Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now
#1
I have noticed that Peshitta Primacists(I am getting there too. Patience) have used some "split word" examples in Revelation(written by John the Apostle) . From what I have learned here, mainly from a post by Stephen, is that Revelation and 4 more other New Testament books are copies of Greek originals. And, again to my knowledge, this is pretty much beyond dispute by both Aramaic Primacists and Greek Primacists. What is going on here in using the Apoclypse to support Peshitta Primacy???? Both camps say that the manuscript copies are much later from an orginal Greek pen. Whether the Apocolypse(Revelation of John) should be included in the inspirational New Tesament canon along with the other 4 "disputed books" is not a matter of linguistics, in my opinion, but a matter of theology. Please, any comments.

Sincerely,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#2
Dear Mike,

Please note that the churches which have used and preserved the Peshitta for the last couple of thousand years don't have Revelation or any of the other five books in their canon. Translations were made from the Greek for these books, and these were included in some copies of manuscripts for reference sake. None of these churches has ever actually modified the canon as they closed it, and that's with only 22 books.

For example, modern printed copies have these translated books - with an explanation in the beginning that these were made from the Greek, and do not form part of the Peshitta canon.

The readings during the liturgy, the cyclical yearly readings, do not contain anything from these 5 books. Nor are they allowed to be read in the Church. Additionally, sermons are not allowed to reference them.

That being said, the layman of the Church of the East is encouraged to read these books privately at home for personal edification. They are considered by the Church of the East to be "pious works", but not inspired scripture.

Many of the people who are advocating Aramaic primacy and using quotes from these translated Aramaic versions are coming from a primarily Protestant/American Evangelical background and therefore they desire to have both Aramaic primacy and a 27-book canon. I want to stress this is not the position of the Church of the East.

Here is a long download (please give it some time):

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/western_five.pdf

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#3
Shlama to you Brother Mike,

I would only like to add that most of us agree that the oldest SURVIVING mss of the Western Five (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation) were most certainly done in Greek. Also, almost no one in the Aramaic Primacy Movement argues with the idea that the current Aramaic versions of these books that we now have were translated from the Greek. The translational nature of these books is very obvious and in deep contrast to the compositional Aramaic that is the hallmark of the 22 book Eastern Canon. The fact that no assembly has seriously doubted any of the 22 books (except for a few anti Semites on James and Hebrews and even these were shouted down by the Catholics) and that the Western Five had a very hard time of getting included even by Rome speaks volumes as to the strength of these traditons. I support a 27 book canon, but I admit there is gap in terms of textual criticsim between what I believe and what I can prove.

However, having said all this, many of us on the Nazarene side (including yours truly) also believe that ORIGINAL mss of the Western Five WERE done in Aramaic (some say Hebrew but I don't think so) but these Aramaic versions were lost to us. One day perhaps they may be restored, but the current state of evidence suggests that but for a miracle these are gone forever.

Even so, when I and some others talk about say Aramaic evidence relating particularly to Revelation, what we are talking about is the idea that BOTH the surviving Aramaic AND Greek versions may hark back to the Semitic originals that have eluded us and are now lost. I detail this evidence in my book "Path to Life" (not to be confused with essay of the same name on my website but there is a free version of the Revelation article there), but this should never be confused with the idea that current versions of these works are compositional-original Aramaic. They are NOT.

2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude are honestly very small compositions with little evidence either way. Revelation however is another matter, but make no mistake: The two Aramaic versions of Revelation (Peshitto-Harkalean and Crawford) are BOTH translations from the Greek.

Hope this helps clarify things a little!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#4
Andrew,

Yes, it clarifies things; some. But to my "utter" (well, almost) dissapointment. I am just about floored. It does not bid very well at all for Aramaic Primacists to say that the Gospel of John and 1 John were written in originally in Aramaic and then to concede the point to Greek Primacists that 2 and 3 John (again, same author) was written in Greek. Soon as some Greek Primacists who are eagerly hunting for a more "varient free/error free" or more perfect manuscript support of the Word of G-d - discover this, you will lose them right there.

Andrew (with respect and softly), you can not stand up and declare that we have An Aramaic Apostle John and and say that John's Gospel and his 1st Epistle has a very clear Aramaic underlining, foundation, composition (or what ever word I am searching for) and then say that this same author's epistles of 2 John, 3 John and Revelation (plus those other 2) is clearly Greek in composition and in nature. Is this what you meant?? I need to know this, please. The idea that John and 1 John have Aramaic originals behind them while 2 John, 3 John and the Apocolypse have Greek originals behind them will not wash.

Another point, Mr Lancaster himself has a web-site that employs Revelation (the split word evidence: 3 or 4 examples). He is a Peshitta Primacist, and you said that no one who is within the Peshitta Primacy movement argues that fact that Revelation , 2 John and 3 John were translations from the Greek. What on earth is he doing employing Revelation. Both you and Paul's fingerprints are all over his book - "Was the new Testament Really Written in Greek?" Oh yes, and one of those letters within this epistle was written to Ephesus. This will immediately draw many to conclude that Paul's Ephesian letter was written in Greek. How could they come to any other conclusion?? And while we are at it, since anyone who has read Ephesians and Colossians more then twice will see that they are like "twin epistles." I have heard this several times and I think you know it is true. So now, Ephesians has a Greek original behind it and let us grab Colossians as well. They are epistles so much alike. They are either both in Greek or Aramaic.

You mentioned something about the surviving manuscripts of the Western 5 and their dates. Andrew, almost all of the Greek manuscript copies that make up the 27 book New Testament canon are older than any (that's any) of the Aramaic manuscripts copies. This fact is pretty well known and well established.

Though I basically understand your post to me it "clogs" things up in my mind. I did not know that you or Paul or , for that matter, anyone else pushing in the Aramaic Primacy movement thought that theese 5 books had Greek base or underlining to it. I was under the impression that all 27 NT books had an Aramaic tone or composition but that, for some reason the Western 5 were not accepted into the NT Canon(according to COE) because of some theological reason. If this is so, at least with the Apostle John one can not have a "mixed bag."

Now, let me just say that I am not mad. You can't see me nor pick up my nonverbal cues. So I just want to be clear that I do not speak out of being upset, angry nor do I have any malice. But I am passionate about this and in a gentle way. I believe this is vital , very vital to apologetics. That is why I write the way I do and that is why I desire some clear answers. I know you are doing your best. I am too. Hopefully we can take it from here. The time you have taken with me is so much appreciated and I don't just shrug this off. Anyway, I will close here. Please take care and go with G-d. May peace be yours as Y'shua gives it.

Mike
Reply
#5
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Thank you for your in-depth thoughts. There is another angle here: let me explain it from the perspective of the CoE.

If the CoE does not accept that the book popularly called "2 Peter" was actually written by Peter, hence the absence of that book from our Canon, then it does not matter to Aramaic primacy at all what language "2 Peter" was written in. In other words, we believe the Apostle Peter wrote "1 Peter" in Aramaic, and someone else, not the Apostle Peter, may have written "2 Peter" in Greek. It does no damage to our case at all. "2 Peter" could have been written in Swahili for all it matters to the CoE.

Now, from Andrew's viewpoint let's say he believes that Peter actually wrote the book known in the West as "2 Peter." Well, it still does not present a problem for Aramaic primacy, even in Andrew's position. I'll explain why, and hope he doesn't mind my speaking on his behalf:

Andrew may believe that only the book called "1 Peter" has survived in Aramaic. The book called "2 Peter", although originally written in Aramaic, survives only in Greek and later Aramaic translations.

So therefore, Andrew will look for evidence from within the actual Greek texts of "2 Peter", and if it indeed was a translation of an originally Aramaic work...then it should have some clues within the Greek text itself.

However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic/Peshitta primacist to make a case for any particular example (say, a mistranslation) by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of "2 Peter." That would, of course, be absurd.

I hope I explained it properly.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#6
Paul and all. I don't know if I am still confused or not. But how can you get away with it, Paul, that 2 Peter is not genuine (spurious) or by the Apostle Peter himself?? I know you are aware of the phrase in 2 Peter where he himself said, (my paraphrase or in Mike's words) - "This is now my 2nd epistle to you , my beloved. . ." Oh, well, I may not win this argument.

Now about your last statement: "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of '2 Pet'. , {2 John, 3 John, Jude or Revelation.} This , of course would be absurd." I assume you would also include the other four, that is why I bracketed them. But I had to look at this sentance of yours again to see if I was not losing my mind. Paul, you read my whole reply to Andrew I take it and you know I said that your and Andrew's fingerprints are everywhere in Mr. Lancaster's book. As a matter of fact I think you did most all of the footwork or much of it. Mr. Lancaster is a Peshitta Primacist as you know and he did indeed use Revelation "to make a case" as an example (3 or 4 actually) "by appealing to a later translation of Revelation." Am I now to believe that Mr. Lancaster is absurd in doing this???? Your words say so. I was just browsing through some of his "split words" examples yesterday. I actually focused on the ones in the Gospel of John. I did not go to his "Revelation examples" but there are 3 or 4 of them there. What's up with this? My only conclusion is that we are not on the same page for some reason. You and Andrew admit to an underling Greek in the Western 5 books?? Right?? Yes you do as I have learned today to my astonishment (somewhat). Well, again Paul, you will notice that Revelation was sent to 7 churches in 7 cities of Asia Minor (Turkey today) and one of those cities is Ephesus. Well, I am not going to bring you down that path again which I did in my last reply. But as for John - even reading in the english the very characteristics of his words, his writing style does not change. The flow of thought patterns, words, phrases and syntax is very consistent in all of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. How can you even possibly say that there is an Aramaic underlining composition or style for the Gospel of John and 1 John and then turn right around and say there is not for 2 John and 3 John??? ???? ???? Like I said in my last post, any Greek primacist who is thirsty for a more purer manuscript base for the New Testament will be lost (to Aramaic Primacy) right there. That is for those who can't or will not take time to dig deep. But can you blame them?? It will lead them to conclude that we have a "mixed bag." Okay, again I hope I don't sound harsh or belittling to you. I can't afford to because I have been wrong many times before. I desire my tone to be gentle and sincere. We are dealing with something serious here, I believe. This is very much an apologetic issue.

May both you/I pursue both the Wisdon and love of Aloha.

Mike
Reply
#7
Akhi Mike, you are the best I swear. Quit worrying about what people will think and just say what's on your mind, my dear brother. You're not going to offend anyone here, trust me.

Yes, Mr. Lancaster did compile a lot of material from this forum over the years. However, you will notice that none of the examples he has from any of the extra-Peshitta books are from me. He usually gives credit to someone who originally found an example, and you will notice where I am mentioned the context is within the 22 books of the Peshitta.

Akhi, dear brother, the topic of canonicity is a long one. I don't know how in-depth you want me to get, as this topic has been covered many times before on the forum. Rather than answering each question directly, I will summarize:

(a) The CoE began, like the Greek and Latin communities, during the Apostolic age.
(b) The CoE, like the Greek and Latin churches, had apostles and their immediate disciples guide and nurture them during the formative years.
© The CoE, like the Greek and Latin churches, were given the scriptures by the apostles and their immediate disciples.
(d) The CoE received 22 books, in the language of Christ Himself. We never received any other books.
(e) The CoE was not aware of the existence of these other books until very recently, relatively speaking
(f) The canon of the CoE was closed a long time ago. Before we were aware of the existence of these other books
(g) Therefore, we have no opinion on them one way or another. If they were given to us by the apostles, in the language of Christ and the apostles, then we would have them in our canon.

Let me give you another example. In the Ethiopian Church, there are 35 books in their NT canon. 1 and 2 Clement are two of them. Now, we could really care less about these books or what language they were written in, they were never part of our experience. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

There is not now, nor has there ever been such a thing as a universally-agreed upon list of books in any definitive Christian "Canon." That is a myth.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#8
Paul, I say things the way I do because I have come across as "caustic" or offensive to folks in the past and I feel the need to clarify myself or "qualifty" certain words. The Scriptures are pretty clear on how we should converse with people. I don't know how deep people's skin is on this forum. We are not all made the same, you know. Some people's feelings get hurt alot easier than others. The only thing that should be offensive is the gosple messege of Ye'shua and even than we have to be very careful not to "speak down to people." I also try to be careful in what words are used as the Tanakh (Old Coveneant) is clear in some places that words can be used very destructively or very constructively. Actually the New Cov't as well covers this and I will stop this subject at this point.

Now, let me address what you said. You asked if I "get what you are trying to say." Actually, Paul, yes and no. Because it appears you have said one thing in one of your posts and then turned around and said something that sounds directly against it. I think in point "c" you stated that"The church of the east LIKE the Greek and Latin churches were given the Scriptures by the Apostles and their immediate disciples". Well, apparaently not. I think I know what you are attempting to say. But if the Coptic church has a 35 book NT canon and the church of east has a 22 book NT canon and all the rest (mainly we here in the West) have a 27 book canon than we were not given the Scriptures in LIKE manner. We have a different canon. It is actually fairly new to me (just this year as a matter of fact) that there has never been a universally accepted and NT canon of all the same books. I did not know that. But, as I think or as I thought , until today, that this was a matter of theology and not linguistically - which leads to my next point in what you said:

This statement bothers me the most: "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 Christ and the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." Now Paul, this is almost precisely a 180 degree statement opposite in your post previous to your last which was something to the nature that it actually did not matter at all in which language these "Western 5 books" are in, whether Greek, Swahili(that is the term you used) Chinese or even Aramaic (hope you did not mind my paraphrasing you). So, now you say in your last post had they been written in Aramaic the church of the east would have them in their canon. So, up to today I thought that there was a theological reason that the coe did not accept these books. Now it appears that it is a linguistic reason/language that they did not accept them into the canon. Something is amiss here Paul. I thought they the church had no opinion of them. But had they been believed to have been written in Aramaic all of a sudden the c.o.e should have accepted them. Paul, I don't get it. Can you see that these statments of yours come across as contradictory??

Also, I think I have to stick to my guns on your statement - "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta Primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of 2 Pet {2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation}. This of course would be absurd." Mr. Lancaster is an Aramaic Primacist. Apparently he is not aware that these 5 Western books have no Peshitta or Aramaic basis. Yet he still is appealing to them. I should ask a dumb question. Does he know?? Was he informed of this?? Paul, did you not give him any advice that to employ a book like Revelation as an example for Aramaic Primacy was not sound??

Tks Paul. and I am not the best. Of course, I know what you meant.

May we both ask Aloha for the Wisdom that is from above.

Mike

Reply
#9
Paul, just a quick note. Yes, you may get as lengthy as you like about how we or you came to accept your canon as you did. It may take some time though for me to read the thread directly above this one (the "Western 5 books of the Peshitta"). My, I hope it is not that long. But I have lived all my life with the 27 NT book canon. The idea is now to me that this NT canon of ours has not been accepted universally. The book of Revelation, for example, is so full of themes loaded form Daniel and Isaiah and even Ezekiel. How can anyone just push this aside or "brush it off." Plus Revelation is the only place in the entire New Testament that gives us somewhat of an introductory view of what heaven will be like. And what about the solemn warning at the end of this great piece of literature. Surely you must be aware of this, Paul. Does this not concern you to some degree?? It has to.

Mike
Reply
#10
Shlama Akhi Mike,

I'll try to be short and brief in my answers, forgive me and remind me if I miss the opportunity to address any of your questions to your satisfaction.

Number one: I'm a big fan, personally, of the book of Revelation. I love it. Very well written, inspiring and obviously Orthodox. I enjoy it as much as I do the Odes of Solomon, an Aramaic hymnal from the 1st or early 2nd century. No, we do not use it for readings during the liturgy, and no we do not consider it inspired. But that does not mean that I cannot enjoy it and obtain spiritual benefit from it, regardless of whether I am reading it in the English translation or the Aramaic translation.

Number two: I have, believe you me, over the 10 years or so here made no secret of the fact that I, along with a 2,000-year old Christian community, do not consider these 5 books to be canonical. I have never claimed anywhere that the Aramaic translations of these books are the original. So Mr. Lancaster and everyone else is well aware of my, and my church's, position on this matter. I have stated in the past that there may be an Aramaic original to these works, and God-willing that they may very well be found one day in a desert somewhere like the DSS were.

Number three: Yes, all of our sister churches are Apostolic in nature. Rather than concentrate on the differences between a 22, 27 or 35 book canon - let's concentrate on the fact that the 22 books in the Aramaic canon are universally accepted. No Apostolic community disputes any of these 22 books. I pray that you continue in your study of the early and formative years of the Graeco-Latin canon. I think you may be surprised to find out that Revelation was not included by many of the Western Fathers, like Eusebius. These books made it in very late even in the "western" canon.

Number four: The CoE is not lacking in anything, theologically speaking, by not recognizing the canonicity and apostolic authorship of these books. As you said, the themes in Revelation are found in previous works like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.

Number five: in the statement about our common Apostolic founding, yes we did have the same Apostles which is why I think we have the same 22 books in common - whether we are Greek, Assyrian or Ethiopian. Now having said that, again, in your study of the formation of the various canons (African, Persian, Greek, etc.) you will have a clearer picture of how these canons formed and which books made it into a canon by the "skin of their teeth", so to say.

Number six: in regards to the CoE and it's reception of these books: when these came to us, again MUCH later than the Apostolic age, they were in a language that was foreign to us and they were in a language other than that which Christ and His disciples spoke. Actually, the CoE was so isolated in Persia that even in the 18th-19th century, when Asahel Grant visited them in the wild mountains of Turkey, they were unaware of the existence of these works.

Having said all that, the CoE has not officially declared any of these works either "apostolic" or "non-apostolic", it simply has never had them. Just like we've never had "Clement" or the "Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans."

Again, we were traditionally very isolated from you as we were in the Persian empire. Not until we were decimated by the Turks in 1915 did we start to emigrate here to the west and become exposed to these issues.

Take care,
Shamasha (deaconos) Paul
Reply
#11
Akhi Mike,

One further note: imagine for one moment, place yourself in our shoes. These 22 books were delivered to us by Jewish Aramaic speakers in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and these other 5 books ... our first exposure to them was through American Presbyterian missionaries in the 18th-19th centuries....in English, of all things, and the history behind the English was of course the Greek via Latin.

Long after your own canon was closed, your "Hudra" (cyclical readings, or "propers", read during the liturgy) had been established. None of your Patristic writers referenced any of them for the last, oh, 1700 years or so.

What would you imagine the reaction to have been?

You know, I don't think that even if copies are found in Patmos tomorrow of an Aramaic Revelation, signed personally by John, that a canon can be re-opened and modified. It has been too long of a period of time. Once a canon is closed, it remains so.

+Shamasha
Reply
#12
Shlama to you Brother Mike,

I only have a short moment to write--but I will expand on these issues a bit later. For now, I want to just say these things:

1) Brother Paul has accurately conveyed my position. He has also made an incredibly important observation on focussing on the universal acceptance of the 22 books rather than the different numbers of books in the NT elsewhere. Early Christianity (and Messianic Judaism), was a very diverse and variegated phenomenon and it is unfortunate that many folks don't realize this due to Western Orthodoxy trying to santize history.

2) I am 100% certain about the originality of the Eastern 22, and I think that alone is hugely significant. If nothing else can be proved other than that, I am still a happy man.

3) There is no way, as I said before, that any competent Aramaicist believes the Western 5 to be original, compositional Aramaic. It is cut and dried like the best of science. There is NO doubt on this score at all.

4) Christopher Lancaster is now known as Raphael Lataster, and he is NOT a translator as Paul and I are. He is very much a Peshitta enthusiast and has learned a lot in compiling evidence from myself and others, but his views on this score are more faith based.

5) You have not offended me in the slightest.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#13
Hi, Mike!

When I first was introduced to the Peshitta (thank you, Raphael!), I had a lot to sort out.

"Peshitta" and "Peshitto" are not synonyms. Unfortunately, they sometimes are used as such. The most-obvious difference between the two is that the Peshitto includes the so-called "Western Five" while the Peshitta does not.

"Peshitta Primacy" and "Aramaic Primacy" are not synonymous. Peshitta Primacy asserts that the 22 books contained in the Peshitta are the "originals." Aramaic Primacy asserts that the "originals" (of whatever) are Aramaic (Peshitta, Peshitto, perhaps something else). I point this out because the topic of this thread refers to "Aramaic Primacy" but then it discusses "Peshitta Primacy" and Revelation. We need to be sure that we're discussing the same thing, and I think that's why there seems to be a communication issue here. Revelation really has no bearing on Peshitta Primacy. It would matter a lot to Peshitto Primacy...

Also, if the "Western Five" writings themselves are not "originals" but are translations from "the Greek," that does not necessarily mean that "the Greek" was not translated originally from some other Aramaic source. That would be Aramaic Primacy (apart from the Peshitta and the Peshitto). I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there was an Aramaic "original" behind Revelation; and if there was, then I wouldn't be surprised to find "split words" or other evidence.

Anyway, I hope this might help to clarify things. If anyone thinks I need clarification here, please let me know.

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
-Doug "Whitey" Jackson
Reply
#14
Paul Younan wrote:

Quote:Number one: I'm a big fan, personally, of the book of Revelation. I love it. Very well written, inspiring and obviously Orthodox. I enjoy it as much as I do the Odes of Solomon, an Aramaic hymnal from the 1st or early 2nd century. No, we do not use it for readings during the liturgy, and no we do not consider it inspired. But that does not mean that I cannot enjoy it and obtain spiritual benefit from it, regardless of whether I am reading it in the English translation or the Aramaic translation.

Number two: I have, believe you me, over the 10 years or so here made no secret of the fact that I, along with a 2,000-year old Christian community, do not consider these 5 books to be canonical. I have never claimed anywhere that the Aramaic translations of these books are the original. So Mr. Lancaster and everyone else is well aware of my, and my church's, position on this matter. I have stated in the past that there may be an Aramaic original to these works, and God-willing that they may very well be found one day in a desert somewhere like the DSS were.

Number three: Yes, all of our sister churches are Apostolic in nature. Rather than concentrate on the differences between a 22, 27 or 35 book canon - let's concentrate on the fact that the 22 books in the Aramaic canon are universally accepted. No Apostolic community disputes any of these 22 books. I pray that you continue in your study of the early and formative years of the Graeco-Latin canon. I think you may be surprised to find out that Revelation was not included by many of the Western Fathers, like Eusebius. These books made it in very late even in the "western" canon.

Number four: The CoE is not lacking in anything, theologically speaking, by not recognizing the canonicity and apostolic authorship of these books. As you said, the themes in Revelation are found in previous works like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.

Number five: in the statement about our common Apostolic founding, yes we did have the same Apostles which is why I think we have the same 22 books in common - whether we are Greek, Assyrian or Ethiopian. Now having said that, again, in your study of the formation of the various canons (African, Persian, Greek, etc.) you will have a clearer picture of how these canons formed and which books made it into a canon by the "skin of their teeth", so to say.

Number six: in regards to the CoE and it's reception of these books: when these came to us, again MUCH later than the Apostolic age, they were in a language that was foreign to us and they were in a language other than that which Christ and His disciples spoke. Actually, the CoE was so isolated in Persia that even in the 18th-19th century, when Asahel Grant visited them in the wild mountains of Turkey, they were unaware of the existence of these works.


Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama to you Brother Mike,

I only have a short moment to write--but I will expand on these issues a bit later. For now, I want to just say these things:

1) Brother Paul has accurately conveyed my position. He has also made an incredibly important observation on focussing on the universal acceptance of the 22 books rather than the different numbers of books in the NT elsewhere. Early Christianity (and Messianic Judaism), was a very diverse and variegated phenomenon and it is unfortunate that many folks don't realize this due to Western Orthodoxy trying to santize history.

2) I am 100% certain about the originality of the Eastern 22, and I think that alone is hugely significant. If nothing else can be proved other than that, I am still a happy man.

3) There is no way, as I said before, that any competent Aramaicist believes the Western 5 to be original, compositional Aramaic. It is cut and dried like the best of science. There is NO doubt on this score at all.

4) Christopher Lancaster is now known as Raphael Lataster, and he is NOT a translator as Paul and I are. He is very much a Peshitta enthusiast and has learned a lot in compiling evidence from myself and others, but his views on this score are more faith based.

5) You have not offended me in the slightest.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Shlama Akhi Andrew:
I don't want to misunderstand your statements or misquote you. Paul Younan has grown up with the 22 book Peshitta text. You and I did not. Personally, I began my walk with God at 19 years of age with the King James Version of the Bible and was fully persuaded of my salvation and the infallability of the Old English KJV, just as I was taught. I now realize that an understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are paramount to understanding the depths of God's written WORD. I have learned much over the 38 years that I have professed my faith in our LORD Jesus Christ. I now understand that the Hebrew "autograph" of the T"NK (Jewish Bible-Old Testament) is inspired by God and that any translation that accurately conveys it's intrinsic meaning is also inspired by God, on par. Sometimes understanding the text means careful study and interlinear translation into English using various contextual synonyms and study of Hebraic idioms but the "inspiration of the Ruakh HaKodesh", through prayer and meditation applies the Living WORD to my heart and mind spiritually and in English (my mother tongue), because God speaks to us by His Holy Spirit, the written WORD of God and by our faithful observance of the Life of our Saviour, Yeshua Mashikha. I have in the last ten years understood that the "autograph" of the 22 book Peshitta is Aramaic, not Greek. Now, if I believed that the Western Five were pseudopigraphic such as The Shepherd of Hermes or the Gospel of Barnabas or the Book of Enoch, I would not consider them to be on par with the Peshitta, however, the Western Five, though in Greek, have a long tradition of being completely cohesive and integral with the New Testament Canon, being apostolically authored. Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, accept the 27 book New Testament canon as the inspired WORD of GOD. I won't argue for the Apocrypha as being on par with inspired scripture. I'm an evangelical Protestant. The exclusion of the Western Five from the canon of inspired scripture is a far more sobering endeavour, Akhi Andrew.

Do you agree with Paul Younan that the Western Five (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation) are not inspired by Alaha on par with the 22 book Peshitta?

Shlama,
Stephen P. Silver
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#15
Yiasou Michali, ti kanis?

I don't blame you for your zeal and for your concern, indeed "i Elines" are going to be the most hesitant to embrace Aramaic primacy. For 100s of years we've been taught, that the NT was composed by the apostles in our language, and we've been very proud of this "heritage". And then our Aramaic breathren had to come and "ruin the party" announcing to us "Now just wait a minute! There's a lot that you westerners don't know!" And they're right, there is a lot that we don't know because of centuries of isolation. Our Aramaic brethren from Mesopotamia and Persia deserve to have their case considered.

My position is a mix of "Peshitta Primacy" and "Aramaic Primacy". I believe that the 22 book cannon of the CoE, is indeed the originals of those books. Where the Western Five are concerned, I hold the view of Andrew Gabriel Roth, that Aramaic originals for those books did exist, and the Greek versions are translated from them, though these originals haven't survived, or we haven't found them yet. But I'm a bit more optimistic about these things, after all the Dead Sea Scrolls, which remain the greatest Biblical archaeological find to date, were discovered at Qumran less than 100 years ago. I have a feeling that it's still too early for Greek primacists to set their view in stone, I believe that we're going to be in for some more discoveries in the near future, as the Aramaic Primacy School develops.

That's my thoughts for now.

Xeretismata,
Xristina.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)