On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books

[positron]

I am interested to know whether Khabouris and the Aramaic NT Bible are one the same?

Shlama Positron:
The Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Peshitta. It contains 22 books. Excluded are II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation. Now, the Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Bible. The Crawford Codex, which contains 27 books, including the five books mentioned above is the also called the Aramaic New Testament Bible. The only substantial difference being the inclusion in the Crawford of the Philoxinian Recension. The only other difference is the reading of Hebrews 2:9

Crawford
"b'taybuta Alaha", "by the grace of God".

Khabouris
"s'tar min Alaha", "apart from God".

In my opinion the 1905 (Peshitta) / 1920 (Western Five Harklean) UBS is not as true to the "autograph" of the original Aramaic New Testament as the Khabouris or the Crawford Codex.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

In the first place, why Western Canon of SOC has 27 books while Eastern Canon of COE has 22 books?

Of course Western Canon of SOC has 5 books reconstructed from Greek Text but Eastern Canon did not bother to include them for some theological reason.

Is the name of Alaha being used for Western Canon and Eastern Canon? I read some where that Alaha is only used in the Eastern Canon.

Now these Aramaic versions are different too?
1John 5:1 - ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?? (Western) Shorter verse
1John 5:1 - ???? ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?? (Khabouris)

1John 5:1 Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Messiah, is born of God. And whoever loveth the begetter, loveth him also that is begotten of him. (Murdock)

In addition why the bystanders at the Cross mistaken Yeshua was calling Elijah if the name of God is Alaha?

Obviously the Khabouris with 22 books omitting the last 5 books of the NT namely 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation is very serious to consider the whole book as authentic. The compiler of the Khabouris codex may have ignore the most important warning in the Book.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

In my opinion, the book of Eastern Canon, Aramaic Peshitta is not an original autograph too because of the primary reason that the Greek manuscript have the Book of Revelation and Western Canon of SOC have the book too. Why Eastern Canon of SOE did not have the book? This is very serious question which many bible scholars will have to bear in mind on the possible deletion of the text or interpolation of the text.

If both the 22 books of the Eastern and Western Syrian Church are the same, then we can still consider it as authentic. But the name of God used by Yeshua is "El" or Elohim and not Alaha or Aloha. This is because the Textus Receptus has the name of God as "El" and Western Church is believed to use "El" too.


Shalom