05-07-2005, 07:22 PM
Shlama Akhi Lector,
The disputed books, what I have long called "the Western 5", were not rendered into Aramaic (at least in terms of the surviving mss record; evidence of Semitic primacy in the Western 5 Greek texts is another story) until the early 6th century. In the year 508, Philoxenius of Madbug translated the Greek versions of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation into Aramaic. By all acccounts the guy did a horrible job and his stuff was left to rot by the Syrian Orthodox Church, who commissioned the work originally as a way to align their texts with their new masters, the Roman Catholic Church. Then, in 616, Thomas of Harkel did a revison of these works and the traditional 22, and this is the offical bible of the SOC today.
And so, for the original Eastern Peshitta collection as preserved by the Church of the East, it is true that NONE of their mss contain these works. What's more, even if a first century copy of these books could be found it is unlikely that the COE would accept them because they received all the other books from the hands of the apostles or at least apostolic associates from that time. As a result, without living witnesses anymore, no other works can be accepted.
Now, as for the Aramaic Revelation, John Gwynn published a book on one of these, the so-called Crawford mss at the end of the 19th century. You The other, the Western Peshitto Revelation, was translated by Lamsa and is rendered in Hebrew script in "the Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation". It is also available in swadaya script in what we call "the blue book". All of thhese works are available from the <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbooks.com">http://www.aramaicbooks.com</a><!-- w --> bookstore.
Finally you asked about Lamsa. I think (I can't be sure since he has been dead for 30 years) that his motivation was primarily pleasing his KJV centered Protestant audience. IT was surely the motivation of his publisher. When Lamsa submitted his first draft for the NT, his publisher insisted that all of Lamsa's footnotes showing the radically different readings between the Peshitta and the King James Version be omitted. In 1998, Lamsa's estate restored the notes for "The Modern New Testament from the Aramaic". In any case, it makes sense to me that if Lamsa did not (or could not) point to major differences between the Peshitta and the KJV he surely is NOT going to deny that same audience translation of 5 books that they deem sacred. In fact, Lamsa even sugarcoats the issue on purpose. He says something to the effect that believers "should not worry" because "these books are simply in later Aramaic manuscripts" and thus sidesteps the entire controversy.
Incidentally, it is my opinion that both Crawford Revelation and the Peshitto version are obvious translations from the Greek. I say that because there are some out there who pervert the truth for their own ends who try to suggest Crawford is radically different than the Peshitto REv ( it is not ) and that it is very ancient, when the Rylands Institute clearly proved that it is 11th century. However, all versions of Revelation bow doen to a lost Semitic master, what I call "Nazarene Revelation", but ironically the best vessel for Nazarene Revelation's original thoughts is probably from the Greek!
Hope this helps!
The disputed books, what I have long called "the Western 5", were not rendered into Aramaic (at least in terms of the surviving mss record; evidence of Semitic primacy in the Western 5 Greek texts is another story) until the early 6th century. In the year 508, Philoxenius of Madbug translated the Greek versions of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation into Aramaic. By all acccounts the guy did a horrible job and his stuff was left to rot by the Syrian Orthodox Church, who commissioned the work originally as a way to align their texts with their new masters, the Roman Catholic Church. Then, in 616, Thomas of Harkel did a revison of these works and the traditional 22, and this is the offical bible of the SOC today.
And so, for the original Eastern Peshitta collection as preserved by the Church of the East, it is true that NONE of their mss contain these works. What's more, even if a first century copy of these books could be found it is unlikely that the COE would accept them because they received all the other books from the hands of the apostles or at least apostolic associates from that time. As a result, without living witnesses anymore, no other works can be accepted.
Now, as for the Aramaic Revelation, John Gwynn published a book on one of these, the so-called Crawford mss at the end of the 19th century. You The other, the Western Peshitto Revelation, was translated by Lamsa and is rendered in Hebrew script in "the Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation". It is also available in swadaya script in what we call "the blue book". All of thhese works are available from the <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbooks.com">http://www.aramaicbooks.com</a><!-- w --> bookstore.
Finally you asked about Lamsa. I think (I can't be sure since he has been dead for 30 years) that his motivation was primarily pleasing his KJV centered Protestant audience. IT was surely the motivation of his publisher. When Lamsa submitted his first draft for the NT, his publisher insisted that all of Lamsa's footnotes showing the radically different readings between the Peshitta and the King James Version be omitted. In 1998, Lamsa's estate restored the notes for "The Modern New Testament from the Aramaic". In any case, it makes sense to me that if Lamsa did not (or could not) point to major differences between the Peshitta and the KJV he surely is NOT going to deny that same audience translation of 5 books that they deem sacred. In fact, Lamsa even sugarcoats the issue on purpose. He says something to the effect that believers "should not worry" because "these books are simply in later Aramaic manuscripts" and thus sidesteps the entire controversy.
Incidentally, it is my opinion that both Crawford Revelation and the Peshitto version are obvious translations from the Greek. I say that because there are some out there who pervert the truth for their own ends who try to suggest Crawford is radically different than the Peshitto REv ( it is not ) and that it is very ancient, when the Rylands Institute clearly proved that it is 11th century. However, all versions of Revelation bow doen to a lost Semitic master, what I call "Nazarene Revelation", but ironically the best vessel for Nazarene Revelation's original thoughts is probably from the Greek!
Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth