09-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Well folks, I have read over many of these posts(again) for about an hour now. This is fun. Christeana (?) brings up a great point, Paul. I understand your strength about having an Aramaic text at your disposal and able to compare it with a Greek text and the clues for Aramaic Primacy can jump out right in front of you. But can you have an "imagined" Aramaic text and see possible
split words that can just about be determined to an high degree from one Aramaic word?? If there are 3 or 4 and more examples (and they keep adding up) then wouldn't you have a very, very good case for "Aramaic Primacy" regardless if you have in your possession an Aramaic text underlinging the Greek text??? See my point behind the question??
Now, case in point in bringing up the W-5. I know of a precher in Tennessee who came down to Georgia and preached for 5 nights during a Gospel session. Since he has gone back I have introduced Aramaic Primacy to him. I am trying to get him to "jump over" or look at it and let me know what he thinks. What am I suppose to tell him when the question of the W-5 comes up?? I must either tell him that the W-5 were really not suppose to be included in our canon or that these have no Aramaic support. Paul, he will not be pursuaded of either Peshitta Primacy or Aramaic Primacy. That will just about finish his exploration. So my issue on this W-5 is not only because I want to know, personally. But also for "evangelistic purposes" in trying to reach others for Aramaic Primacy. Paul, I do relate to your history and the position of accepting on a 22 book canon. I have thought about it and I understand how you feel; your position. Yes, we can work from a 22 book Peshitta position. I hope to be doing some research on this thing of "late acceptance" of the W-5.
You know what?? I thought about the statements I made about the long struggle in the Western tradition against Arianism. But later on and even during the time of mentioning this, I thought that by, just the way Aramaic was written in the Scriptures the church in the east never may have had this struggle at all. With the Greek, there was a struggle against Arianism on the Trinity , the nature of Christ (what we call Christology), the Christ/Messiah being both wholly G-d and wholly man. Well, am I correct that the East never had this struggle?? Just taking the word "Lord" when used in conjucntion with Y'shua, how can one even come up with a system to support that Y'shua was not really all G-d??[b][i]
Ah yes, the issue of canonicity can be a long one. Your statement, "You know, I don't think that even copies are found in Patmos of an Aramaic Revelation signed personlally by John, that a canon can be re-opended and modified. It has been too long of a period of time. Once a canon is closed, it remains so." Okay, this is true. But where does that put the 27 book Western canon. these epistles have been in there a long time and I am not sure we can just decide now in the 20th century that they should not be in there. What would be the significance of this in light of the fact that 100's, if not 1000's of translations have been made from this Western system in other languages and scattered and printed all over the world?? The whole issue of "Preservation" is now at stake. Wow!! Wow!! Maybe we should not get in to this too much right now as it just opens up an enormous can of dilemnas.
I think there is till another question that has remaind unanswered. Remember your statement , Paul: "Therefore, we have no opinion on them one way or the other. If they were given to us by the Apostles in the language of the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." But you had previously, I think, made a statment in reference to the W-5 that it did not matter in which language they (the W-5) were written in. this sound contradictory to me and hopefully you can clear this up.
For now, I have to go. You all take care. Y'shua loves you all and did it all for you. This alone makes you very important and unique. May we all have the Wisdom and Grace from above to have the right understanding of these things . . .
Mike Karoules
split words that can just about be determined to an high degree from one Aramaic word?? If there are 3 or 4 and more examples (and they keep adding up) then wouldn't you have a very, very good case for "Aramaic Primacy" regardless if you have in your possession an Aramaic text underlinging the Greek text??? See my point behind the question??
Now, case in point in bringing up the W-5. I know of a precher in Tennessee who came down to Georgia and preached for 5 nights during a Gospel session. Since he has gone back I have introduced Aramaic Primacy to him. I am trying to get him to "jump over" or look at it and let me know what he thinks. What am I suppose to tell him when the question of the W-5 comes up?? I must either tell him that the W-5 were really not suppose to be included in our canon or that these have no Aramaic support. Paul, he will not be pursuaded of either Peshitta Primacy or Aramaic Primacy. That will just about finish his exploration. So my issue on this W-5 is not only because I want to know, personally. But also for "evangelistic purposes" in trying to reach others for Aramaic Primacy. Paul, I do relate to your history and the position of accepting on a 22 book canon. I have thought about it and I understand how you feel; your position. Yes, we can work from a 22 book Peshitta position. I hope to be doing some research on this thing of "late acceptance" of the W-5.
You know what?? I thought about the statements I made about the long struggle in the Western tradition against Arianism. But later on and even during the time of mentioning this, I thought that by, just the way Aramaic was written in the Scriptures the church in the east never may have had this struggle at all. With the Greek, there was a struggle against Arianism on the Trinity , the nature of Christ (what we call Christology), the Christ/Messiah being both wholly G-d and wholly man. Well, am I correct that the East never had this struggle?? Just taking the word "Lord" when used in conjucntion with Y'shua, how can one even come up with a system to support that Y'shua was not really all G-d??[b][i]
Ah yes, the issue of canonicity can be a long one. Your statement, "You know, I don't think that even copies are found in Patmos of an Aramaic Revelation signed personlally by John, that a canon can be re-opended and modified. It has been too long of a period of time. Once a canon is closed, it remains so." Okay, this is true. But where does that put the 27 book Western canon. these epistles have been in there a long time and I am not sure we can just decide now in the 20th century that they should not be in there. What would be the significance of this in light of the fact that 100's, if not 1000's of translations have been made from this Western system in other languages and scattered and printed all over the world?? The whole issue of "Preservation" is now at stake. Wow!! Wow!! Maybe we should not get in to this too much right now as it just opens up an enormous can of dilemnas.
I think there is till another question that has remaind unanswered. Remember your statement , Paul: "Therefore, we have no opinion on them one way or the other. If they were given to us by the Apostles in the language of the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." But you had previously, I think, made a statment in reference to the W-5 that it did not matter in which language they (the W-5) were written in. this sound contradictory to me and hopefully you can clear this up.
For now, I have to go. You all take care. Y'shua loves you all and did it all for you. This alone makes you very important and unique. May we all have the Wisdom and Grace from above to have the right understanding of these things . . .
Mike Karoules