02-10-2004, 05:53 AM
Shalom vShlama,
The words " In the year 508, Philoxenius of Madbug did the first translation of Revelation into Aramaic for his Syrian Orthodox Church, "
make it clear that the Aramaic text of the Revelation was not available before the translation. But, this is a theory because possibly it was not available just for Philoxenius or was the Aramaic original simply lost.
I see that our brothers refer to semisplit words to defend Aramaic primacy of the NT. Now, they defend the Aramaic primacy of the book of Revelation. Look here:
In
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SemiSplitWords.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SemiSplitWords.pdf</a><!-- m --> we find 11. Bed or coffin? ??? Revelation 2:20, and in <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SplitWords1.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SplitWords1.pdf</a><!-- m --> we find 6. Those who are strong or who have power? ??? Revelation 6:15. We see that they defend the Revelation as original in Aramaic.
As for me, I do not see that semisplit words are final proof. Let us look at another picture and imagine. Certain translators from Greek into Aramaic are tired of loan Aramaic words in the Greek texts. So, they independently translate them in their own way.
Another picture possible. The Crawford manuscript is misterious and likewise the COE Peshitta is misterious also. The only reasonable and full proof that I see is oral tradition that the Peshitta is NT original. But, oral traditions are misterious and of unknown origin.
Now, let us look at one more picture. If the Peshitta manuscripts not differ one from another (if it is true), this is something serious!!!!!!
Sam.
The words " In the year 508, Philoxenius of Madbug did the first translation of Revelation into Aramaic for his Syrian Orthodox Church, "
make it clear that the Aramaic text of the Revelation was not available before the translation. But, this is a theory because possibly it was not available just for Philoxenius or was the Aramaic original simply lost.
I see that our brothers refer to semisplit words to defend Aramaic primacy of the NT. Now, they defend the Aramaic primacy of the book of Revelation. Look here:
In
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SemiSplitWords.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SemiSplitWords.pdf</a><!-- m --> we find 11. Bed or coffin? ??? Revelation 2:20, and in <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SplitWords1.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/SplitWords1.pdf</a><!-- m --> we find 6. Those who are strong or who have power? ??? Revelation 6:15. We see that they defend the Revelation as original in Aramaic.
As for me, I do not see that semisplit words are final proof. Let us look at another picture and imagine. Certain translators from Greek into Aramaic are tired of loan Aramaic words in the Greek texts. So, they independently translate them in their own way.
Another picture possible. The Crawford manuscript is misterious and likewise the COE Peshitta is misterious also. The only reasonable and full proof that I see is oral tradition that the Peshitta is NT original. But, oral traditions are misterious and of unknown origin.
Now, let us look at one more picture. If the Peshitta manuscripts not differ one from another (if it is true), this is something serious!!!!!!
Sam.