09-28-2016, 09:29 PM
And then with regard to the suggestion that 'John 18:14-23 could be a later addition?', I would consider that quite unlikely. For example, notice the ܕܝܢ (“and”) in John 18:24. In Aramaic we don’t write ܕܝܢ in the second word position for a title or headline. Rather, that grammar is for the continuation of sentences, which is why John 18:24 fits perfectly as written, the continuation of John 18:23.
And then as for the dangerous notion of cutting and pasting different verses of the gospel into different locations, I think that sort of thing is simply not done by the faithful. The Father knows every yod and stroke. He knows every stain on the parchment and every hair on a man’s head. Not only does the Father know the handful of scribal errors that snuck into the ancient codices, but He is the One who set them down as punishments to us. Every word and every sequence and every stain is precisely where it is meant to be in our time because it fulfills the Father’s purpose for our time. Consider the example that the Crawford Codex of Revelation 10:4 (instructing John to seal what the 7 thunders said) is almost entirely illegible today. Or the example below with Revelation 2:5.
The religious academics who cut & paste from manuscripts in the medieval and pre-medieval period are a punishment upon the faithful. Their works are the kind of inheritance one receives in a corrupt world. Faith will triumph though.
In the Crawford Codex of Revelation 2:5, we read an admonishment:
Considering the verb tense of the phrase here in Rev 2:5 (present tense or past tense), I've wondered if this text may have an error with one letter? The conventional translation of ܡܙܝܥ in Revelation 2:5 is "will remove" or “am removing”, from the root word ܙܘܥ ("shake"). However, if the word were supposed to be translated "will shake", the text would perhaps be phrased similarly to Matthew 24:29 ܢܬܬܙܝܥ . A better translation might be found in John 5:4, but the problem remains that the ܡܙܝܥ ("moved") is potentially stated in the past tense. And even if a lampstand were moved, it would presumably still be a lampstand. So the conventional translation of Revelation 2:6 is not certain. The Crawford codex does indeed have an ayin at the end of the word here. But there is also an alternative theory -- this ܥ(ayin) may have actually been a ܓ(gimmel) on the codex from which Crawford was copied? The Aramaic letters are scribed very similarly, and if a gimmel's tail fades over years the character will look like an ܥ (ayin). If so (ܓ mistaken for ܥ), then the word here would be ܡܙܝܓ , which is relevant because its root ܡܙܓ means "mix, mingle, or dilute". ܡܙܝܓ is also stated in the present tense as required by Revelation 2:5. To dilute a lamp’s strength is different and more logical in this context than to remove it entirely. For example, Revelation 2:7 prophesies that at least some of Ephesus will not fail ("To him who overcomes..."), so the lampstand does not appear to be 'removed', only at most 'diluted' ܡܙܓ.
And then as for the dangerous notion of cutting and pasting different verses of the gospel into different locations, I think that sort of thing is simply not done by the faithful. The Father knows every yod and stroke. He knows every stain on the parchment and every hair on a man’s head. Not only does the Father know the handful of scribal errors that snuck into the ancient codices, but He is the One who set them down as punishments to us. Every word and every sequence and every stain is precisely where it is meant to be in our time because it fulfills the Father’s purpose for our time. Consider the example that the Crawford Codex of Revelation 10:4 (instructing John to seal what the 7 thunders said) is almost entirely illegible today. Or the example below with Revelation 2:5.
The religious academics who cut & paste from manuscripts in the medieval and pre-medieval period are a punishment upon the faithful. Their works are the kind of inheritance one receives in a corrupt world. Faith will triumph though.
In the Crawford Codex of Revelation 2:5, we read an admonishment:
ܐܬܕܟܪ ܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܢܦܩܬ ܘܥܒܕ ܥܒܕܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܘܐܢܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܐܬܐ ܐܢܐ ܥܠܝܟ ܘܡܙܝܥ ܐܢܐ ܡܢܪܬܟ ܐܠܐ ܬܬܘܒ
“Remember from where you departed and work the works former. And now if not, I come upon you and I am moving your lampstand unless you repent.”
Considering the verb tense of the phrase here in Rev 2:5 (present tense or past tense), I've wondered if this text may have an error with one letter? The conventional translation of ܡܙܝܥ in Revelation 2:5 is "will remove" or “am removing”, from the root word ܙܘܥ ("shake"). However, if the word were supposed to be translated "will shake", the text would perhaps be phrased similarly to Matthew 24:29 ܢܬܬܙܝܥ . A better translation might be found in John 5:4, but the problem remains that the ܡܙܝܥ ("moved") is potentially stated in the past tense. And even if a lampstand were moved, it would presumably still be a lampstand. So the conventional translation of Revelation 2:6 is not certain. The Crawford codex does indeed have an ayin at the end of the word here. But there is also an alternative theory -- this ܥ(ayin) may have actually been a ܓ(gimmel) on the codex from which Crawford was copied? The Aramaic letters are scribed very similarly, and if a gimmel's tail fades over years the character will look like an ܥ (ayin). If so (ܓ mistaken for ܥ), then the word here would be ܡܙܝܓ , which is relevant because its root ܡܙܓ means "mix, mingle, or dilute". ܡܙܝܓ is also stated in the present tense as required by Revelation 2:5. To dilute a lamp’s strength is different and more logical in this context than to remove it entirely. For example, Revelation 2:7 prophesies that at least some of Ephesus will not fail ("To him who overcomes..."), so the lampstand does not appear to be 'removed', only at most 'diluted' ܡܙܓ.