+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Why doesnt the AENT use the Crawford Aramaic? (/showthread.php?tid=2501)
Why doesnt the AENT use the Crawford Aramaic? - rungold315 - 01-14-2011
Sorry, this will be my last question on here and only thought of this once I saw a few and remembered another few posts from before. I remember the Crawford was supported by Dave B. so well that I was surprised Mr. Roth wouldnt use it. I remember I asked him once but cant remember what he said. Im still using my AENT to "correct" my NKJV do I can still read a normal bible but make note of the Aramaic primacisms, if you will. I remember Rev. 9:11, the Crawford uses the word "in Aramaic" but the Harklean uses the words "in Greek".
Isnt that a great pointer to an original, or am I just too simple to understand the complexity behind Revelation and its supposed origins?
Re: Why doesnt the AENT use the Crawford Aramaic? - distazo - 01-15-2011
Does G. Roth answer questions regarding EANT here?
As for the crawford issue.
I believe that history and tradition especially stasis also applies to Aramaic Bible-translators.
Read this thread.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2640">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2640</a><!-- l -->
The crawford codex is a very young find and nearly no scientists did research on it.