08-29-2008, 05:18 PM
Paul Younan wrote:
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 -->
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 -->