Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does Crawford MS contain original aramaic Revelation?
This site is arguing about that at some point:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

I thought that there are no original (aramaic) writings of Revelation. Mentioned site tries to prove that Crawford MS contains Revelation that is NOT translation from Greek. Could you please tell me is that site author correct?
Thank you for such a quick answer. "ACOE" arguments does not convince me, but I'll try to search this forum for more answers about Crawford MS. Site I linked does try to prove its point by using verses and comparisions and I'd like to find "proof" of C MS being translation from Greek in similar manner - by word and verse analysis. My English isn't very well, sorry if I am hard to understand.
I agree that Crawford Revelation isn't the original. I think Crawford Manuscript dates back to around 12th century AD. But I consider Crawford Revelation far more superior to Greek Manuscripts and Harklean Version. And I don't believe it is a translation of Greek. Crawford Revelation clears so many confusions Greek manuscripts has.

Dave Bauscher points out several interesting points in his translation of Crawford Revelation. Here are 2 examples from Crawford Revelation (Taken from Dave Bauscher's book).

1. (Revelation Chapter 5:1) - "And I saw in the right hand of him who sits upon the throne, a scroll inscribed from
the inside and from the outside, and sealed with seven seals." (Bauscher's Translation)

Dave Bauscher points out that "Sealed seven seals" in Aramaic is ?Tabaya taba shaba?, which is really a play on words and poetic in Aramaic.

2. Aramaic words for ?Demon? are at least two: ?Shada? and ?Daywa?. Greek has
only one word for ?Demon ?( daimonion ?Daimonion?). In Revelation, the Greek has but one
word, daimonion, where the Aramaic has both ?Shada? and ?Daywa?. (See 9:20 &
18:2 as here). The Harklean Syriac Version (translated from Greek) has only ?Daywa? in
Revelation. If The Crawford were a translation of Greek , as is commonly supposed, why would it use
two different Aramaic words for the same Greek word?
Kowalski's post referred to "homosexualeunuch.." web site that defends the Crawford ms. as the original text of Revelation.
That site appears to quote several of my notes in my translation of Revelation as evidence, which is fine, though I think it is proper to
credit sources as documentation and authority.

I have numerous examples in Revelation, showing that the Greek of Revelation is translated from the Crawford ms. readings, and not vice versa.
John Gwynn states in his book on The Crawford ms. of The Apocalypse that the Crawford text is very like the Peshitta's text in other books and far
superior to the Harklean. It is idiomatic and excellent Aramaic and would easily be taken for an original Aramaic composition by any who did not know better.
Frankly, no one knows better, as scholarship on this subject is rife with unwarranted assumptions and unhistorical assertions that take for granted that the entire Peshitta is a translation of the Greek NT. I have found just as much, if not more, evidence to support Aramaic Crawford primacy as I have found for Peshitta primacy in other NT books. That evidence is in the books, Divine Contact and in my translations, as well as in Jegar Sahadutha-Heap of Witness.
Facts are what are needed when discussing this matter, as in all scholarship. Simply quoting authorities and claims is not going to prove any position.

Another interesting point Gwynn makes is that the vocab. of Crawford Revelation is so like that of the Peshitta OT, that it is as if the writer of it learned
the Peshitta OT so well beforehand that he translated Greek into idiomatic Peshitta Aramaic quite naturally!
One problem is that we cannot find any Greek text, or combination of Greek texts that could be used to translate into the Crawford text. It just does not work that way; the converse scenario can be shown, and I have done so.


Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
I agree with your points. Maybe Emperor Constantine's attack toward Urhai regions may have been a reason why Original Manuscripts of last 5 books didn't end up at the West and the East Aramaic Speaking regions.
Apparently the fouth century AD Vaticanus Greek New Testament tends to agree with the Crawford text of Revelation. Meanwhile the Majority text and the Byzantine familt of Greek texts does not. Vaticanus wasn't "discovered" until the 19th Century so the Crawford is unlikely to a translation of that Greek version.

I think 4th century Codex Sinaiticus manuscript also agrees with Crawford Revelation in certain places. I think it is mentioned on page no. 382 of Bauscher's Book.
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are Fourth Century cousins associated with the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate prepared by Jerome in the Fourth Century. The Vulgate has most of the same errors as found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Jerome's mission was to prepare a Latin Bible for the Church, but he may have assembled a Greek NT text first from Aramaic sources. Jerome traveled to the East looking for "Hebrew" versions of the scriptures.

Most of Jereome's effort was involved in the Old Testament, so Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have been assembled by his assistants. Codex Sinaiticus was also "discovered" in the 19th Century. The Crawford manuscript of Revelation dates to about the 14th Century. However, I doubt that it is based on either Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

I thought The Crawford manuscript of Revelation dates to about the 12th Century AD. I agree that Crawford Revelation is certainly not based on either Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus. But Sinaiticus do agree with Crawford manuscript in "some" parts when other greek manuscripts disagree. That's why I put page. 382 of Bauscher's Book as an example.
Where can i find the Crawford MS? Are there any facsimiles/replicas/etc.? Anything online? Does it contain all the W5 or just Revelation?
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
I believe David Bauscher translated Crawford Codex for the last 5 books in 27 books in his book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English." You can read few pages of his translation of Crawford Revelation in Google Books Section.
Andrej Wrote:Where can i find the Crawford MS?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
So, is the crawford the entire complete 27 NT books, missing nothing whatsoever? How much do Crawford and Peshitta disagree on the 22? Any specific examples?

Edit: Wouldn't that make the Crawford the most accurate and complete manuscript known to exist on the Planet earth?
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
According to Steven Silver, Crawford Codex has only one western change (Hebrews 2:9). So after Peshitta, I think it is the next most accurate manuscript.
konway87 Wrote:According to Steven Silver, Crawford Codex has only one western change (Hebrews 2:9). So after Peshitta, I think it is the next most accurate manuscript.

I disagree. The Khabouris Codex, Yonan Codex(of which we have transcribed only a small portion and the Mingana Codex are all virtually identical, while the Crawford Codex has minor grammatical errors and some variations which I found later one. I don't have a list of the errata of the Crawford Codex.
I transcribed the Western Five from the Crawford Codex and it vaties from the UBS (United Bible Society).

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

The Mingana Codex is in excellent written form and in my personal opinion it is better than the Khabouris Codex.

Stephen Silver

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)