03-22-2004, 02:43 AM
Shlama Akhi Dave,
My eyes must be playing tricks on me. It turns out that both Peshitto and Crawford Revelation have the same reading. There is no "scribal error" as such, and so both may be pointing to the lost Nazarene Revelation I mention. In both cases, PILLARS is the better reading and I will mae that correction. However, the concordance between the two plays into another point that I also make consistently, which is that Trimm dismisses Peshitto Revelation as a translation from the Greek, and effectively stops studying it, and this I feel is deceptive.
While the translational aspect of Peshitto Revelation is undeniable, my problem with his excising it is that it leaves the false impression that only lone Crawford has this "ancient" recension and must therefore be the original version. However, one verbatim match between Peshitto and Crawford after another surely point to a different scenario. Bottom line, whatever Trimm allows as "evidence" for Crawford originality must also allply to Peshitto Revelation--but the only problem is that one we KNOW is a translation, which is surely an inconvenient fact for him.
Now, while Crawford has some truly peculiar readings that may hark back to the lost Aramaic original, I would venture to say that Greek Revelation has ten times more. Crawford is a very late (12th century) version, an odd SOC variant of done by a monk at Mar Saba monastery, and honestly, I don't know how anyone can look at it and think the Aramaic is compositional-original! What a joke that is!
As for the error, I am not sure how that creeped in. Near as I can tell I was using Trimm's essay as a basis for Crawford and then writing about it, so it may be I carried over an error of his without carefully checking back on the versions of Crawford and Peshitto Revelation that I have at my fingertips.
Thanks for the heads up--the rest of my points against Crawford still stand though 100%. It is a downright weird situation though.
As for my position on canon, it is a bit complex. If you read carefully, you will see that I have bi-furcated my understanding of Scripture between "inspired" and "canonical". In my view the 22 books of the Eastern Peshitta are CANONICAL, in that we have 100% certainty that they came from the apostles and their immediate associates, and this is referenced universally and not just in the East.
By contrast, the "Western 5" are INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, but there was uncertainty with them even in the West. Revelation was debated in the West, for example, into the 9th century. Nevertheless I believe the Aramaic originaals of thes 5 books have been found and that they reflect a longer but currently lost Nazarene canon. I believe it will be for them like it was for "Tobit", a book assumed for along time to have been done only in Greek, but that later was proven to have an Aramaic predecessor. But, that is my FAITH, and the PROOF eludes me.
However, keep in mind that the clear additions in Scripture that the West accepts, such as the adultress in John 8, three lines in Luke 22 that are not in the Peshitta, and the post-Council of Carthage (397 CE) additions in 2 John supporting trinity, are NOT part of my canon. Nor are the later readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 either canonical or inspired, but are man-made and in error.
Finally, I have the UBS 1979 Edition of Peshitto Revelation, and as far as I can tell, the only difference between it and the two other versions I have (swadaya-vowel script in the COE-SOC "compromise edition" and "The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation" in ktav asshuri script), is that they are easier to read than the UBS. I have yet to find a variance between them, and simply HATE serto script. It is such a blessing to have Peshitta Tanakh in swadaya too now so I don't have to use that UBS one, that I can't begin to tell you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
My eyes must be playing tricks on me. It turns out that both Peshitto and Crawford Revelation have the same reading. There is no "scribal error" as such, and so both may be pointing to the lost Nazarene Revelation I mention. In both cases, PILLARS is the better reading and I will mae that correction. However, the concordance between the two plays into another point that I also make consistently, which is that Trimm dismisses Peshitto Revelation as a translation from the Greek, and effectively stops studying it, and this I feel is deceptive.
While the translational aspect of Peshitto Revelation is undeniable, my problem with his excising it is that it leaves the false impression that only lone Crawford has this "ancient" recension and must therefore be the original version. However, one verbatim match between Peshitto and Crawford after another surely point to a different scenario. Bottom line, whatever Trimm allows as "evidence" for Crawford originality must also allply to Peshitto Revelation--but the only problem is that one we KNOW is a translation, which is surely an inconvenient fact for him.
Now, while Crawford has some truly peculiar readings that may hark back to the lost Aramaic original, I would venture to say that Greek Revelation has ten times more. Crawford is a very late (12th century) version, an odd SOC variant of done by a monk at Mar Saba monastery, and honestly, I don't know how anyone can look at it and think the Aramaic is compositional-original! What a joke that is!
As for the error, I am not sure how that creeped in. Near as I can tell I was using Trimm's essay as a basis for Crawford and then writing about it, so it may be I carried over an error of his without carefully checking back on the versions of Crawford and Peshitto Revelation that I have at my fingertips.
Thanks for the heads up--the rest of my points against Crawford still stand though 100%. It is a downright weird situation though.
As for my position on canon, it is a bit complex. If you read carefully, you will see that I have bi-furcated my understanding of Scripture between "inspired" and "canonical". In my view the 22 books of the Eastern Peshitta are CANONICAL, in that we have 100% certainty that they came from the apostles and their immediate associates, and this is referenced universally and not just in the East.
By contrast, the "Western 5" are INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, but there was uncertainty with them even in the West. Revelation was debated in the West, for example, into the 9th century. Nevertheless I believe the Aramaic originaals of thes 5 books have been found and that they reflect a longer but currently lost Nazarene canon. I believe it will be for them like it was for "Tobit", a book assumed for along time to have been done only in Greek, but that later was proven to have an Aramaic predecessor. But, that is my FAITH, and the PROOF eludes me.
However, keep in mind that the clear additions in Scripture that the West accepts, such as the adultress in John 8, three lines in Luke 22 that are not in the Peshitta, and the post-Council of Carthage (397 CE) additions in 2 John supporting trinity, are NOT part of my canon. Nor are the later readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 either canonical or inspired, but are man-made and in error.
Finally, I have the UBS 1979 Edition of Peshitto Revelation, and as far as I can tell, the only difference between it and the two other versions I have (swadaya-vowel script in the COE-SOC "compromise edition" and "The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation" in ktav asshuri script), is that they are easier to read than the UBS. I have yet to find a variance between them, and simply HATE serto script. It is such a blessing to have Peshitta Tanakh in swadaya too now so I don't have to use that UBS one, that I can't begin to tell you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth