Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Version Analysis/Summary
Rest well Dave, and get back to work please <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ...I'm looking forward to your OT translation.


Ok...back to Version Analysis/Summary.

I just got Joseph Pashka's "The Aramaic Gospels and Acts: Text and Translation" which was published in 2003...and though I have not checked his translation work to see how he deals with the Aramaic Text he uses, I just checked it for Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53:-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:43, 20:28, 28:29....and all those verses are present and also has the Western reading in Acts 20:28.

He has a statement on the back of the book, which says this:

"The oldest Aramaic translations of the original Greek Gospels were finally standardised sometime in the third or fourth century as the version known as the Peshitta, The Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta version has been regarded as the standard version ever since, and is the same text presented here in the old Estrangelo letters."

This man, at that time he wrote that, seems to be totally un-aware of the Eastern Peshitta Text, or its history as the Sacred Scripture of The Church of the East from the time of the Apostles till now.

What he states there, is that the text he used for his translation, the Western Peshitto version of the Original Eastern Aramaic Scriptures, is a translation from a Greek source, and appeared in a standardized form in the 3rd-4th century.

While what he says about the entire Aramaic text itself being translated from the original Greek, is incorrect, some of the readings in the text he chose to use, do in fact originate from Greek and even Latin sources...

I'll look around more in the next few days and see what I find there.

The debate has certainly been interesting. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I went ahead and purchased Janet Magiera's Messianic Version for the Kindle. I also have downloaded Younan's translations on here. I suspect I will end up getting the AENT at some point, but with the cost being a little more, I am going to hold and study what I have for now.

Chuck, Paul, and Dave, I appreciate all your comments. I feel as if I have just uncovered a real treasure.

Dave, before I began this thread here, I attempted to email you on your site with a question, but I never heard back. You might check into that.


Both Paul Younan & Andrew Roth go with the Eastern Peshitta Text..and Roth adds the Western Five books to his Eastern Peshitta Text translations.

So far that I have seen, David Bauscher (hi Dave) and Joseph Pashka's translations are strictly of the Western Peshitto version...whereas all the others I have looked at, Lamsa, Magiera, Murdoch, & Etheridge have a mix of Eastern & Western readings in their respective English translations, in those places where the texts differ.

Though as has been established, but for about 7 verses/passages, and the two readings in Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9...and of course the five books not in the Eastern Peshitta Text, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation, they are the same in the 22 books.

Why arent those five books in the Eastern Peshitta Text?

Because the Eastern Peshitta Text, is so old, that when The Church of the East recieved those 22 books from the Apostles in the 1st century, the other five books, were either not yet written, or just not part of the Scriptures that they were given. Based on one statement in an old Manuscript, this may have been as early as 78 A.D.

If Revelation was written before then, which I believe it probably was, it may have at that time, been only circulating in Asia Minor, to which God had instructed it to be sent...unto the 7 Churches in that land. Later it was spread abroad, but took along time to fully be accepted even in the West.

The Church of the East, did not see these other books for many centuries if I'm not mistaken, right Paul?

And they have not rejected them, but have a special relationship with those 22 books that The Apostles handed personally to them.

Shlama Akhi Chuck,

Thirdwoe Wrote:The Church of the East, did not see these other books for many centuries if I'm not mistaken, right Paul?

Yes, that is true. If the Patristic heritage of the CoE is taken as a witness, there is a conspicuous absence of any reference or quotations from these books. Additionally, and more importantly, there is no appointed reading from these books in the Hudra, or any day in the liturgical "cycle."

All evidence points to a complete lack of knowledge concerning these books until at least the tumultuous period surrounding the Christological debacles in the West.

Thirdwoe Wrote:And they have not rejected them, but have a special relationship with those 22 books that The Apostles handed personally to them.

Akin to the Roman Catholic (not Protestant) viewpoint on the "Apocrypha."

Thanks for that information Shamasha Paul.

On another note...I was bummed out earlier tonight, when I found out who conducted the Holy Qurbana service at Mar Yosip here in San Jose last Sunday morning, which I did not attend, but was thinking about going. I found out after coming across some photos and videos taken that day on Qasha Genard's facebook page... I am still learning about his life and ministry in The Church of the East and would have loved to have been there.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->


Quote:Both Paul Younan & Andrew Roth go with the Eastern Peshitta Text..and Roth adds the Western Five books to his Eastern Peshitta Text translations.

something i've noticed that i thought should be mentioned: Andrew's Aramaic text is actually a mixed reading of the Eastern and Western, from what i can tell -- reading the first edition, that is. i know in the introductory pages he explains that some readings are from the 1905 and some from the Khabouris, but only when no difference is really present (as in spelling / word order), and he makes notes saying that he goes with the 1905 readings in some cases, but it should be understood that the Aramaic text on the right is NOT the Khabouris Codex -- a fact that i don't think is ever stated outright in the first edition. anyone familiar with the KC can verify this, but for a brief example here: Hebrews 2:16 is the Western reading by far, not from the Khabouris.

i am not attacking him or his work (hey i'm a fellow "Netzari," if i must have a label), as contributions to the translation of the Peshitta / Peshitto are always a good thing, for the most part. i just thought given the topic that it would be helpful for those who may not be aware that the Aramaic text on the right page of his work is not the Khabouris, even though it has Eastern readings in the two major divergent verses. praise Alaha for every honest modern version out there! the English world is blessed to have so many translations of the Aramaic at hand!

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Thirdwoe Wrote:Thanks for that information Shamasha Paul.

On another note...I was bummed out earlier tonight, when I found out who conducted the Holy Qurbana service at Mar Yosip here in San Jose last Sunday morning, which I did not attend, but was thinking about going. I found out after coming across some photos and videos taken that day on Qasha Genard's facebook page... I am still learning about his life and ministry in The Church of the East and would have loved to have been there.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->


Shlama Akhi Chuck,

Yes, I did hear that Mar Dinkha stopped in California to visit on his way back from Australia. He does travel frequently, so I'm sure you'll have many opportunities with him in the future. I've been told that he does speak English eloquently, although I've not personally heard it. Your first impressions will likely be of a graceful, humble and Christ-centered soul. Being that the Patriarchate is still in exile, I was lucky enough to have been ordained by him here in Chicago (I should post some video clips.)

Have a great evening...

Thanks Jeremy, I just learned something new. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Correction noted:

So, even though Andrew goes with the Eastern reading in the English translation on the left page of his work, he has the western reading of the same verse to the Interesting. I have the 1st edition as well...and need the 4th, but at 60 bucks...its kind of a bite. Ouch.

And looks like another verse is added to the list, where the Western Peshitto version differs with the Eastern Peshitta Text.

And speaking of that verse in Hebrews is an analysis of the differant English translation versions I have here:

Eastern Peshitta reading:

Etheridge: - For not from the angels he took [Men malakee nasab], but from the seed of Abraham he took.
Murdoch: - For he did not assume [a nature] from angels, but he assumed [a nature] from the seed of Abraham.
Roth: 1st Ed - For he did not assume (an immortal manifestation) from Messengers, but he assumed (a mortal manifestation) from the seed of Awraham.
Lamsa: - For he did not take on him the pattern of angels; but he did take on him the seed of Abraham.
Magiera: - For he did not assume [a nature] from the angels, but he assumed death from the seed of Abraham.

And these all, in their Eastern Peshitta readings, agrees with what is found in the ancient Greek, Latin and Coptic versions.
KJV: - For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Majority: - For indeed He does not take hold of angels, but He does take hold of the seed of Abraham.
Sinai: - For surely not angels does he succor, but the posterity of Abraham he succors.
Vulg: - For at no time did he take hold of the Angels, but instead he took hold of the offspring of Abraham.
Copt: - For he was not laying hold on the angels, but he is laying hold on the seed of Abraham.

Western Peshitto reading:

Bauscher - For death was not authorized over the Angels, but death was authorized over the seed of Abraham.

Very strange reading there in the Western Peshitto version...

Dave, if you are still reading this thread, I have a question....if the Western Peshitto is the Original Apostolic Text in all its readings as you maintain, and that the Greek was thus translated from it, rather than the Eastern Peshitta Text...then why is this reading not found in the ancient Greek texts, nor the Latin, nor the Copt? Have you checked this verse to see if other witnesses can be found for it outside of the Western Peshitto? I haven't checked the Apostolic Fathers quotations yet for this verse, but plan on it, as soon as I can.

Shlama Akhay,

A few observations pertinent to Andrew's translation are in order, and related to what Jeremy just wrote:
Andrew's translation of Revelation (actually Murdock's revised) is based on the Harklean Version (Greek to Aramaic translation done in AD 616), not on the Crawford ms. contained in the 1905 Peshitta edition which he displays on the right hand pages. There are many places where the Harklean differs from the Crawford text, and Murdock followed the Harklean, as the Crawford had not been discovered and published until more than 40 years after Murdock translated the Peshitta, yet Andrew presents the Crawford Aramaic text next to the translation on the left, as the text from which it was supposedly translated, when it is plain in many places that the English translation was not and could not have been from the Crawford of the 1905 Peshitta edition. In Rev. 1:10, Andrew has edited the 1905 Peshitta edition to the Harklean Version.
Examples of the mismatched Aramaic edition to English are in Rev. 1:13 (2 words),3:17 (2 words -"I am" is "you are" in his Aramaic text)and "blind" is not in Aramaic), 5:9- "tongue" is not in Crawford; in Rev. 6:5 "and see", plus "and I looked" are not in the Aramaic text. 6:7 does not have "and see" in the Aramaic text. 6:8 does not have, "and behold" in Aramaic. 7:17 "fountains of living water" is not in Aramaic, which has "beside Life and beside fountains of water". This same verse has "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes", in Aramaic, referring to "The Lamb in the midst of the throne", but Andrew's English text has "Elohim will wipe away..." 9:11 in English has "in Greek", where the Aramaic text has "Aramayth" (Aramaic).
I am sure there are lots of other examples like these, as John Gwynn has noted more than 350 differences between the Harklean Version and the Crawford manuscript in Revelation. Gwynn makes plain that the Crawford is very Peshitta like in its Aramaic syntax and idioms, and extremely Semitic:
"this version (Crawford ms. of Apocalypse) is idiomatic, following along the lines of the Peshitto, while that (codex Sigma S, representing the Harklean Version) is graecized, identifying itself with the Harkleian."- Gwynn's intro. to the Apocalypse of St. John, p. xxvii.
It cannot be an overstatement to say that Gwynn, who discovered the Crawford and published it, translating it into Greek and analyzing and comparing it to the Harklean and Greek manuscripts in the Apocalypse, was very impressed with its character and quality as an Aramaic document. What he says of the Crawford text of Revelation, he affirms equally of its text in the other of the "Western five" books. He wrote:
"I suspect that if the first editor of the Syriac New Testament in 1555 had had in his hands this or a similar ms. these Epistles would have been unhesitatingly included by him, and accepted by Biblical scholars without question, as an integral part of the Peshitto." ?Ibid, page xvi

He also wrote: "The Syriac of the Apocalypse of the printed editions (prior to this one of the Crawford) is unsparingly graecized (made "Greek like"), and its method is severely (even servilely) literal. The Syriac of the four Epistles is idiomatic and its method combines faithfulness with freedom." - Gwynn, page xvi

The four Epistles in the printed editions of the Peshitto, according to Gwynn, were very like the Crawford manuscript (the Crawford is actually a complete 27 book Aramaic New Testament, whose text in the 22 book Eastern canon is Eastern), and very natural and idiomatic Aramaic, like the Peshitto, whereas the text of those edtions in the book of Revelation was very different from the Peshitto, being from the Harklean Version, which is very unnatural Aramaic, because it is a very literal translation of Greek, and is almost Greek written in Aramaic letters, it is so slavish to Greek syntax, grammar and word order.

Gwynn continues to describe the Crawford text of Revelation: "What has been said in the previous chapter, of the resemblance to the Peshitto borne by the "Pococke" Epistles (one of the 17th century printed editions of the "Western four" Epistles), may be affirmed with at least equal confidence of the Apocalypse in the version which I now publish (the Crawford)." -p.xvii
He says of the Crawford manuscript as a whole (the only known complete 27 book Aramaic New Testament manuscript): "Had that Patriarch, instead of this copy, possessed, like the Patriarch of fifteen years earlier, and sent to Europe, the Crawford Ms., or one of equivalent contents, it may safely be presumed that Widmanstad would have, on its authority, given to the world, without doubt and in all good faith, a Syriac New Testament complete in all parts and commensurate with the Greek canon as commonly received. Thus the Editio Princeps would have exhibited, with the Peshitto and distinguished from it by no external indications, not only the Four Epistles, but the Apocalypse, in a version so closely akin in style and language to the Books of the Peshitto proper, that even an accomplished Semitic scholar might readily fail to discover in the supplementary matter the traces of a later hand." -pp.xvii,xviii

And there is more: His scrupulous fidelity to the substance of the Greek has
nowhere betrayed him into the adoption or imitation of Greek constructions,
by which the Syriac of the other version of the Apocalypse (in
common with the Harkleian) is systematically debased. With him, every
word, as well as every phrase, is, with rare exceptions, represented by a
purely Syriac equivalent ; and the expedient of naturalizing Greek words,
adapted or transliterated, is resorted to only in the two extreme cases?of
words which have absolutely no Syriac equivalent, such as crusoprasov
(xxi. 20)?and of words which, by the usage of good writers, have been
admitted into the Syriac vocabulary, such as diayhkh, stadion stolh
(xi. 19, xiv. 20, vi. 11) ; to which are, perhaps, to be added some words of
doubtfully Greek origin, such as aqinyov, kibwtov (viii. 11, xi. 9) and some
names of precious stones in xxi. 19, 20, and elsewhere. But this practice
is with him less frequent than even in the Peshitto New Testament."
And-" The result is, that it would be difficult for a reader unacquainted with the Greek of the
Apocalypse to discover that he had here before him a translation, and not an original document." -p.xix

These are very telling statements, especially in light of the fact that Gwynn was a Greek primacist, believing that the entire Peshitta and the Crawford ms. represented a translation of Greek originals.
Gwynn also analyzed the Crawford text of Revelation with regard to the Peshitta OT, and found that it uses the vocabulary of the OT Peshitta along with that of the Peshitta NT, and that the Crawford Revelation has closer affinities with the Peshitta OT than even with the Peshitta NT. One observation he makes about the Peshitta OT is:
"it is more purely Aramaic in the Old Testament than in the New." -p.xxi
This he explains by saying that the OT was translated from Hebrew, which is certainly true, but he also says the NT was translated from Greek, thus explaining certain graecisms. But some graecizing is to be expected in the context of first century Aramaic as spoken in various Greek cities and districts where Greek and Aramaic had coexisted in many places for centuries. There was bound to be some Greek influence on the Aramaeans & Jews and vice versa. The OT Peshitta, on the other hand, was not so much a reflection of spoken language, but of written language used in translation of Hebrew, so Graecisms would be much less frequent than when representing the common spoken tongue on the street, which is often represented in the NT. Some may explain these facts as showing that the OT Peshitta was translated at an earlier time than the NT Peshitta was written, before Greek was able to infiltrate the Eastern culture.
I will reproduce the section on the affinity of the Crawford text of Revelation to the Peshitta OT here, simply because it is so interesting:

"III.?Its special Affinity to the 0. T. Peshitto".
"Careful scrutiny discloses a further characteristic of this version.
Among the Books of the New Testament, the Apocalypse is not only the
most Semitic in form, phrase, and spirit, but it is the one in which,
though by indirect citation, the language of the Old Testament is most
freely appropriated. No reader can fail to observe how it reproduces the
imagery and the visions?often almost in the words?of the Hebrew
Prophets, especially of Daniel and of Ezekiel. For adequately rendering
such a Book into Syriac, therefore, an intimate knowledge of the Peshitto
Old Testament would be invaluable?almost indispensable. This qualification
our translator proves to have possessed in an eminent degree.
His work has some closer affinities, bespeaking a more habitual familiarity,
with the Peshitto of the Old Testament than of the New.
This is not the place to discuss the question whether the Old Testament
Peshitto is, in whole or part, an earlier work than the New (earlier even,
as some Syriac writers claimed, than the Christian era),?or a later work,
as J. D. Michaelis and other critics of the last century held;?or whether
they were contemporaneous and in fact parts of one great work of one
translator, or company or series of translators, which opinion Gregory
Barhebraeus, the great scholar of the Jacobite Church of the thirteenth
century', was disposed to adopt;?following (as it seems) the still higher
authority of Jacob of Edessa, six centuries earlier, and followed by (I believe)
the majority of Biblical scholars who have studied the matter.*
For my present purpose it suffices to note the fact, which is beyond
question, that, while the diction of the Peshitto Bible as a whole is fairly
homogeneous, it is more purely Aramaic in the Old Testament than in
the New. Some may see in this a mark of higher antiquity; others (as
it seems to me, with better judgment may regard it rather as a necessary
result of the fact that in the Old Testament the basis on which the
Peshitto rests is Hebrew, while in the New Testament it is Greek.
Hence the task of translation, In case of the Old, was simpler and easier
than in that of the New. The former passed readily and without effort into
a cognate Semitic tongue : in the latter, the translator (whether we are or
are not to suppose one translator to have dealt with both), however steadfast
in his adherence to the Syriac idiom, could hardly avoid occasionally
introducing Greek words,?such as, in point of fact, are not infrequent in
his work.^ Now in this respect, as I have said, the Crawford Apocalypse
follows a stricter usage than that of the Peshitto New Testament; it conforms
more nearly to that of the Old, now and then even adopting from
the Old a Syriac equivalent for a word (as euagglion, yronov, kubhrnhthv,
) which, in the New, is (at least sometimes) represented by a
transliteration. And, more generally, whenever its vocabulary passes
outside the range of the Peshitto New Testament, it proves in most cases
to have borrowed from the vocabulary of the Old. In the instances, not
of frequent occurrence, where it uses words that are not to be met with at
all in the Peshitto, Old or New Testament, it will be found usually to have
the authority of one or more good Syriac writers of the best period of
the language. The very few words employed in it which are unknown
to Syriac literature and lexicography, are correctly formed, and from
known roots.
' See the passages cited from Barhebraeus on Ps. x, and from the Preface to his Horreum
Mysteriorum, by Walton, Prolegomena, ? 13, par. 16 ;?also by Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, II, ? ii,
pp. 87, 103. See also tbe citation from Soadcd [Jesudad] in the Prefatio ad Libr. Psalmorum
of Sionita {Ad Lectorem, p. 3).
For J. D. Michaelis, see his Introduction to the JY.T., vol. II, pt. i., ch. vii. ? 2 [Marsh's
Translation]." - p. xxi

Distinguishing again between the Harklean (which for Revelation was always used up until Gwynn's edition of 1896) and the Crawford:

"The result of this investigation proves to be, as a matter not of theory but of fact,
that on the whole, and with but a few unimportant exceptions, our
Apocalypse stands to the Harkleian in a relation of strong contrast, but to
the Peshitto at large (putting aside the distinction between Old and New
Testament) in a relation of no less strong resemblance: while the other
version (Codex Sigma S) no less definitely (probably more definitely) parts company with
the Peshitto, and sides with the Harkleian. " -p.xxvi

Remember that Codex Sigma S represents the text of Revelation printed and translated up until the Crawford ms. was published in 1896. It is as strongly contrasted with the Crawford as with the Peshitta NT as a whole, and the Crawford is as like the Peshitta as it is unlike the Harklean.

VI.?General Contrast between this Version (Crawford) and the rival Version (Sigma). -p.xxvii
The Notes, in which I have indicated the successive instances as they
occur of contrast between these rival versions, S (Crawford) and S(Sigma), will serve to bear
out the comparison which I have above drawn between them; and they will,
at the same time, supply the readiest illustrations of the character and
method of the version S, its habitual conformity to Peshitto usage, and its
exceptional deviations from the same. I proceed to summarize the main
heads under which the points of contrast may be reduced. It will be seen
that their nature may be briefly expressed by the statement, that this
version is idiomatic, following in the lines of the Peshitto, while that is
graecized, identifying itself with the Harkleian. And this is so, alike
as regards their grammar and their vocabulary, and as regards their
general method.

In closing this investigation, I may be permitted to quote the concluding
sentences of the Memoir I have already referred to" :
" We justly claim [for this Version], as regards its general tone and
manner, that it approaches the excellence of the Peshitto ; and in point
of force, directness, and dignity, that it gives worthy expression to the
sublime imagery of the Apocalypse. It has strength and freedom such
as few translations attain ; such, in fact, that it would not be difficult to
make out a plausible case for accepting it as the Aramaic original, or a
close reproduction of an Aramaic original, of the Book. In it, far more
fully than in the cramped and artificial diction of its reviser, the Aramaic
idiom asserts its power to supply for the burden of the divine visions an
utterance more adequate than could be found for them in the Greek which
is their actual vehicle. From it, as a comparison of the two versions
shows, the latter one has borrowed the touches of simple majesty which
ever and again raise it out of its usual level of painstaking and correctness :
in it, I may almost venture to say, more perfectly than in the written
Greek, we may read ' the things which shall be hereafter', well-nigh in
the form in which St. John first apprehended the divine word that came to
him, and inwardly shaped into speech the revelation of ' the Lord God,
which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty

John Gwynn is very eloquently expressing his view of the Crawford Aramaic text, which though a translation of Greek, rises above the Greek in expressing more perfectly the original form of the word of God as came to St. John and "
Quote:inwardly shaped into speech the Revelation of ' the Lord God,
which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty."

This is an amazing statement coming from a Greek primacist, and the one who was more intimately acquainted with this manuscript than anyone in the world. One gets the impression that a mere breath of Peshitta primacy whispered before him might have tipped the scales of his judgement entirely the other way onto the Peshitta primacy side; nevertheless, the spirit of his remarks are definitely not of Greek primacy, but of Aramaic primacy, for he claims the Aramaic of the Crawford is superior to the Greek in expressing the original inspired word of God.

This man was an Aramaic primacist in spirit, if ever there was or can be such a thing.

Many thanks to Stephen Silver for making Gwynn's books available online as pdf files on
I have the books in print, but the pdf's make copying and pasting the text so much easier than having to type it all out. I would not have copied so much of it if Stephen had not made them available. Gwynn's books are really invaluable in studying the Western five Epistles and learning the difference between the Harklean Version and the Pococke and Crawford ms. editions, and hence, the need for translations of the latter, as opposed to the many translations of the Harklean Version of those books.

I hope no one takes offense at my pointing out the discrepancies in Andrew's translation and Aramaic text. I think they are perfectly understandable, given that very few have researched the Crawford and the variations from the Harklean, and understand that almost all the older English translations of the Apocalypse are from the Harklean Version. All translations of the Aramaic Apocalypse prior to 1892 are from the Harklean Version, as the Crawford's unique text was unknown and unpublished prior to that date.

Burkta b'Maran
Blessings in our Lord,

Dave, are you saying that the Crawford Manuscript is a faithful copy of the Aramaic Scriptures as written by the Apostles and their helpers in all its 27 books or just the 5 not present in the Eastern Peshitta Text?

How much does the 1905 Critical Text you used for your translation of the NT and the Crawford Manuscript differ?

Also, here is a qoute from one of Andrew's books, which touch on this Manuscript a bit.

"More than any other book in the Western 5, Revelation contains
evidence that strongly suggests that at least some portions of it were of
Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, the road to understanding that
evidence is far from easy, as there are two different Aramaic versions of
Revelation to look at. The first one, begun by Philoxenius of Madbug in
508 and revised later by Thomas of Harkel in 616, is simply a translation
from Greek sources. The second version, the Crawford Manuscript,
appears to come from about five centuries later.22 While it has many
indicators of being translated from the Greek, in other ways it appears to
also have Aramaic recensions that precede the Greek. And then of
course, with the Greek Revelation itself, we see possible evidences that it
bows down to a lost Semitic master that I term ?Nazarene Revelation?.
Now I realize that such assertions can frequently stray into
tenuous and speculative country, this being admitted up front. However,
it should also be pointed out that just because an original may be lost,
does not necessarily mean that there is no evidence it existed. For
example, we know the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew source
even though we cannot find that precise Semitic variant all these
centuries later. And yet, from both a historical and linguistic perspective,
the Septuagint also bows down to its Semitic master. In much the same
way then, we can look at the Greek as well as the other two versions, and
find that in their own ways they are doing the same thing."

Thirdwoe Wrote:Dave, are you saying that the Crawford Manuscript is a faithful copy of the Aramaic Scriptures as written by the Apostles and their helpers in all its 27 books or just the 5 not present in the Eastern Peshitta Text?

How much does the 1905 Critical Text you used for your translation of the NT and the Crawford Manuscript differ?

Also, here is a qoute from one of Andrew's books, which touch on this Manuscript a bit.

Shlama Akhi Chuck:
I have done a comparative colour-coded transcription between the Crawford Codex and the 1891 Mosul text, of II Peter, II John, III John and Jude. You will find them in downloadable PDF's at the Crawford Codex page at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w -->

Stephen Silver
Shlama Chuck,

Quote:Dave, are you saying that the Crawford Manuscript is a faithful copy of the Aramaic Scriptures as written by the Apostles and their helpers in all its 27 books or just the 5 not present in the Eastern Peshitta Text?
How much does the 1905 Critical Text you used for your translation of the NT and the Crawford Manuscript differ?

The Crawford is a very faithful copy of the Eastern Peshitta in its 22 book canon and also, I believe, a faithful copy of the original Aramaic scriptures in the Western five books. Its readings are practically identical to the 1905 edition in the Western four Epistles. Some of the few differences Stephen has highlighted in the Western four are actually 1905 readings as well, and most of those that are different are either spelling variations or the addition or omission of a prefix letter, or a different suffixed pronoun letter. I have not done an extensive comparison in the 22 books canon, though from what Stephen Silver has informed us of it, and I have verified in a few places, it appears to be Eastern in its text in those books.

The Crawford is a Jacobite manuscript written in Tur'abdin (now "Jebel-Tur") in the hills of north east Mesopotamia (now in south-eastern Turkey). It is written in a modified Estrangelo script, Jacobite in style & origin. It is one of the manuscripts Gwilliam & Pusey used for their 1901 Peshitta Gospels edition, labeled #12. It has first, the four Gospels, then Revelation, Acts & seven Catholic Epistles, and then the Pauline Epistles. The Apocalypse has a subscription assigned to "Saint John the Evangelist" & the subscription to "Saint John Apostle and Evangelist".

1st Peter is "the First Epistle of Peter", "the First Epistle of John", connecting them respectively to 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John which follow.

I have just finished a comparison of the Crawford with the 1905 Peshitta edition in Matthew 1-7, similar to the comparison I did with the Khabouris. I used Gwilliams & Pusey's 1901 Tetraevangelium Sanctorum which is their critical Peshitta edition of the Gospels used in the 1905 Peshitta. The apparatus has the collated readings of 42 Peshitta mss., and the Crawford is one of the mss. collated.

In the seven chapters, there are 13 total variants in the Crawford from the 1905 edition. Eleven of those are spelling and orthographical style differences- i.e. an Alap added at the beginning of a word, which does not affect the meaning, or, separating compound words into the two component words.

This leaves only two significant variations from the 1905 edition. What is really interesting is that the Eastern 1886 Mosul edition of the Peshitta agrees with the Crawford in eight of the thirteen Crawford variants. This is not surprising to me, as the Crawford is a very Eastern Peshitta in its text. Nevertheless, there are only two significant variants out of 15 pages of Peshitta text between the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta. Even the 13 total, with eleven superficial variations, amounts to less than one percent variation- 0.5%. Two somewhat significant variants amounts to 0.07% of the 2800 words in the seven chapters of Matthew. So the Crawford and the 1905 Peshitta are at 99.5% agreement in Matthew 1-7; the Eastern Mosul Peshitta appears to be even closer, agreeing in eight of those thirteen readings where the Crawford differs from the 1905 edition, though overall I have not compared the Mosul and the Crawford in those seven chapters, so I cannot give a true statistic for their comparison.

I can, however, compare the Khabouris results in Matthew with the Crawford results. The Khabouris varies a total of 20 times from the 1905 in Matthew 1-6. There are 2500 words in those 6 chapters, so there is a total variation of 0.8%; the Crawford is closer to the 1905, with only 0.5% variation. Moreover, the Crawford not only agrees more closely with the 1905 edition than does the Khabouris, but also with the Eastern Mosul 1886 edition, which agrees with the Crawford in 8 out of the 13 where the Crawford differs from the 1905. The Mosul agrees with the 1905 in nine of those places where the Khabouris differs significantly from the 1905.

The bottom line is that the Mosul Eastern Peshitta agrees with the 1905 Peshitta more closely than with the Khabouris ms.. I think it is wrong to classify the 1905 Peshitta as Western. Its text is apparently more Eastern than the Khabouris, at least in Matthew 1-6. Remember too, that the verses such as the Pericope de Adultera, Acts 8:37, etc., are not in Western Peshitta mss. or Eastern Peshitta mss. They are from other Aramaic mss. (in the case of Acts 8:37- a 1600 edition of the Peshitta supplies the Aramaic text), but it is incorrect to label those mss. as Western Peshitta; they are not Peshitta at all. Including them in the 1905 Peshitta edition does not make it a Western Peshitta. It simply means non Peshitta text is included from other sources. The Pericope de Adultera is collated from 8 Aramaic mss., two of which are labeled "Peshitta NT" by Gwynn, and are relatively recent- AD 1611 & 1675. These two have the pericope in the traditional place at the end of John 7. Most Peshitta mss., Eastern and Western, do not have the pericope.

The Western Five books are not in most Western Peshitta mss. either. No Peshitta ms. contains them, unless we label the entire 27 book Crawford ms. as Peshitta; it certainly is for the 22 book Eastern canon. There is another Peshitta ms. called the Peckover ms. of 26 NT books (no Apocalypse), dated 1475 by its Scribe at Tur Abdin (north east Mesopotamian monastery), whose subscription at the very end of the volume reads,"The New Testament, The Peshitta Version, exceedingly accurate." This Scribe also wrote before the Western four Epistles, "Four Epistles of the Apostles which are not found in all copies". John Gwynn writes: "Apparently therefore, our Scribe regarded our Epistles as belonging to that version, though not always included in all copies of it."
Personally, I think that this Scribe reflects an old tradition, at least of the Jacobite Syrian church, that considered at least 26 books, if not the 27 books, as Peshitta. It is incorrect to say the Eastern Peshitta included 27 books, but apparently it is not incorrect to say so of the Western Peshitta. I cannot be dogmatic on this point, however.
Burkta b'Pruqan
Blessings in our Savior,
Very Interesting...

Dave, have you compared the Crawford's 22 books with the Khabouris, in those 7 verses and two word changes, we have been discussing to see which has what in it?

How do you conclude that the Crawford is an Eastern text, when you say you just looked at Matthew 1-7. What is either Eastern or Western about those 7 chapters?
So, it appears that CEO and Syrian(c?) Orthodox both have 22 books.
Until now I thought only COE has 22 books.
Does any other more church has 22 books besides the two mentioned.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)