09-02-2008, 10:22 PM
Hey Akhi Mike,
I'll make this brief 'cuz I, too, have to run. There's never been an actual "Jewish" canon, either. Ask the Samaritans if they consider the prophetic books to be inspired of God. And then of course there are various Jewish sects that differed in opinion, the Essenes come to mind. They obviously held books like Tobit in high regard.
The bottom line is that the Jews, and the old churches, do not view "scripture" the same way as say modern-day American Evangelicals do. For a Jew, the 5 books of Moses are far more important than the book of Psalms or the Prophets. For the CoE, and the Roman and Greek Churches, the Gospels are far more importance than the book of Romans, both liturgically and from a theological perspective.
We do not view scripture in the same way as Evangelicals do, there are levels within our viewpoint and certain books carry more weight than others.
These are totally different worlds and viewpoints. Do not be surprised at the canon, that's the least important difference between these various communities.
As to your other points: I do not have any relationship with Mr. Lancaster or his work, I have not endorsed it nor do I endorse it. He has a lot of good material there, again, that he obtained from this forum over the years. But none of the examples he cites from the W5 are from myself. He also has compiled a lot of material from the likes of James Trimm and others over the years.
Again, like you said he's an Aramaic Primacist. I'm a Peshitta Primacist, which is sort of a narrower sub-group within Aramaic Primacy.
The other question: yes, if I see for instance, Semitic Syntax in the book of Revelation that would be a strong indicator that there are Aramaic veins underneath the Greek skin. However, again, the argument would be weak since I have no primary text to support my hypothesis. I need a primary text to compare, to make the case solid. You know me - if I could find an Aramaic original to Shakespeare I would try, but then I would just wind up making my position weaker on the stronger case for the 22 books we do have in a primary source.
What I am saying boils down to this, if I may speak frankly: I am not willing to jeopardize my argument for the 22 books for the sake of 5 books that the West decided it would include in its canon, despite struggling with the question for centuries (parts of Italy refused Revelation up until the 8th century AD!)
Lamsa translated all 27 books, deceptively in my opinion, without a mention of the fact that he knew he was translating from a translation as far as the W5 books go. That's just my opinion. He did it to win over the Protestants.
I'm not willing to do that.
+Shamasha
I'll make this brief 'cuz I, too, have to run. There's never been an actual "Jewish" canon, either. Ask the Samaritans if they consider the prophetic books to be inspired of God. And then of course there are various Jewish sects that differed in opinion, the Essenes come to mind. They obviously held books like Tobit in high regard.
The bottom line is that the Jews, and the old churches, do not view "scripture" the same way as say modern-day American Evangelicals do. For a Jew, the 5 books of Moses are far more important than the book of Psalms or the Prophets. For the CoE, and the Roman and Greek Churches, the Gospels are far more importance than the book of Romans, both liturgically and from a theological perspective.
We do not view scripture in the same way as Evangelicals do, there are levels within our viewpoint and certain books carry more weight than others.
These are totally different worlds and viewpoints. Do not be surprised at the canon, that's the least important difference between these various communities.
As to your other points: I do not have any relationship with Mr. Lancaster or his work, I have not endorsed it nor do I endorse it. He has a lot of good material there, again, that he obtained from this forum over the years. But none of the examples he cites from the W5 are from myself. He also has compiled a lot of material from the likes of James Trimm and others over the years.
Again, like you said he's an Aramaic Primacist. I'm a Peshitta Primacist, which is sort of a narrower sub-group within Aramaic Primacy.
The other question: yes, if I see for instance, Semitic Syntax in the book of Revelation that would be a strong indicator that there are Aramaic veins underneath the Greek skin. However, again, the argument would be weak since I have no primary text to support my hypothesis. I need a primary text to compare, to make the case solid. You know me - if I could find an Aramaic original to Shakespeare I would try, but then I would just wind up making my position weaker on the stronger case for the 22 books we do have in a primary source.
What I am saying boils down to this, if I may speak frankly: I am not willing to jeopardize my argument for the 22 books for the sake of 5 books that the West decided it would include in its canon, despite struggling with the question for centuries (parts of Italy refused Revelation up until the 8th century AD!)
Lamsa translated all 27 books, deceptively in my opinion, without a mention of the fact that he knew he was translating from a translation as far as the W5 books go. That's just my opinion. He did it to win over the Protestants.
I'm not willing to do that.
+Shamasha