Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Crawford Codex of Revelation ? Glaser Transcript
#1
Chronicling the Crawford Codex of Revelation.

You can click the above link for my spreadsheet that is tracking each Aramaic letter in the Crawford codex. I?m comparing this ancient codex against the standard Peshitto version used by Magiera & Bauscher. I?ve marked variances in blue font -- so people seeking the most ancient reading available today can quickly identify Crawford?s uniqueness by going directly to the blue characters on my spreadsheet.

The Crawford codex archived in the Special Collections Department of the University of Manchester (Rylands) is considered the oldest Aramaic copy of the Book of Revelation. I obtained digital photographs of this codex directly from Rylands Library, so my work is not dependent on the Gwynn Transcript (1897), though I am cross-referencing Gwynn to triple-check my own accuracy (which also involves scribal letter-counting), and because I desire to check Gwynn?s work. I have found three instances so far where Gwynn requires correction: Revelation 2:12, 2:13, and 2:23.

I love this project; the Book of Revelation is awe-inspiring and I think the greatest promise mankind has ever received. I?ve already been blessed by the Father to reveal that Yahshua?s seven assemblies, when mapped out on the earth using this Aramaic text, form a sword & shepherd?s staff.

And I?ve been led to find other codes in the bible as well, hidden mathematical meanings. That is why I am so motivated to accurately record the Crawford codex of Revelation in numerical form inside a spreadsheet at this time. I?m also in the process of going deeper with algorithms that search the codex for numerical patterns and the representation of physical phenomena like natural coupling constants, the golden ratio, and light mechanics.

My goal is to release the first code findings of this project this summer at dylh code worker. Just like here at Peshitta.org, my work has no copyrights. Matthew 10:8. The work will be presented in a format where anyone with the necessary aptitude can use my spreadsheet format to examine their own texts (i.e., the gospel of Matthew, or the novel Crime & Punishment, or even a random series of letters) and run their own searches to look for number patterns. Mathematicians are also encouraged to participate by writing their own algorithms.

In the meantime, I?ll be slowly adding more chapters to the Crawford Codex spreadsheet (my goal is 1-2 chapters per week), so you can follow along if you like.
Reply
#2
I really want to see this Gregg, but I can't open it in word as my program is messed up....do you have it in PDF?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#3
Yes, here's the pdf link: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.logicalhierarchy.com/Crawford/Revelation-Numerical-Data.pdf">http://www.logicalhierarchy.com/Crawfor ... l-Data.pdf</a><!-- m -->

And of course to view the Estrangelo font in the pdf: download Estrangelo

I'll plan to update this pdf each week as I go forward with the Crawford project, so people who want to send me comments before the final can email me or PM.

Also, I have an algorithm ready that will reorganize the final spreadsheet into a printer-friendly Interlinear version of the Codex - that interlinear version will omit my notes and the numbers, so it will just present the Crawford text and the English translation. You can even choose to read from 'right to left or right to left' - the correct answer is to know the possibilities spiral from both directions. Just as the Aramaic word 'messiah' is a wordplay for 'possibility', we can see possibilities in the written word; the Word is alive.
Reply
#4
Thanks, for sharing Gregg, I'll check it out.
Reply
#5
Awesome work. Will be anticipating the updates.
Reply
#6
So, i just looked into this, and was very surprised you are almost done. Great work, thank you so much! Do you have any plans on doing the same with Jude, 2 Peter, 2&3 John?
Reply
#7
Thanks man, that?s very kind. Yes, I?m at Chapter 21 right now and have already found 15+ errors in Gwynn?s 1897 transcript, and many important distinctions (see list below) between the ancient Crawford codex and the modern Peshitto.

The Crawford codex is amazing ? to my mind, it utilizes consistent and precise grammar throughout the entire book. My observation is that the standard/consensus text (I call it ?Standard Peshitto? or ?SP?) has many corruptions where scribes have omitted words, added words, changed words (sometimes carefully the same word (such as rys (?head?) or raza (?secret?)) is changed throughout the entire book), and changed grammar (i.e., changing an Aphel conjugation to a regular passive voice) ? always to fit some ideological meaning or (pre)conceived notion for what those scribes thought the text was pointing toward. But when you read the Crawford codex (that doesn?t have the modern changes), you gain insights into possibly why scribes of SP made changes (often at junctures of potential ambiguity), either because they didn?t like an assumption in their mind, or in the text, or perhaps in their preferred dialect.

For example, SP assumes ?David? isn?t supposed to have an aleph in it, so they took the aleph out. Or the SP scribe would change a word to its singular form because they thought it was supposed to point to the singular thing they were thinking rather than the plural thing referenced very logically just one or two nouns earlier in the text. Awesomely, when you read Crawford l-e-t-t-e-r by letter, you can see the book doesn?t always point where you expect (see e.g., Rev 11:12), yet it always remains entirely logical and grammatically consistent.

You can read my spreadsheet for details, but in a nutshell here the key points that emphasize Crawford?s originality and uniqueness:

? 1:1 ? consistent grammar in Crawford suggests the first word glyna (?revelations?) is actually plural

? 1:3 ? the first blessing is to Yahshua exclusively. The second blessing is to those who hear and guard the word, and their blessing is not separate from Yahshua but rather is within Yahshua (because the blessing is stated as a singular word twbThna, which is an emphasized word (na suffix) to show the fullness of the blessing given to Yahshua).

? 1:6 ? Crawford uses the definite article twice lEalma dEalma to confirm that the Father remains in control of the ?the age of this world?.

? 1:16 ? an energetic ?spirit? (ruKha) comes from the mouth of the messiah, not a sharp spear (rumKha)

? 2:17 ? Crawford identifies a person in Pergama with a solitary life, not a white pebble/accounting. I hope to show the importance of this fact soon, as I think it reveals a mystery about Christian monasteries in ancient Southwestern Syria.

? 2:23 ? Crawford has a scribal correction in the margin about the bridal veil of Jezebel

? 3:7 ? Crawford has the spelling davyd. The first spelling dvd was used during the first temple period, and then dvyd was the progression of the name around the second temple period. And now here is Crawford we see davyd, which is suggestive of a third temple period (the messiah is the temple).

? 6:12 - In regards to the beginning of the 6th seal, Crawford has nuhra ("light"). Obviously that is a big difference from the standard translation of the 6th seal beginning with nuda ("earthquake"). So the standard text prophesies a great earthquake, whereas Crawford prophesies a great light.

? 6:12 ? Crawford refers to the sun being like zqa (?wineskin?), whereas the standard translation has sqa ("sackcloth").

? 6:14 - Crawford says the sky aThpShr ("was dissolved/interpreted"). By contrast, the Peshitto has aThprSh ("was parted").

? 7:4 ? Crawford spells Israel aysrayl, which preserves the wordplay with ayln in the beginning of this chapter seven.

? 7:15 ? Crawford uses the Aphel conjugation of nagn (?will cause dwelling?), which conveys a much different meaning that ngn (?will dwell?) because the subject here is the one Alha on the throne.

? 9:11 ? Referring to the angel of the abyss, Crawford has mlaka ("angel/messenger") but the standard translation is mlka ("king"). So Crawford highlights many angels overseeing the 5th seal locusts, and one particular angel as the angel of the abyss. By contrast, the standard translation refers only to this ?king/ruler angel? of the abyss.

? 10:1 - Regarding the angel?s feet, Crawford has gmura ("burning coals"), whereas the standard translation has Eamuda ("pillars"). Crawford preserves the wordplay in the verse that refers to the Gemara and Mishnah.

? 10:6 ? Crawford has two unique aspects that change the grammar of the verse to point it correctly, as you can see in more detail in my spreadsheet.

? 10:9 ? The Peshitto has 13 additional words here to state twice that John devours the little scroll. By contrast, Crawford advises only once that John eats the scroll.

? 11:6 ? In regards to how the two witnesses cause harm to the earth, SP has udnmKhwn ("and they will strike (plural)"), whereas Crawford has udnmkkun ("and they will lay low (plural)").

? 11:12 - Crawford has an Aphel conjugation umaTsdyn ("are caused to gaze") but SP has the normal passive umTsdyn ("and were gazing"). The meanings are quite different, because Crawford suggests that the two witnesses (filled with spirit) are directed by spirit to gaze from above into their enemies below, whereas SP suggests the enemies below are gazing into the witnesses above.

? 11:13 ? Crawford has a vav prefix that potentially changes the whole meaning of the verse, such that 7,000 men die in the earthquake and desolation, rather than 7,000 names of men in the earthquake.

? 11:19 ? In reference to the ark of the covenant in heaven, SP has the same spelling for the ark of the covenant on earth, but Crawford has a unique and plural spelling ?ark of the convenants?.

? 12:1 ?SP has a ?crown of stars? on the woman, but Crawford has ?crown of thorns?.

? 13:3 ? SP has waThdmrTh ("and was amazed"), but Crawford has waThdbrTh ("and was guided").

? 13:12 ? Regarding the authority of the second creature with respect to the first creature, SP has ThEabd ("was worked"), but Crawford has dThEabry ("of being transferred"). Crawford has a more specific legal meaning, and a potential wordplay with Eabr ("Hebrew"), which is quite relevant if Rome transferred its office/authority to any particular institution, such as the Catholic church.

? 13:14 ? Regarding the actions of the second beast, SP has wThtEaa ("and is seducing") whereas Crawford has wThEata ("and is forgiving"). The root in Crawford is Eata, which has some important alternate definitions as well: "cover", "blot out", "cancel". Some will be reminded of the Catholic priests forgiving sins, or the infamous Catholic power of excommunication.

? 14:3 - SP has ala an maa ("unless if one hundred..."), whereas Crawford has umaa ("and one hundred..."). The difference is important because SP is saying that the 144,000 are nSha ("humans"), but Crawford is saying they are not nSha ("humans") because the text just advised that no nSha ("humans") are able to learn the song. Indeed, the text confirms this further by saying these 144,000 were purchased from the earth. So the 144,000 are in the kingdom of Alha at this point, rather than characterized as nSha ("human"). Lastly, this phrase umaa begins a new sentence in Crawford that concludes in the next verse with the word bThula ("virgins").

? 14:14 - SP has KhrypTha ("swift/sharp"), but Crawford has KhurTha ("shining/white"). Crawford is logical because Rev 14:18 highlights only one angel that holds a "swift/sharp sickle" and he is identified in Rev 14:17-18 as we note the singular tense ldayTh mglTha KhrypTha ("to he having to him the sickle sharp").

? 16:8-9 - SP has three phrases here that are not found in Crawford. SP concludes Rev 16:8 with the phrase bnura ("in fire") and then begins the new verse with uaThKhmmu bnynSha ("and were scorched the sons of men"). Crawford is more logical because it does not require men to burn literally ?in fire? as SP requires, but rather Crawford specifies that men are burned by the great heat.

? 16:16 - SP has an extra word here. SP has unknSh anun ("and will assemble them") in the plural form, whereas Crawford has simply unknSh ("and will assemble") in the singular form. Crawford matches the singular tense of the previous verse (Rev 16:15). By contrast, SP is plural so it requires reference back two verses to the anun ("them") in Rev 16:14. This is a very important distinction because it means that SP connects mgdu ("Megiddo" or "Armageddon") with war. By contrast, Crawford opens up the possibility that mgdu ("Megiddo") is not a place of war (or at least not exclusively a place of war), but rather is (also) the positive place where a last remnant ('he/she who watches and guards his/her garments') can assemble for the blessing of meeting ?Yahshua the thief?. Indeed, in Hebrew mgdu means "pleasant" and "valuable", which sounds like it could be a fitting place for 'Yahshua the thief' to steal away this remnant. Moreover, the dichotomy of verses further supports the Crawford reading, as Rev 16:12-14 describe evil spirits and war, whereas Rev 16:15-16 appear to focus on the positive, namely Yahshua and the remnant.

? 17:12 - SP has the ten horns ruling for ShEaTha ("hour" or "moment") but Crawford has ShnTha ("year" or "sleep"). This is a big difference, especially given the Roman precedent of the DECEMVIRI who ruled for one year and set law.

? 17:16 ? Regarding the relationship between the whore and the ten horns, SP states that the ten horns nsnyn ("will hate (plural)"), but Crawford has nsEarn ("will inspect (plural)"). The root verb in Crawford sEar has many alternate meanings: "visit", "look after", "heal", "care for", "work", "perform", "act".

? 18:9 ? SP states oddly regarding the merchants who watch Babylon burn waShThEalyw ("and they were elevated") but Crawford has the logical phrase w0ShThEayw ("and they tell tales"). Crawford comes from the root aShThEawTha ("tale/narration/speech").

? 19:9 ? Regarding those invited to the lamb?s supper, SP has kThub ("write"), but Crawford has Thub ("again/repent"). Crawford is used logically here as an expression Thub tubyhun which means "they are blessed again" or "they are even more blessed".

? 19:9- Regarding the lamb?s supper, SP has repetitively dmShThwThh ("of his marriage feast"), but Crawford has this unique insight dThShmShThh ("of his service").

? 19:17 - SP has Thu aThknShu ("come be assembling (plural)"), but Crawford has uaThknShu ("and they were assembled"). The distinction changes the verse and quote, because SP is translated, "And he says to the birds that fly in the middle of heaven/sky, 'come, be gathering together to the supper great of Alha." By contrast, Crawford is translated, "And he says to the birds of flying, 'be midst the sky'. And they were assembled to the supper great of Alha."

? 19:19 - SP has umlka ("and kings"), but Crawford has ulmlka ("and to kings"). The lamed here is quite significant because Crawford distinguishes between 'the creature and her armies' and 'the kings of the earth and their armies'.

? 20:6 ? SP has mnTha ("part"), but Crawford has myTha ("death"). Crawford is logical, first because it emphasizes that only those who have died can receive the blessing, and second because this word myTha concludes the sentence; and the next word bqymTha is logically the beginning of the next sentence (thereby preventing a run-on sentence).

More to come?
Reply
#8
21:11 ? Regarding the foundation stone of New Jerusalem, SP has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness"). The letter nun is very clear in Crawford (and indeed is repeated in Rev 21:18, adding certainty) -- the root word here in Crawford has many alternate translations as well, such as "soul", "purifying", "breath", "light wind", "glide", "morning", "evening".

21:17 ? Regarding the wall surrounding New Jerusalem, SP has 144,000 cubits but Crawford has 140,000 cubits. The ancient cubit has several possible measurements historically (i.e., 17.5 (Hebrew short), 18 inches (common), 20.4 inches (Hebrew long). The wall described here in Crawford (140,000 cubits) would be approximately 44 miles (depending on the precise cubit measurement, the length from the elbow to middle finger on the mlaka ("angel/messenger") holding the measuring rod (as this verse advises that his/her hand is the standard).

21:18 ? Once again, and regarding this wall around New Jerusalem, SP has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness").
21:19 ? For the first foundation stone of the wall around New Jerusalem, SP once again has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness"). Smooth stones began several mighty things in the bible (such as the smooth stones taken from the Jordan river before the Jewish people entered Jerusalem after the exodus; or King David's smooth stone that defeated Goliath) - a smooth foundation is a cornerstone of traditional building. Indeed, another translation for nShph is "His smooth one", so the cornerstone here (the first stone) would be the smooth rock of Alha, yShuEa. In Hebrew, yShuEa means "Yah's rock".
Reply
#9
Part One of this project is complete. Here are the three documents:
[Image: glyna-transcription-button.jpg][Image: glyna-translation-button.jpg][Image: glyna-translation-with-commentary-button.jpg]

Part Two (number analysis) is progressing much slower than anticipated. I have some interesting preliminary results with number sequences and patterns, but no major breakthrough to report yet in the 2-d matrix arrays. Ideally, I?d like to run algorithms with the text rolled up in a scroll pattern or torus? in any case this is going to take a lot more time and skill than originally anticipated.

I do have a breakthrough to report though on the sword & shepherd?s staff image.
Reply
#10
Shlama:
For all those that love the Book of Revelation, the much sought after "original images" of the Crawford Codex Gilyana, "Book of Revelation" have been uploaded at...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.org">http://www.dukhrana.org</a><!-- m -->

...to accompany Greg Glaser's Transcription, Translation and Commentary. Greg has performed an incredible and somewhat exhausting labour of love to uncover the plain meaning of each and every word in an easy to understand format. Also, a link will take you to Google Books where you will find John Gwynn's books...

(1) The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac version hitherto unknown, ed. from a MS. in the Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres (1897)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://archive.org/details/apocalypseofstjo00gwynuoft">https://archive.org/details/apocalypseofstjo00gwynuoft</a><!-- m -->

(2) Remnants of the later Syriac versions of the Bible. In two parts (1909)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://archive.org/details/remnantsoflaters00gwynrich">https://archive.org/details/remnantsoflaters00gwynrich</a><!-- m -->

Feel free to access this great work at Dukhrana Biblical Research

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/crawford/">http://www.dukhrana.com/crawford/</a><!-- m -->

Thank you so much Greg, for taking precious time to complete this useful project in such a comprehensive presentation and many thanks to the University of Manchester for granting permission under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Stephen Silver,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#11
gregglaser Wrote:The Crawford codex archived in the Special Collections Department of the University of Manchester (Rylands) is considered the oldest Aramaic copy of the Book of Revelation. I obtained digital photographs of this codex directly from Rylands Library, so my work is not dependent on the Gwynn Transcript (1897), though I am cross-referencing Gwynn to triple-check my own accuracy (which also involves scribal letter-counting), and because I desire to check Gwynn?s work. I have found three instances so far where Gwynn requires correction: Revelation 2:12, 2:13, and 2:23.

I love this project; the Book of Revelation is awe-inspiring and I think the greatest promise mankind has ever received. I?ve already been blessed b

Hi Gregg,
What a blessing you are spreading!
What about Revelation 16:16?
Dukhrana.com has Magdu identical to Matthew 15:39. Magdu is a city today called Migdol.
This is with consonants in dukhrana.com. Should you stick with 'Megiddo' or with Magdu?
Reply
#12
I?m grateful for these kind words, guys, thank you. And thank you to Dukhrana for featuring the Codex <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> It is no small thing to share with the world the oldest known Aramaic images of Book of Revelation.

And yes that?s right Distazo ? Revelation 16:16 and Matthew 15:39 have the exact same spelling: mgdu. And the text of Rev 16:16 specifically highlights mgdu is a place called mgdu in ?Hebrew?.

As I highlighted above, in Hebrew mgdu means "pleasant" and "valuable", which becomes quite relevant in the Crawford Codex -- the vocabulary, grammar, and paragraph structure all suggest that Crawford is most likely (or first) referring to mgdu in a positive sense rather than a place of war:

gregglaser Wrote:? 16:16 - SP has an extra word here. SP has unknSh anun ("and will assemble them") in the plural form, whereas Crawford has simply unknSh ("and will assemble") in the singular form. Crawford matches the singular tense of the previous verse (Rev 16:15). By contrast, SP is plural so it requires reference back two verses to the anun ("them") in Rev 16:14. This is a very important distinction because it means that SP connects mgdu ("Megiddo" or "Armageddon") with war. By contrast, Crawford opens up the possibility that mgdu ("Megiddo") is not a place of war (or at least not exclusively a place of war), but rather is (also) the positive place where a last remnant ('he/she who watches and guards his/her garments') can assemble for the blessing of meeting ?Yahshua the thief?. Indeed, in Hebrew mgdu means "pleasant" and "valuable", which sounds like it could be a fitting place for 'Yahshua the thief' to steal away this remnant. Moreover, the dichotomy of verses further supports the Crawford reading, as Rev 16:12-14 describe evil spirits and war, whereas Rev 16:15-16 appear to focus on the positive, namely Yahshua and the remnant.

In defense of the 'war connection' though for mgdu, scholars point to a history of wars associated with the ancient Israeli city mgdu, and some scholars have (though debatable) etymologically connected mgdu with words like gdd (?cut?) and gdud (?band of raiders?). I naturally think the Father fulfills any and all possibilities He desires, so it may ultimately be that more than one reading is fulfilled. Indeed, in the ancient location of mgdu there was a temple called Magdal. And the same logic applies for different places called ?Megiddo?. I?ve seen a Greek and Latin scholar use two Alexandrian texts with ?MGADAN? to ask whether the Aramaic is a variant of that Greek mistranslation?! I would just say that the farther one deviates from the literal text (i.e., Magadan or Migdol etc) the more unlikely it becomes to one?s perspective (i.e., it seems unlikely that Rev 16:16 would be fulfilled in Migdol Egypt, or some miscellaneous land of the tribe Gad even though arguably gd is similar to mgdu).

Fun to think about the possibilities though for what the Father will accomplish in this knSh ("gathering") from Rev 16:16! Often I learn something unexpected and helpful in one way or another just by keeping an open mind?
Reply
#13
Hi Gregg,

Isn't what scholars say about megiddo, based on the Greek reading of 'Har-Megiddo'? The Aramaic script you have transribed, does not contain the word for mountain. In reality, Megiddo is a tell in the plain, not a mountain, so my 2 cents about it, it is a total misconcept which has crept into the exegesis of Rev 16:16.
Reply
#14
I think you?re probably correct that hr (?mountain? or ?hill? or ?fortress?) is a kind of exegesis -- Greek scholars have differing opinions given all the different Greek manuscripts out there. See e.g., essay by John Day, The Origin of Armageddon, chronicling the opinions of different scholars on the question, and The OT Background to Armageddon (Rev 16:16 Revisited) by Marko Jauhiainen criticizing Day?s approach. Apparently about 80 Greek miniscules just read MAGEDON, but the majority go with HAR MAGEDDON.

Fortunately, the Aramaic consistently reads mgdu, so the Aramaic is in harmony with the gospel of Matthew and also the old testament.

Like David Bauscher, I think the evidence supports Revelation written originally in Aramaic by the Aramaic-speaking apostle John, sometime before Laodicea was destroyed by earthquake and fire around 66AD.
Reply
#15
Please download the 2nd Edition (corrected) transcription of the ?Crawford Codex of Revelation? at either the links above, or at Dukhrana, or here:

[Image: glyna-transcription-button.jpg][Image: glyna-translation-button.jpg][Image: glyna-translation-with-commentary-button.jpg]

I?ve just revised my transcription of the ?Crawford Codex of Revelation? to correct 8 of my own typos/mistakes discovered by J.S. Bernal-LaGrew and myself.

Please note that none of my typos change the comparative textual analysis from my earlier posts. Here were the typos I made:
  • 1:1 ? interpreted the zayin as a resh in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Qdzd[/font] (?were due?)
    1:3 ? omitted the first lamed in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0lml[/font] (?to the word?)
    1:5 ? omitted the yod in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0n4yrw[/font] (?and the ruler?)
    1:5 ? switched the aleph and khet in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Bx0md[/font] (?who is loving?)
    1:6 ? omitted the phrase [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0hl0l[/font] (?to Alha?)
    2:13 ? typed aleph instead of tav for last letter in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]tyzxt0[/font] (?you were seen?)
    3:14 ? omitted the yod in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ty4yrw[/font] (?and the first?)
    12:12 ? interpreted the bet as a kad in [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]db[/font] (?because?)

Please note also that in my revised Crawford transcription I continue to adhere to the variant reading of Rev 14:6, as I read the elongated smudge there as [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nyn4l[/font](?tongues?), but SP and many scribes read [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]N4l[/font] (?tongue?).

Now that my 8 errors (my wounds) are bandaged, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some things I?ve learned about the process of scribing an ancient codex?

First, I have professional experience as an attorney preparing property deeds, so I am accustomed to transcribing old documents in exact detail, letter-for-letter, number-for-number. I have a natural confidence in my abilities (sometimes over-confidence), but I?ve learned that human error is part of reality when scribing. Forgiveness and the opportunity for correction is welcomed.

Second, my triple-check process of finding mistakes had a fundamental flaw for me ? I relied exclusively on the high resolution computer screen and word-by-word and verse-by-verse checks. What I should have done is printed my completed transcription at the end of the process and then completed a final line-by-line check on paper with the Codex. Lesson learned! Fortunately, I?ve just completed that extra step (and more) for the 2nd edition, so I have far greater confidence in this revision ? indeed, I would be extremely surprised to find even a single error in the transcription at this point.

Third, I found it enormously helpful to have additional sets of eyes review my work. In one case, I interpreted a resh but another scribe interpreted zayin, and ultimately he was right. A special thank you to J.S. Bernal-LaGrew and Lars Lindgren for their proof reading, and also David Bauscher for his comments.

Fourth, the process of scribing an ancient codex is rewarding, but if you make a mistake in your published work (ESPECIALLY the Book of Revelation) it weighs on your heart and can keep you up at night. I pray that if there are any of my 8-mistake original editions floating around in cyberspace that they be discarded, and that my revision posted here: (1) Transcription; (2) Transcription with Translation; and (3) Transcription, Translation & Commentary -- be supplanted in their place. If you are reading this post and can help make that happen, you?ll have my gratitude.

Greg Glaser
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)