12-28-2010, 07:37 AM
Stephen Silver Wrote:There is no definitive proof that the Aramaic of Gilyana (Book of Revelation) has an Aramaic original. There are onlt remnants of Aramaic ideas and idioms which were translated from Aramaic into Greek. The two main manuscripts are the Harklean and some would say the Philoxinian is the second most widely used translation. The Harklean (616 A.D.)) is believed by some scholars to be a revision of the Philoxinian (508 A.D.)
Does anybody have any more insights about the differences?
I know that G.D. Bauscher based his translation from the 5 books which are not in the Canon of the East, using the Philoxian, but thus far, I've not seen any other comparitive study done by anybody.
It seems to me, based on his work, that the Crawford (philoxian?) revelation is too Aramaic and to authentic to ignore it.