Peshitta Forum
New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD (/showthread.php?tid=3506)

Pages: 1 2


New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 11-25-2015

I came across some fascinating work that Josh McDowell is involved with.  This is the discovery of some of the earliest New Testament manuscripts that have been found to date.  They include portions of Mark, John, Romans and Corinthians and all date earlier than 125 AD.  I'm including a link below describing how they have and continue to discover them.  The images are purposely blurred because they have not to this point published what the manuscripts contain.  They keep pushing back the publishing date - currently into 2017.  But the manuscripts they describe are Greek.  There is no mention of Aramaic whatsoever.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Bibliographical-Test-Update-08.13.14.pdf


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Thirdwoe - 11-27-2015

This reminds me of all those "UFO" pictures. Always blurred. But, if they do get around to showing what they have in their keep, then we can see what they have found.

In any case, we know that the Greek texts/versions were translated from the original Aramaic Autographs soon after they were penned by the Aramaic speaking Apostles. The earliest date mentioned of a copy of the Aramaic Gospels is said to have the date of 78 A.D. written in its colophon.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - gregglaser - 11-30-2015

By 125AD there was a HUGE demand for Greek translations. Christianity was spreading, fast, and far.  Those who purchased translations were often well-educated and quite well-to-do financially.  They preserved and treasured their Greek translations.  And the upper-class Greek speaking populations were far less likely to be ransacked by wars and such.  

The Father controls everything. It is quite logical that He wanted the gospel to spread throughout the world in all languages. What better way to spread the gospel in all languages than to hide the importance of the native language, to increase the importance of the way the message resonates upon the heart.

With that said, Yahshua the Messiah spoke Aramaic.  By itself, that's enough to elevate Aramaic to untouchable status. Those who desire to be exceptionally close to the gospel message today study Aramaic.  And the rewards are overwhelming.  The Father weaves the Aramaic words right into your own life in the most personal way. 

So, yes, the gospel was originally written in Aramaic, but it was given to the hearts of all believers in the Messiah.  He speaks to the heart, we know this.

By the way, don't be too impressed with the oldest codex.  As anyone knows who has ever read a bible with a loving heart, your book gets beat up.  You should see my copy of Younan's Interlinear, I've had it for 4-years perhaps, it looks like a 1978 Chevy.  It's our family bible.  I take to the park and read it on the grass.  My 8-year old daughter reads it between bites of humus tortilla.  If this bible lasts 30-years, I'd be surprised!

Be more impressed by the extreme diligence and rules of Aramaic scribes together with the testimony of the Church of the East, rather than the ability of mammon to preserve translations.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 11-30-2015

There is a lot of puffed-up pride and faulty logic leaps showing in what you've written. Maybe others won't call you on it, but an attitude check is in order. Just because you know Aramaic doesn't make you a better Christian or mean you are any closer to God.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - gregglaser - 12-01-2015

(11-30-2015, 10:00 PM)cgjedi Wrote: There is a lot of puffed-up pride and faulty logic leaps showing in what you've written.  Maybe others won't call you on it, but an attitude check is in order.  Just because you know Aramaic doesn't make you a better Christian or mean you are any closer to God.

Yikes, I didn't realize that my personal testimony and deductions would be so negatively received.  Also, i was just trying to share the excitement and appeal of Aramaic, not some kind of 'holier-than-thou' attitude. Dude, seriously, did you really think i was suggesting that speaking Aramaic makes you closer to God than, let's say, helping the needy? If you read any of my other writings, you'd see plainly I'm not saying Aramaic makes a man holier. I'm saying that Aramaic is a way that some men are drawn closer to God through gospel study. I see now i should have qualified more clearly this statement "Those who desire to be exceptionally close to the gospel message today study Aramaic" -- by emphasizing better this statement that put it in context "He speaks to the heart, we know this." Context man, context.

I'll try a different approach to sharing thoughts with you. Here is a helpful article with historical citations that I learned a lot from: http://aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20History.pdf

The site has lots of useful historical research and codex factoids that can help answer your question: http://aramaicnt.com/articles.htm

Take care man,
Greg


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 12-01-2015

"Context man, context".  Your context was very plain and clear.  Whatever you thought you were saying, you wrote with the typical attitude of the prideful Aramaic-primacy.  If your heart attitude is different, it didn't come across.  I know very well of that site author's effort and difficulty with pride.  The Church of the East has had the scriptures in Aramaic from the start, yet that didn't stop them from developing schisms and heresy.  A reminder of Paul's discussion in Philippians 3 is a good teaching for us all.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - sestir - 12-01-2015

Quote:They include portions of Mark, John, Romans and Corinthians and all date earlier than 125 AD.

That way, nobody will care if some people believe the mss to be authentic. Fools are on their own when something is obviously too good to be true.

Quote:They keep pushing back the publishing date - currently into 2017.

If I possessed biblical mss dating earlier than 500 CE, I would photograph them with the camera in my mobile phone and put them online within hours, then exhort anyone I trusted to back-up the pictures on their own computers so that if I would die, at least someone else could still make them available to the wider community.

If, o t o h, I had forged mss trying to make them look ancient in order to become famous, I wouldn't want anybody to examine them until I had reaped all the benefits they could earn me in terms of fame, web site visitors, invitations to hold lectures a s o.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Thirdwoe - 12-02-2015

"The Church of the East has had the scriptures in Aramaic from the start, yet that didn't stop them from developing schisms and heresy."

Many know very little of the teachings and the history of The Church of the East. The Church of the East didn't develop any schism, or any heresy, though it has been ignorantly and wrongly judged to have done so by some, and others have just believed the false judgments and mistaken beliefs they have read in books.


.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 12:24 AM)Thirdwoe Wrote: The Church of the East didn't develop any schism, or any heresy,
I'm sorry, but that just can't be left unchallenged.  You will have to explain where the real history is to be found then.  It is pretty clear in the early church writings that the development of at least 3 major sects had them accusing each other of heresy and killing each other throughout the centuries.  I really am stunned at such a blatant untruth.

I can't believe this is needed but here's an example from an official website of the Nestorians themselves:
http://www.nestorian.org/the_lynching_of__nestorius.html


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Thirdwoe - 12-02-2015

What heresy is The Church of the East guilty of, now or ever? And which Christians did The Church of the East persecute to death? Please provide your sources.

If you want to take this discussion to a one on one chat, that might be good, as the Moderator may not want to have this discussed to all here.

Shlama

Please notice the statement on the main page of the website you linked.

Welcome to the Unofficial Web Site of the;
 “Church of the East”
 
aslo known as
“Nestorian Church”,
“Persian Church”,
“East Syrian Church”,
“Chaldean Syrian Church” in India only,
 “Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East”,
 “Assyrian Church of the East”


Nothing official about it.

.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 12-02-2015

All I'll say is read my previous answer - again. I don't need to discuss this further.

Looks like I do need to edit this answer. Yes, the previous link says "unofficial". But since I originally found it linked from an "official" site, I didn't notice that.
http://www.chaldeansonline.org/church.html


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Thirdwoe - 12-03-2015

What you need to do is retract your false accusation. And the 2nd link you provided shows again that you don't know much about The Church of the East, or its Doctrines.

But, I wonder, did you notice this part of the 2nd unofficial website link you posted? Did you read what this person said there on their site?

"....the Church of the East never officially adopted the Nestorian teachings, however, Rome considered it "Nestorian", hence, a "heretical" church that's worth "cleansing"..."

I admonish you to do some serious study on the matter, before you say any more about The Church or the East and its doctrines. I can point you in the right direction, so that you can know exactly what it teaches, if you have a heart to know the truth of it all. 

Here is one official statement put out jointly by both The Roman Catholic Church, and The Assyrian Church of the East, regarding the Christology taught by both.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html

Shlama


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 12-03-2015

You continually jump to quick and false assumptions. No where did I say anybody IS a heretic. What I said is that the whole history is littered with sects calling each other heretics, causing schisms and killing each other. They all had the Aramaic scriptures. It didn't stop them from expressing sinful human nature. That is my point.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - Thirdwoe - 12-03-2015

Really? Did you forget what you said then? I say, say what you mean, and mean what you say.

You said: ""The Church of the East has had the scriptures in Aramaic from the start, yet that didn't stop them from developing schisms and heresy."

Did you mean to say it that way, and do you mean what you said there, or not?

If you read your own statement there, it seems clear that you are saying that The Church of the East "developed schisms and heresy." The Church of the East is made up of many Christians. Which schisms and heresy do you say they are guilty of?

Now, if you didn't mean to say that, and misspoke, then say so. Otherwise, it seems very clear what you believe, or may have read someplace and thought was true.

If you really believe what you said there, then that is why I am challenging you. Because it certainly is not at all true. The Aramaic Scriptures have no heresy in them, nor does The Church of the East teach any heresy, or has caused any schisms.

You now say: "What I said is that the whole history is littered with sects calling each other heretics, causing schisms and killing each other. They all had the Aramaic scriptures. It didn't stop them from expressing sinful human nature. That is my point."

That statement isn't true either. And if that was your point with the previous statement, the two statements don't equate in the slightest.

You called my statement "a blatant untruth", where I said: "The Church of the East didn't develop any schism, or any heresy,"

Show me how it is an untruth. You said my statement can't be left unchallenged, and so, I say show me how it is wrong at all.

I'm not angry at you, I just don't want what I say, and both the history of The Church of the East and what it teaches, to be misjudged, or said to be untruth.

By the way, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.


Shlama 

.


RE: New Testament manuscripts from before 125 AD - cgjedi - 12-03-2015

I don't believe in your revisionist view of history. I've pointed out the plain facts. I've spoken the plain truth.