11-20-2008, 05:37 AM
Shlama Akhi Otto,
I tried again to install this online bible thing and got the module in there but I can't unzip the Peshitta file. I am not inclined to keep going over this program as I have the text of 1905 and Crawford, but I also know what happened...
OK, this took a bit of doing, but I think I have sorted through all this. I want to at least start to answer you now, but I may need to do a few installments as it is complicated. Please bear with me.
First answer: YES, BFBS IN 1920 did incorporate Crawford Rev, but NO, even though Mari uses 1905 extensively MY REVELATION is NOT Crawford but mostly Harkalean with a few places that I also use Crawford. I think that is pretty clear from the footnotes but I may strive to make it clearer in future editions. I am looking at a ton of stuff in this regard, but that is a later discussion.
Second answer: To make things clearer, let us classify these sources:
1) Khabouris mss--just the eastern 22 books.
2) 1905 BFBS that is nearly identical to Khabouris WITHIN the 22. [Call this 1905-E, for "Eastern")
3) Mosul Text, containing many other books in addition to W5 but being used by printed editions (Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation, many others) to add the HARKALEAN W5 to the other 22.
4) Crawford Codex, a probable source of the PHILOXENIAN W5, per Gwynn and other scholarship.
Now in many of my printed Peshittas (like Aramaic New Covenant...) they have used "1905-E PLUS Mosul"
But in BFBS 1905, as you have seen, they use: 1905-E + Mosul (4 minor epistles) + Crawford Rev
BFBS gets absorbed by UBS (United Bible Society), and then UBS publishes with the SOC imprimatur the 1979/1988 SCriptures that are FULLY WESTERN AND Harkalean, including Revelation. It is very easy then to go:
BFBS 1905 = UBS
UBS = 1978/88 SOC text
SOC = Harkalean in W 5
Therefore, BFBS 1905 = Harkalean throughout (but this is wrong)
Now, if you are still with me, here is part 2.
1) In 2001, Trimm puts out his HRV using Crawford. He then began circulating misinformation about Crawford Rev that I researched with Gwynn to debunk. Ironically though, before I got the hi res digital files from Rylands, I only had a printed copy of Crawford and guess who I bought it from? TRIMM!
2) Now James didn't print in his little version of Gwynn the 250 pages BEFORE the mss where Gwynn gives facts that go against his theories. I found those facts about the colophon and other dating evidences (summing quickly) and from that time until now, I HAD NOT SEEN GWYNN'S INTRODUCTION TO EITHER OF HIS WORKS UNTIL A FEW WEEKS AGO. I tend to skip over intro stuff--and looking at what he calls an intro you can see why I love him but would go to text itself more quickly.
3) Even when Paul Younan put Gwynn's other work here, I was more looking at the text not his notes That's why he pointed out that Gwynn didn't just suggest with his translation that the mss was Philoxenian as I implied but said it DIRECTLY. I got a public doman copy for the FULL info on Crawford and the other 4 books in his 1909 study LAST WEEK, and I have been kind of busy, as you know.
4) The transcription of Revelation I got which was classified as 1905 is really 1905-E + Mosul-Harkalean. Since I have been working with this transcription for 3 years without the BFBS intro, in my mind they became one and the same. The place I got it from clearly listed it as 1905 as SHORTHAND in the link, but you can see that, for example Crawford reads RUKHA whereas Mari and Mosul read RUMKHA in 1:16. RUMKHA is definitely in this electronic file rather than the Crawford. Also you can see in 1:10 where Aramaic New Covenant and Mari go with "MaranaYah" rather than "b'khad b'shaba" (day of our Master YHWH vs Sunday), because here again ANC and Mari are going from Mosul text.
5) From here, I associated Mosul text of W5 as being part of 1905 because 1905-E + Mosul was used in ANC as if that was FULL 1905, and it is NOT.
6) In Mari I clearly identify the sources properly as Khabouris, Mosul and 1905 but somehow the overlapping nature of these texts got my wires crossed. Reading the essays of Brock and Metzger which I forwarded to you only made the matter less clear as time went on and my emphasis just on the text pushed these other technical details aside. I will clarify this going forward however.
7) I needed to see the transcription of MOSUL and CRAWFORD on the W5 side by side with the actual mss images, a compilation done by Stephen Silver, for it really to get home to me just how different Mosul is from Crawford for these books and where the long chain led to confusion.
<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> Finally it doesn't really have an impact on the English or the Aramaic since we are talking about both versions coming from Greek and since I show the variants anyway to let the reader decide. Nevertheless I will endeavor to make these relationship clearer going forward. Perhaps I need to do my own defintions and make sure they cannot be mistaken for anything else, especially by a much more tired version of myself who was still working on it years and years later.
Hope this helps!
(Will write more later)
I tried again to install this online bible thing and got the module in there but I can't unzip the Peshitta file. I am not inclined to keep going over this program as I have the text of 1905 and Crawford, but I also know what happened...
OK, this took a bit of doing, but I think I have sorted through all this. I want to at least start to answer you now, but I may need to do a few installments as it is complicated. Please bear with me.
First answer: YES, BFBS IN 1920 did incorporate Crawford Rev, but NO, even though Mari uses 1905 extensively MY REVELATION is NOT Crawford but mostly Harkalean with a few places that I also use Crawford. I think that is pretty clear from the footnotes but I may strive to make it clearer in future editions. I am looking at a ton of stuff in this regard, but that is a later discussion.
Second answer: To make things clearer, let us classify these sources:
1) Khabouris mss--just the eastern 22 books.
2) 1905 BFBS that is nearly identical to Khabouris WITHIN the 22. [Call this 1905-E, for "Eastern")
3) Mosul Text, containing many other books in addition to W5 but being used by printed editions (Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation, many others) to add the HARKALEAN W5 to the other 22.
4) Crawford Codex, a probable source of the PHILOXENIAN W5, per Gwynn and other scholarship.
Now in many of my printed Peshittas (like Aramaic New Covenant...) they have used "1905-E PLUS Mosul"
But in BFBS 1905, as you have seen, they use: 1905-E + Mosul (4 minor epistles) + Crawford Rev
BFBS gets absorbed by UBS (United Bible Society), and then UBS publishes with the SOC imprimatur the 1979/1988 SCriptures that are FULLY WESTERN AND Harkalean, including Revelation. It is very easy then to go:
BFBS 1905 = UBS
UBS = 1978/88 SOC text
SOC = Harkalean in W 5
Therefore, BFBS 1905 = Harkalean throughout (but this is wrong)
Now, if you are still with me, here is part 2.
1) In 2001, Trimm puts out his HRV using Crawford. He then began circulating misinformation about Crawford Rev that I researched with Gwynn to debunk. Ironically though, before I got the hi res digital files from Rylands, I only had a printed copy of Crawford and guess who I bought it from? TRIMM!
2) Now James didn't print in his little version of Gwynn the 250 pages BEFORE the mss where Gwynn gives facts that go against his theories. I found those facts about the colophon and other dating evidences (summing quickly) and from that time until now, I HAD NOT SEEN GWYNN'S INTRODUCTION TO EITHER OF HIS WORKS UNTIL A FEW WEEKS AGO. I tend to skip over intro stuff--and looking at what he calls an intro you can see why I love him but would go to text itself more quickly.
3) Even when Paul Younan put Gwynn's other work here, I was more looking at the text not his notes That's why he pointed out that Gwynn didn't just suggest with his translation that the mss was Philoxenian as I implied but said it DIRECTLY. I got a public doman copy for the FULL info on Crawford and the other 4 books in his 1909 study LAST WEEK, and I have been kind of busy, as you know.
4) The transcription of Revelation I got which was classified as 1905 is really 1905-E + Mosul-Harkalean. Since I have been working with this transcription for 3 years without the BFBS intro, in my mind they became one and the same. The place I got it from clearly listed it as 1905 as SHORTHAND in the link, but you can see that, for example Crawford reads RUKHA whereas Mari and Mosul read RUMKHA in 1:16. RUMKHA is definitely in this electronic file rather than the Crawford. Also you can see in 1:10 where Aramaic New Covenant and Mari go with "MaranaYah" rather than "b'khad b'shaba" (day of our Master YHWH vs Sunday), because here again ANC and Mari are going from Mosul text.
5) From here, I associated Mosul text of W5 as being part of 1905 because 1905-E + Mosul was used in ANC as if that was FULL 1905, and it is NOT.
6) In Mari I clearly identify the sources properly as Khabouris, Mosul and 1905 but somehow the overlapping nature of these texts got my wires crossed. Reading the essays of Brock and Metzger which I forwarded to you only made the matter less clear as time went on and my emphasis just on the text pushed these other technical details aside. I will clarify this going forward however.
7) I needed to see the transcription of MOSUL and CRAWFORD on the W5 side by side with the actual mss images, a compilation done by Stephen Silver, for it really to get home to me just how different Mosul is from Crawford for these books and where the long chain led to confusion.
<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> Finally it doesn't really have an impact on the English or the Aramaic since we are talking about both versions coming from Greek and since I show the variants anyway to let the reader decide. Nevertheless I will endeavor to make these relationship clearer going forward. Perhaps I need to do my own defintions and make sure they cannot be mistaken for anything else, especially by a much more tired version of myself who was still working on it years and years later.
Hope this helps!
(Will write more later)
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth