nine of those places where the Khabouris differs significantly from the 1905.
The bottom line is that the Mosul Eastern Peshitta agrees with the 1905 Peshitta more closely than with the Khabouris ms.. I think it is wrong to classify the 1905 Peshitta as Western. Its text is apparently more Eastern than the Khabouris, at least in Matthew 1-6. Remember too, that the verses such as the Pericope de Adultera, Acts 8:37, etc., are not in Western Peshitta mss. or Eastern Peshitta mss. They are from other Aramaic mss. (in the case of Acts 8:37- a 1600 edition of the Peshitta supplies the Aramaic text), but it is incorrect to label those mss. as Western Peshitta; they are not Peshitta at all. Including them in the 1905 Peshitta edition does not make it a Western Peshitta. It simply means non Peshitta text is included from other sources. The Pericope de Adultera is collated from 8 Aramaic mss., two of which are labeled "Peshitta NT" by Gwynn, and are relatively recent- AD 1611 & 1675. These two have the pericope in the traditional place at the end of John 7. Most Peshitta mss., Eastern and Western, do not have the pericope.
The Western Five books are not in most Western Peshitta mss. either. No Peshitta ms. contains them, unless we label the entire 27 book Crawford ms. as Peshitta; it certainly is for the 22 book Eastern canon. There is another Peshitta ms. called the Peckover ms. of 26 NT books (no Apocalypse), dated 1475 by its Scribe at Tur Abdin (north east Mesopotamian monastery), whose subscription at the very end of the volume reads,"The New Testament, The Peshitta Version, exceedingly accurate." This Scribe also wrote before the Western four Epistles, "Four Epistles of the Apostles which are not found in all copies". John Gwynn writes: "Apparently therefore, our Scribe regarded our Epistles as belonging to that version, though not always included in all copies of it."
Personally, I think that this Scribe reflects an old tradition, at least of the Jacobite Syrian church, that considered at least 26 books, if not the 27 books, as Peshitta. It is incorrect to say the Eastern Peshitta included 27 books, but apparently it is not incorrect to say so of the Western Peshitta. I cannot be dogmatic on this point, however.
Burkta b'Pruqan
Blessings in our Savior,
Dave