Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Andrew Roth
November 9, 2008

Dear Andrew

In reading your new book, ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (Netzari Press, 2008), I need some help from you in understanding better the text that you used for the Western 5 and Revelation in particular. You mention the 1890 Mosul edition and the Crawford text. Also, the British and Foreign Bible Society added the Western Five to the 1905 Peshitta text in 1920, and has been republishing that text several times. I have a copy published in 1950. They state in their Preface that the Revelation text was based on "a manuscript formerly in the possession of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres". They also state that the "text of the four Epistles follows the Philoxenian Version".

I think that the version of the "Peshitta" in the ONLINE BIBLE" on the internet is the same as the 1920 British and Foreign Bible Society version which is really the Western Peshitto. Also, I think that the 1905 British and Foreign Bible Society text is the Western Peshitto version of the 22 books and does not match the Eastern text of the Peshitta.

I would very much appreciate your help in clearing up my confusion about the Western 5 texts and which texts you have printed in your book. Did you use the Mosul edition of Revelation? Is that the so-called Philoxenian Version of Revelation? I see that you have many comments about the Crawford version in which you indicate that you have contrasted it.


Shlama Akhi Otto,

A bit of clarification on the Mosul edition. Mosul is of course the modern name of ancient Nineveh, actually the modern town is across the river from the ruins of Nineveh. About 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church began proselytizing among the Assyrian Christians who belonged to the Church of the East. Today that branch is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and they call themselves "Chaldeans" or the "Chaldean Catholic Church."

One of the main centers of learning and publication for the Chaldean Catholic Church, who follow the Pope of Rome, is Mosul. The "Mosul" text that was printed in 1905 is a product of this community that was formerly part of the Church of the East, but which today is part of the Roman Catholic Church. Since their conversion to Roman Catholicism, they have obviously had to make numerous changes to their scriptural canon, liturgy and patrimony. Including the "Western 5" is part of that, hence the 1905 Mosul edition.

The 22 books are the same as the Peshitta in use by the original line of the Church of the East, but they have included the 5 books translated from the Greek by Philoxenus and Thomas of Harkel.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Shlama Akhi Otto,

Simple answer is this:
For 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude--Philoxenian.
For Revelation--Harkalean (Peshitto)

Now, a little more explanation. As you go through AENT you will see hundreds of places where Khabouris is contrasted with 1905 (1920) CE, and where I choose one or the other, footnote, etc. For the Western 5 though, those are NOT in Eastern canon and thereore NOT in Khabouris, so the four minor epistles have to be Philoxenian assuming BFBS is correct about what is in their 1905, which would include Mosul. Technically speaking the full edition was started in 1905 with the Gospels and finished in 1920 with the rest of NT. The Crawford Codex, as far as I know, is the only Aramaic mss that has all all 27 books. Basically, if I am not footnoting a variance it means I am staying with 1905 but my choice of that doesn't come from Crawford Codex per se as much as it is going with the decision of the 1905 compilers.

For Revelation though, I have a very strong preference for Harkalean-Peshitto version and yes, I think Gwynn is right that what we now call "Crawford Revelation" is in fact Philoxenian Revelation. As you know, in that case, I am showing a lot of the variances between the two Aramaic versions and as you also know, I don't claim either version or the Greek as the original form of that book. I believe that with respect to Revelation the oldest surviving copies are clearly in Greek and both Aramaic versions are definitely translated from that Greek. I also believe the "autograph" of Rev was in Hebrew/Aramaic but is now lost (or hopefully just hiding) and this "Nazarene Rev" as I call it gave birth to both the Greek and the Aramaic versions that have come down to us.

In terms of parsing through these two versions, there are some difficulties. Scholarly consensus exists that both Philoxenius of Madbug and Thomas of Harkel translated the ENTIRE NT and revised/Grecianized it, including the 22. The debate as to where and what belongs to whom seems to my mind to unresolvable at this time. In at least one case, as Bruce Metzger says, a mss actually claims to authored by one of these men and is in fact derived from the other one, leading a minority of scholars to posit the idea that both may be independent versions, as opposed to one being revised/derived from the other.

The other issue is that if you come from a standpoint as I think Bauscher does that all 27 books of the NT are compositional Aramaic, then you have to go with the earliest extant versions of the Aramaic for W5 that you can find, and that means Philoxenian. However, if you believe as I do that the original Aramaic autographs, if they existed for these 5 books, are now lost, then you have to look for which Aramaic version is most faithful to the Greek, and for that, you need Harkelean. Metzger goes so far as to call Harkalean mss "slavish to the Greek, almost to the point of sacrificing clarity". For myself, what Metzger calls "slavish" is for me just what is needed for Revelation, but again, I really strive to have ALL VOICES FOR THIS BOOK HEARD. The other four books seem small enough to be "safe" with the Philoxenian-1905 readings in spite of a "targumistic tendency" that Metzger also mentions for them.

Hope this clarifies as I don't think these matters are as cut and dried as we might otherwise hope for them to be.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Thanks, Andrew, for your clear restatement of your approach. I have a few followup questions.

What is the physical source of your Harkalean-Peshitto Aramaic text of Revelation? Is there an electronic copy available on the web or elsewhere?

I think that the 1905-20 British and Foreign Bible Society (London) New Testament text is a somewhat diffeent version of the Peshitto from the SOC approved version, especially in that it uses the Crawford Text of Revelation. Am I correct?

I think that the ONLINE BIBLE Aramaic text of the "Peshitta" is propably identical to the 1905-20 BFBS version. I think that it is the version that Dave Bauscher used for his translation because the electronic version that he got with his "Codemaker" computer program was probably the ONLINE BIBLE version and he convinced himself that it was the "perfect" text because of his Bible Code explorations. He wrote that the true Aramaic version of Revelation has exactly 28,113 Aramaic characters! Am I correct in these areas of thought? Have you looked at the ONLINE BIBLE "Peshitta"?

I think that the SOC approved Peshitto is found in UBS (1979) and UBS (1988). I have a copy of UBS (1979) and it contains 39 Old Testanment books and 27 New Tesstament books and has the seal and impramatur of the "Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East (Damascus-Syria)". Presumably these are the same as the 1887-91 MosuI version. I assume that these have the Harkalean Revelation. Am I correct?

I would appreciate your help in sorting this out so that I can better understand the textual basis of the various versions of the Peshitta/Peshitto.


Shlama Akhi Otto,

You are not alone in this confusion. There are actually cases where Philoxenian traditions are identified as Harkalean and vice versa. The Way International, for example, calls their version Philoxenian but most including Dr. Brock, think they are mistaken and that their text for that portion of the NT is Harkalean. If the Way Intl version has that wrong, then it clearly is a mistake arising from difficult to interpret information. Here are two places to start in dealing with these complexities. This link is for Sebastian Brock:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=",M1"> ... t#PPA50,M1</a><!-- m -->

As Dr. Brock says, there are only two mss of Harkalean Revelation that are known to exist. One of these is called "Oxford New College 333", dated to the 11th century. The other is known "Cambridge Add. 1700", dated to 1169-70. Other scholars however disagree on this. Metzger has a related discussion, from pages 65-80 (approx) of this link:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... sult#PPA71</a><!-- m -->.

Metzger contends that there is another mss known as 724 that is probably earlier which is also Harkalean but whether it has Rev or just the Gospels as other Harkalean mss have is not clear from what I read. I only know that Harkalean mss are roughly divided between those that have the Gospels thru Acts and those that have the 4 minor Epistles through Revelation.

I can tell you that 1905 (20) BFBS and SOC 1979 are not completely identical. UBS reads in Revelation 1:10 "b'khad b'shaba" (Sunday) whereas Aramaic New Covenant following 1905-Mosul reads "MaranaYah", and I discuss that variant in Mari. I have read somewhere in these two links for Brock and Metzger that 1979 UBS includes at least two texts that are not from the 1905 Critical Edition, but I think one of these is simply pericopa adultera, for obvious reasons. You might want to read over these papers though for yourself.

To what extent 1905 and UBS 1979 further diverge I am not certain because I have not done a letter by letter comparison. I have not read Bauscher's version nor the ONLINE PESHITTA/BIBLE you mention either. Also, I don't have UBS 1988 at all.

Another complexity is this: When I said earlier that the four minor Epistles were Philoxenian, it was based on taking the BFBS' word for that. However, I have also long believed that Aramaic Peshitto Rev as compiled by BFBS is probably Harkalean and I stand by the general understanding that it is the Harkalean form of Revelation that is used in the SOC versions.

I have used the 1905 transciption of Rev in Midyat form form with permission from <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w -->, which is now reorganizing their website and transferring to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon site. The 1905 itself is public domain even though BFBS is absorbed by UBS. I am also sort of taking Gwynn at his word (which is compelling) that he had found the Philoxenian versions of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude. However, there have been so many mis-identifications of one for the other, as well as many areas of agreement between them, as to give me pause.

As far as I know the Harkalean mss I mentioned are not online. Khabouris is and I have high image digital files of Crawford that I can consult but not reproduce for publication per Rylands Institute rules. Other online resources though include Gwynn's trancription of the Philoxenian Minor Epistles, and detailed discussions of variants by William Norton, JW Etheridge and James Murdock. I am sorry if I can't clear this up better. That's the best i can tell you.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Thanks for this information.

One more question. The BFBS 1920 has a version of Revelation that they say in the Preface is Crawford. Are you suggesting that it is not?

Please look at the ONLINE BIBLE at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

It is free and has dozens of electronic Bible texts that can be copied for careful study.

Go to the "Download Page" ignoring the unlock for sale stuff and you will find a terrific list of free Bible texts including the Jewish Publication Society Old Testament 1917, the Vulgate in Latin, etc.....

Under ANCIENT TEXTS you will find a dowloadable copy of the "Peshitta Syriac New Testament" which I belive is really the 1905-20 BFBS text with the Crawford Revelation. But I am not certain. The font is Ashuri. Please look at it and see what you think.


[..] <-- I have moved the content of this post to another, more appropriate thread.
Admins - could you delete this occurrence? Thank you
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
November 19, 2008

Dear Andrew:

I have a hard-bound printed copy of The British and Foreign Bible Society's, "The New Testament in Syriac" as published in 1905 for the four Gospels and in 1920 for all 27 books. In the Preface signed by B. Kilgour, Editorial Superintendent, The Bible House, London, December, 1919, is the following specific statement:

"The text of Revelation is taken by permission from an edition issued in 1807, which was prepared by the late Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Dublin, from a manuscript formerly in the possession of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, but now preserved in the John Rylands Library, Mamchester."

It will help us all if you would be so kind as to attemot to verify this statement by looking at the text itself. If you do not have aceess to it I can easily make a PDF photcopy of Revellation with my computer scanner and send it to you.

Likewise, I think it would be very helpful if you looked at and evaluated the ONLINE BIBLE "Peshitta" text as well since so many people have free access to it. Here are the steps in finding the Peshitta text:

Go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and click on the red "Windows Online Bible" near the top left side of the page. Next click on the green "CLICK HERE FOR OUR DOWNLOAD SECTION" near the top of this new page. Now scroll down to the group of "Ancient Texts" and you will see the "Peshitta Syriac New Testament" ready for download. Before you can download the Peshitta and view it you must go back up that page to "English Programing Free Downloads" and download the free Online Bible program. Follow the instructions and then go back and dowwload the Peshitta text and install it.

If you have any problems with the Online BIble you can call the friendly man who oversees this program at (519) 767-2266 (Noon to 5 pm EST) and he will pleasantly walk you through it.

Since everybody has direct electronic access to the "Peshitta" at ONLINEBIBLE, your evaluation will be invaluable to us all.

Thanks for your help.


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)
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Dear Andrew,

Please understand that my quesrions are really not about your book because I think you have been clear in your writing and explanations. I see no problem in your learned approach.

Rather, I am primarily interested in sortiong out and understanding the relationship of the various extant texts that various people are using. As a scientist I like to have an orderly understanding of what is going on. For example, it seems possible hat the BFBS 05-20 may be quite different in various aspects from either the Khaboris Ms. in the 22 books and also different from the SOC or Mosul texts in the Western 5. In the BFBS 05 there are presented two separate alternative versions of the beginning of John 8 with and without the woman in adultery story on alternatuve pages 14 and 14A. That's quite interesting, is it not? The BFBS 05-20 is inportant because it is widely used and referenced.

The ONLINE BIBLE versions is inportant because it is freely available and therefore widely used also. (I think Bauscher used it for his translation, but I am not sure.) Knowing what it really is has importance in understanding the available texts and contrasting them.

I suspect that the ONLINE BIBLE "Peshitta" is some version of the BFBS 05-20, but I'm not sure. What do you think?


Shlama Akhi Andrew,

A quick note:

Andrew Wrote: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.

"Maranaya" is an adjective, meaning "Lord's" and doesn't have any connotation with YHWH.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Shlama Akhi Otto,

If you would be so kind as to send me a pdf of this ONLINE BIBLE/PESHITTA, I will be more than happy to review it and tell you what I think it is. I am having real problems getting their program to work and it is taking too much time for me to do it otherwise. Maybe I chose the wrong download options but the frames and other resources are there, and there is a Peshitta marker, but no access to it. I can keep trying but it will be faster if you just send it to me. Nor do I want to call their tech support and spend a lot more time. But I will absolutely try to help you otherwise.

As I have said, i have these files already and I don't need theirs taking up 12 MB of space on my hard drive nor do I need to see this stuff in ktav ashurri when I can read it in estrangela just fine. For what it is worth though, what I have seen from the module I can access seems very good indeed. I can't of course know or speak to what Bauscher used in terms of online resources. I will tell you that from his previous discussions here, I got the very strong sense his transcription was 100% BFBS 1905 which would include Crawford Rev. In fact I am pretty sure about this.

I understand what you are trying to do. You are searching to in a way validate scientifically Bauscher's non-code beliefs in a "perfect Peshitta' but for my money that perfect Peshitta is the EASTERN 22, and this whole idea of Crawford as some perfect or even original just doesn't hold water. He can think that it is perfect all he wants, but both versions of Aramaic Rev are clearly translational, from the Greek. Gwynn does an amazing job and most seem to neglect the Greek translation he did that proved it on the same volume that he discusses Crawford Rev.

As for the pericopa adultera, well, that story is not even part of the four earliest Greek codices of John so it is not an original story there either, although itit is very satisfying emotionally to read Is it interesting that Gwynn studies two versions of it? Absolutely, and Gwynn himself is the best source for seeing that relationship in a very scientific way. I am looking at a lot of what he is saying there too. I certainly do not disagree in the slightest for the need to look at these things in great detail and continuously. But I am more interested in what is earliest.

As for Khabouris and 1905, yes there are many differences. One look at Stephen Silver's <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w --> proves this when you look at the color codes he has in the transcription and compare them to the actual pages. I have also documented a ton of these differences, both great and small, between them. Fortunately the vast majority of these variances do not impact on overall meaning, and those that do we have discussed on forum many times over the years.

Akhi khabiba, trust me when I tell you that no one would want to embrace a full perfect 27 book Peshitta canon more than me. I would love that beyond belief. Trimm tried to excite me with this idea somewhat 10 years ago in spite of his admixture of sources in the Gospels, but certainly from Acts through Rev which would include the full W5. But honestly, there is a gap between what I believe in the 27 and what I feel I can prove textually or scientifically if you prefer. At least I can admit it though honestly. Many others simply cannot do so. I want my Nazarene Rev so badly I can taste it, but I can't extend that grace to Crawford as much as it pains me.

I can confirm that there are at least a few differences between SOC 1979 and BFBS 1905--I have seen I think at least three instances of this, but I don't know how many more instances there are and because I don't have their revised 1988 version I don't know if these were corrected. I suspect however that there are more differences though due to SOC as a church following Harkalean tradition which, whatever Crawford Codex might otherwise be, it clearly is NOT Harkalean.

But as I said, send me this version if you can and I will look at it. If you can't, tell me that too and I will try again when I have time. I sincerely want to help you.

Trust me when I tell you I have taken your inquiries in the kind and respectful spirit you have intended. More than that, I appreciate your patience with me as I have sorted this out.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Tkanks, Andrew.

I am just trying to learn more about the various texts of the Aramaic New Testament. I don't in amy way disagree with any of your positions.

I am certainly not "searching to in a way validate scientifically Bauscher's non-code beliefs in a "perfect Peshitta". In fact, I showed that Dave Bauscher's Bible code exploits were faulty. Unfortunately, they misled him to a tenacious faith in a text that he happened to get by chance, the ONLINE BIBLE "Peshitta". That resulted in his personal belief that that text was the one true and perfect text down to the single character. In his books he states that he is using "The 1905 Syriac Peshitta New Testament (UBS) critivcal edition" that has exactly 461,094 letters and is perfect and infallible!

I certainly don't believe him to be correct, but I don't think he will relent in his position no matter what proof is presented. The Bible Code junk in the beginning of his tramslations and in his appendices may make the whole Aramaic Bible movement seem somewhat goofy to many readers. Too bad. I think his tramslation work is quite good!

What I am trying to do is categorize the texts in my own mind and learn more abour their differences.

Thanks for your help.



P.S. I have e-mailed you the PDF text of the ONLINE BIBLE version of "The 1905 Syriac Peshitta New Testament ". This text is in the public domain. Do you think Paul would like to add it to the PDF collection at

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)