Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now
#16
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

You ask:

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?

My answer:

I believe that inspiration and canonicity are two different processes. I believe in terms of doctrine it is appropriate to be a Berean and measure the Western 5 against the the Eastern 22 (and both against Tanakh) and that when we do so we find no errors on that score. But no, I would not do it the other way around and filter the Eastern canon through the Western 5 even though it would in my judgment yield the same result.

There is no question from my Jewish tradition that it is possible to view a full canon with varying degrees of authority, as the sages view the Torah as having greater weight than the prophets and the prophets than the writings. I have faith in the Western 5 but greater confidence in the 22, even though I feel there are no errors in the Western 5.

It is also the case that there are areas of Scritpure which many in Christendom are comfortable with that are nonetheless of later derivation, regardless as to them being in the Eastern or Western collections. So I would argue for the original readings of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 and reject the WESTERN versions within these books. There are other examples I could use of this, but I think you get my meaning.

Having said all of this, I think the simpler answer is YES, I agree with this position. There is no way to look at the Western 5 and be absolutely certain of its linguistic or custodial pedigree. The best I think we can do is to say the SOME VERSIONS of these books were very likely part of the original Nazarene canon in Israel but their ultimate version/content is not as certain.

Does that help?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#17
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

As kind of an "addendum", I wanted to also point out another difference in our traditions. In the CoE, both patristically and liturgically, the order of importance within the 3 divisions of the NT is:

Gospels -> Epistles of Paul -> General Epistles & Acts.

So it is very similar to the way the Jews have traditionally viewed the logical division within the OT.

I view the Protestant/Evangelical viewpoint to be much more in line with the way that Islam views the Quran, i.e., that all of the books of scripture are equal and form the "word" of God.

Old-school "Apostolic" Christianity (whether of the Greek, Aramaic, Latin or African type) really has a different viewpoint.

You can see it in action during our service. For instance, when a reading from the prophets (Isaiah, etc.) is presented (usually first), or the book of Acts, or the Apostle Paul, the people are sitting. But when the Gospel is read, we all stand.

+Shamasha
Reply
#18
Well, I don't know where to start. But I sort of like it like this. Sometimes it takes some diggin to get to the bottom of these things. I have been thinking about this for about a day now and I am actually having fun. At the same time this is serious. The case for Aramaic Primacy (or now Peshitta Primacy. I am not sure what to use) is very good. But agian people, those of us who have been raised with the 27 book canon will be lost when this thing about the "Western 5" five is raised. Paul, I will try to put myself in your shoes and have allready. But this is hard to do. In order for me to do this I would have had to grow up with the same rearing that you had. For me to just "think" or "imagine" this is not so easy. I have been raised with a very fundamental, rigid, doctrinaire teaching where even the hint that one of letters of the 27 book canon would be heresy. Yes, even mentioning this as on option and I am "out the door" so to speak. In "our" culture, or here in the West, there has never ever been a question about this. The 27 book canon is settled a "fiat accomplii." Surely you understand this or relate to this. But having said this I am open to what you have to say. But the very nature of these 5 books speaks as authoritative about Scripture as they possibly can. Like, I am thinking about in 2 Peter where Peter says , (my paraphrase) ". . . know this; that no prophecy of Scripture is given to private interpretation. . ." You know the rest of the verse, aye?? Without an inspired 2 Peter we can never use this as a case for "inpsired Scripture" for today when we talk to folks. But I was also thinking, that it was with much struggle that these 5 books made it into the canon. Was it not the Western tradition that had a long struggle with Arainism and who believed in the fact of Y'shua being fully man and yet fully Aloha, and yet they won. This Western tradition also had other heresies to fight against and they won them, too. So, in "choosing" the 27 book canon was not taken lightly. Actually many of us believe, of course, they did not choose them, but that these 5 books allready had inspired characteristics in them. But I am losing my focus somewhat here. I believe I will only have time for one post today and most of the rest of the weekend. I guess I am just finding it difficult to accept a 22 book Aramaic Primacy view and just "drop the other 5." I would just about have to hold to a "22 book canon" of inspired Scripture. As I said before, anyone who is going to take this seriously will have questions of what to do with these "5." BTW, I am no longer Greek or Eastern Orthodox. But I have much to thank them for. When I became transormed by Y'shua I ridiculed the "faith" I was brought up in. But looking hindsight, how foolish of me to do this. The Greek Orthodox church gave me a foundation in life that once I was presented the gospel I had no intellectual hang ups. The foundation was there but Messiah was not a reality to me. I mean, you know the passage in 2 Cor where it says that we once regarded Christ in the flesh but now we no longer do. Plus the fact that Orthodox has been around for a very, very long time. They, throughout the last 20 centuries or so have suffered much, like the c.o.e. as I have now learned, and yet they are still around and practising the faith as they see it. Yes, Aloha has brought this to my mind and I dare not ridicule them again. Like I said , I was foolish but I have repented. We still have some very real dissagreements.

I don't know where I am going with this right now I am just sort of aiming in the dark. What I am attempting to do is to get you folks to relate to people when they become aware that in most of their NT canon you declare an Aramaic Primacy and within this part of the canon the manuscripts basis of these texts are virtually varient free. Many will find this great news. Then it is as almost you say, "By the way, don't get too excited because . . ." They are left with only 2 choices and neither of them are winners: (1) "Disregard the 5 books that do not have an Aramaic composition behind them. They are translation from the Greek. Just tear them out of your New Testament Bible and that will get rid of the problem." Or (2) "just keep them in your NT canon if you want to and if any Greek Primacist or NT sceptics for that matter brings this case up as a challenge to 'Peshitta Primacy' up just don't talk about it. Just say there are 22 books that have an Aramaic composition to them and that these ar virutally varient free. But there are 5 that can't claim such a victory."


Well, I wish I could say more. Aloha willing, I will later. But I will close out here as I am constrained with time right now. BTW, we really can't wait around for I don't know how many decades and hope these "manuscript copies" of an Aramaic originals for those Western 5 show up. That is just not reality. This is just a problem that some how we will have to deal with; that is for those who hold to a 27 book canon. For those who hold to a 22 book canon. I guess you don't have to struggle with this dilemna. Bye you all. Be careful now. I am actully rushed. So , so long.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#19
Hey Mike,

Thanks for your thoughts: I know where you are coming from. As I stated earlier, it's much easier to disregard canon issues and focus on the fact that the 22 books we do have in the Peshitta are universally accepted by all branches of the Church.

As to the "5", there really isn't a problem there, either. I don't mind reading them in the Greek or holding to a Greek primacist position for the book of Revelation. Again, it's kinda like asking me to be bothered about what language the book of Mormon is written in. Now, before everyone jumps on me I'm not equating Revelation with the book of Mormon. I realize that a large part of the Church believes in the canonicity of Revelation, and that it goes back a long time before Mormonism was around.

But imagine if you were having this discussion with someone who grew up with the Ethiopian canon of 35 books, and the roles were reversed and they were asking YOU questions like "....how could you not believe 2Clement is inspired?"

Your answer would be like my answer, you never had 2Clement within your tradition of canonical writings.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that there has never been such a thing as a single, universally accepted list of books that make up the "Christian" scripture. Think about the Jews - took them until Jamnia in 90 AD to come up with a definitive canon of the OT.

Well, guess what? By that time, certain Christian communities were very comfy with the book of Tobit (which got officially tossed out of the Jewish Canon). Did the Christians in Rome care what rabbinical decrees came out of Jamnia? No, of course not.

Do you consider Tobit to be revealed by God, divinely inspired scripture? No, probably not. But the Roman rite certainly does.

Again, the most important thing is that we agree on the 22 books. We all consider them to be inspired and the chain of custodianship is well established. Yes, the Western canon kept growing and it stopped one day when a bunch of old beards got together at a council and decided enough was enough, they defined what they considered to be inspired scripture by their own standards.

Other councils decided on other canons.

I wish a list would fall down from the sky and settle the issue, but this has been a while now and I fear we will all know for sure when we have the opportunity to ask Him directly in the Kingdom.

In the meantime, the CoE does not object to anything in these 5 books. There is nothing theologically significant in these 5 books that is new or missing from other books we already accept as inspired.

Book of Mormon: yes, there is significant theological impact. We object to it on that ground, and on it's late arrival to us (not from the Apostles' hands). But not 2John or Revelation. Those we just don't have in our canon because they did not reach us until like 1,700 years later. But we accept them as pious works based on the testimony of our sister communities of faith.

Take care,
+Shamasha
Reply
#20
Mike Kar Wrote:BTW, I am no longer Greek or Eastern Orthodox. But I have much to thank them for. When I became transormed by Y'shua I ridiculed the "faith" I was brought up in. But looking hindsight, how foolish of me to do this. The Greek Orthodox church gave me a foundation in life that once I was presented the gospel I had no intellectual hang ups. The foundation was there but Messiah was not a reality to me. I mean, you know the passage in 2 Cor where it says that we once regarded Christ in the flesh but now we no longer do. Plus the fact that Orthodox has been around for a very, very long time. They, throughout the last 20 centuries or so have suffered much, like the c.o.e. as I have now learned, and yet they are still around and practising the faith as they see it. Yes, Aloha has brought this to my mind and I dare not ridicule them again. Like I said , I was foolish but I have repented. We still have some very real dissagreements.

Oooh, a fellow ex-Greek Orthodox Christian turned Messianic/Nazarene, I thought I'd be the only one. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Mike & Paul:

I think we need to take a different approach here, I think the issues need to be dealt with separately, Mike asked:

Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now

Akhi Paul, let's forget that Revelation is not part of the CoE cannon for a minute and look at it from a linguistic/textual critical angle. IYO do you see similarities between Greek revelation & the 22 Greek books that you KNOW are translated from Aramaic? Is there evidence in Greek Revelation of split words, mistranslations, Aramaic idioms, etc? IOW Is there reason to question the assumption that the original language of Revelation is Greek?

I know that you're not bothered with the W5 Paul, but will you consider trying to answer this from a linguistic/textual critical perspective? Perhaps that's what Mike is actually looking for. However you're under no obligation to undertake this if you really don't want to deal with the W5. In that case Mike, there are others here who can help you, so don't go away just yet.

Also remember what Doug said earlier about the difference between "Peshitta Primacy" and "Aramaic Primacy". Akhan Paul is a "Peshitta Primacist" not an "Aramaic Primacist" (according to Doug's definition), so your question about Revelation & the rest of the W5 concerns "Aramaic Primacy" not "Peshitta Primacy".

Shlama ke xeretismata,
Christina.
Reply
#21
Rafa Wrote:
Quote:Oooh, a fellow ex-Greek Orthodox Christian turned Messianic/Nazarene, I thought I'd be the only one.

Heh, I was thinking the other day I was probably the only person in Brazil who even knew what a Nazarene was, then Nyudra appeared here after you showed us his work. Now I know of many Nazarenes back home . I did a little research and it's quite probable that this movement managed to go underground right up to the late middle ages. The COE probably would know if this happened and where.

<!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> I know, and funny how we're meeting all of them on Peshitta.org? Looks like akhan Paul's work has been instrumental in uniting the world's Nazarenes, LOL.
Reply
#22
Shlama Khati Christina,

Christina Wrote:IYO do you see similarities between Greek revelation & the 22 Greek books that you KNOW are translated from Aramaic? Is there evidence in Greek Revelation of split words, mistranslations, Aramaic idioms, etc? IOW Is there reason to question the assumption that the original language of Revelation is Greek?

Actually, yes. There are internal clues within the Greek text. The major obstacle we have is this: imagine, for a moment, that we have two Greek manuscripts of Revelation and we find a "split-word" example, where there's two different Greek words for the same reading. And now we can determine that there does exist an Aramaic word that just-so-happens to have those two meanings. Great, right?

Problem is, we have no Aramaic manuscript that we can point to that proves the dual-meaning Aramaic word was the one actually used.

So yes, there are several different types of internal evidences that may be convincing. Another type is grammar, when something obviously is not proper Greek but reads more like a Semitic sentence (sort of like the language of the LXX.)

But again, our critics will come back with "So what? The apostle John spoke Aramaic, and we would expect this type of creole-Greek from a Semitic writer."

See, we are at a severe disadvantage either way.....we are going to have an unconvincing argument without the actual text, and argument from silence.

But it should be undertaken nevertheless. I highly recommend those who know Greek better than I to do so. Reason is I usually start with the Aramaic text and compare the Greek, my strength is not looking at the Greek first. Most of my examples have been found starting with the Aramaic text and a word that I know could be easily mistranslated.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#23
Rafa Wrote:Oh, and I forgot, I met a guy from Portugal that claims to be a Nazarene. It's funny because I thought "now that's the one country I will NEVER find a Nazarene". Well, I actually found one here (I'm currently visiting Portugal as my vacation). Also, I just wanted to tell Akhan Paul that there are -70,000- Assyrians in Brazil. Yes, 70,000. Bet he didn't know that. The Patriarch should be able to see this, it's lots of Assyrians but they don't have a Metropolitan and the RCC is assimilating them.

Shlama Akhi Rafa,

We are well aware, Akhi. I happened in Russia, too. Luckily, we've been able to build a large archdiocese there and the flock has returned over time from the Russian Church which they utilized in absence of any viable CoE community. I would imagine that would happen in Latin America in the near term.....

+Shamasha
Reply
#24
Well folks, I have read over many of these posts(again) for about an hour now. This is fun. Christeana (?) brings up a great point, Paul. I understand your strength about having an Aramaic text at your disposal and able to compare it with a Greek text and the clues for Aramaic Primacy can jump out right in front of you. But can you have an "imagined" Aramaic text and see possible
split words that can just about be determined to an high degree from one Aramaic word?? If there are 3 or 4 and more examples (and they keep adding up) then wouldn't you have a very, very good case for "Aramaic Primacy" regardless if you have in your possession an Aramaic text underlinging the Greek text??? See my point behind the question??

Now, case in point in bringing up the W-5. I know of a precher in Tennessee who came down to Georgia and preached for 5 nights during a Gospel session. Since he has gone back I have introduced Aramaic Primacy to him. I am trying to get him to "jump over" or look at it and let me know what he thinks. What am I suppose to tell him when the question of the W-5 comes up?? I must either tell him that the W-5 were really not suppose to be included in our canon or that these have no Aramaic support. Paul, he will not be pursuaded of either Peshitta Primacy or Aramaic Primacy. That will just about finish his exploration. So my issue on this W-5 is not only because I want to know, personally. But also for "evangelistic purposes" in trying to reach others for Aramaic Primacy. Paul, I do relate to your history and the position of accepting on a 22 book canon. I have thought about it and I understand how you feel; your position. Yes, we can work from a 22 book Peshitta position. I hope to be doing some research on this thing of "late acceptance" of the W-5.

You know what?? I thought about the statements I made about the long struggle in the Western tradition against Arianism. But later on and even during the time of mentioning this, I thought that by, just the way Aramaic was written in the Scriptures the church in the east never may have had this struggle at all. With the Greek, there was a struggle against Arianism on the Trinity , the nature of Christ (what we call Christology), the Christ/Messiah being both wholly G-d and wholly man. Well, am I correct that the East never had this struggle?? Just taking the word "Lord" when used in conjucntion with Y'shua, how can one even come up with a system to support that Y'shua was not really all G-d??[b][i]

Ah yes, the issue of canonicity can be a long one. Your statement, "You know, I don't think that even copies are found in Patmos of an Aramaic Revelation signed personlally by John, that a canon can be re-opended and modified. It has been too long of a period of time. Once a canon is closed, it remains so." Okay, this is true. But where does that put the 27 book Western canon. these epistles have been in there a long time and I am not sure we can just decide now in the 20th century that they should not be in there. What would be the significance of this in light of the fact that 100's, if not 1000's of translations have been made from this Western system in other languages and scattered and printed all over the world?? The whole issue of "Preservation" is now at stake. Wow!! Wow!! Maybe we should not get in to this too much right now as it just opens up an enormous can of dilemnas.

I think there is till another question that has remaind unanswered. Remember your statement , Paul: "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 the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." But you had previously, I think, made a statment in reference to the W-5 that it did not matter in which language they (the W-5) were written in. this sound contradictory to me and hopefully you can clear this up.

For now, I have to go. You all take care. Y'shua loves you all and did it all for you. This alone makes you very important and unique. May we all have the Wisdom and Grace from above to have the right understanding of these things . . .

Mike Karoules
Reply
#25
I am learning new stuff everyday. Andrew made a statement ( I think it was him; maybe someone else but he ccould very well easily confirm this or tear it upSmile that the Old Testament (the Tanakh) canon was not finally compiled into a unit until 90A.D. I am just not so sure of this. I don't know even where to start where the New Testament quotes the OT with the universal premise that the Jews knew for sure what was the "accepted" books of Scripture and considered Aloha-breathed even though they did not have a so called "Bible" in their hands as a unit (like we do today). Y'shua consantly and consistently would quote Scriptures to the Jews. How could they possibly not know what he was talking about. Shall we begin with Y'shua's words in Luke when He quotes Isa 61:1-3, that famous "The Sp. of Aloha is upon me because He has anointed me. He has sent me to preach good news . . . ."(Luke 4:18, about and me doing little paraphrasing.) How about so many of the other "it is writtens?" It has never occured to me that any of the Old Covenant books that the Jews accepted and knew as Scripture were ever disputed. Never. Then you have that big, big statement by Y'shus Himself (in the Gospel of John), ". . . and the Scripture can not be broken..." And I don't know exactly where that is right off now. It is in John and should be very easy to spot. But such a statement is rather foolish unless the Jews knew and understood what these "the Scriptures" actually were.

A comment was made by Andrew on the evident Aramaic nature and composition of the 22 book Peshitta (including John and 1 John) and also, the very clear compositional nature of Greek in the Western 5. I would really like to know more about this or if Andrew or someone can shed some more light on this. As far as we know the Apostle John wrote his Gospel along with his other 3 epistles. What makes the Gospel of John and 1 John so compositionally Aramaic and Aramaic by nature and, yet, 2 and 3 John so "un-Aramaic." This may be a big assignment. If this is the case maybe you can give 3 examples or summerize it down some as I can imagine one could write a 10 page paper on this.

Well, I will leave this last one as an option for reply; at least for now. But Paul, and Andrew, were you both not behind the work of Mr. Lancaster and his book: "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?" I am still plagued just a little by this statement: " . . . 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 Peter, {2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation}. That would fo course, be absurd." Well, Mr. Lancaster is an Aramaic Primacist. He is indeed making a case on these W-5 books for Aramaic origins (for these 5 letters). Both Paul and Andrew endorse this work by Mr. Lancaster and I do not believe to my knowledge that either Andrew or Paul qualified their support when it came to the issue of the Western 5. So, is there any solid support for the Western 5 books as being written originally in Aramaic?? How about any support at all?? Any undisputable support?? Probable support?? Can a case be made that these W-5 books are of Aramaic origins?? Thank-you.



Y'shua lives. King of kings
Mike Karoules
Reply
#26
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
Reply
#27
Well, well folks. I was just unwinding some and reading a few posts to other threads when I came across this interesting quote by Dave Bauscher on 23 July '08: "My translations have notes demonstrating the Aramic Primacy of the Western 5 in the critical text I used. So the codes support the Divine Inspiration and the Primacy of all 27 Aramaic New Testament books; THE LINGUISTIC ANALYSES SUPPORT THE ARAMAIC PRIMACY OF ALL 27 BOOKS AND THE GREEK AS A TRANSLATION OF THE ARAMAIC PESHITTA AND OF THE ARAMAIC FIVE.''.

Before this reply gets moved please note Dave's sentance that I have in caps. This very well could be PERTINENT!!

''And the greatest of these is love." 1 Cor 13.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#28
Shlama Akhi Mike,

I will try and answer best I can. Let me reproduce your text here and go point by point:

I am learning new stuff everyday. Andrew made a statement ( I think it was him; maybe someone else but he ccould very well easily confirm this or tear it upSmile that the Old Testament (the Tanakh) canon was not finally compiled into a unit until 90A.D. I am just not so sure of this.

AGR:

I did not say any such thing. I think Brother Paul explained the nature of canon from an Eastern Jewish and Christian perspective very well. You may be thinking of an approximate date that I sometimes talk about--80 CE--for the closing of the NT EASTERN CANON. That is NOT a firm date. It merely looks at the fact that the COE only accepted holy books from known apostles and their associates and when almost all of these first generation witnesses (John is an exception and another story) would have died.

On the other hand, what happened in 90 CE was that a Rabbi named Shimon ha Pakuli composed a curse against the Nazarenes, my spritual brethren. From 70 CE when the Romans burned Jerusalem and to the end of the first century, rabbis like Yochanan ben Zakkai and others tried to save their precious Tanakh mss and also preserve their cultural oral heritage. From this point, for about the next 60 years (through the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt), they began a process much like the Christians would do and simply codify officially the books that had long been in use. There is no definite end date on the Jewish side for this process and different communities kept different book lists, but generally speaking the rabbis preserved books that could be shown as having been extensively in Israel and existed originally in the Hebrew language. Other considerations dealt with their known antiquity and historical provenance, some of which are discussed by the historian Josephus in Against Apion 1.8. The rabbis though were not perfect, and in at least one case, Tobit, they guessed wrong on both counts until it was found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other discussions relating to Esther and the Song of Songs are well known, so I won't get into that.

After the general Jewish book list was done sometime in the early centuries of the common era (in terms of gradual acceptance in scattered Jewry worldwide, which, as the Peshitta Tanakh and LXX shows with the Apocrypha was not always successful either), the task came to stabilize pronunciation and content of these books. That began in about 500 CE and the Masoretes (from "masorah" meaning "tradition") came up with by about the year 1000 a fixed standardized text that has literally not changed one jot since then. Meanwhile the Christians used the LXX and the Vulgate for their OT, with folks like Jerome crowing about how great his versions were, yada yada.

Next:

I don't know even where to start where the New Testament quotes the OT with the universal premise that the Jews knew for sure what was the "accepted" books of Scripture and considered Aloha-breathed even though they did not have a so called "Bible" in their hands as a unit (like we do today).

AGR:

Yes, the canon in Israel was UNDERSTOOD, but there was no official rabbinic ruling IN WRITING until much later. Jews always do things orally for centuries first.

Next:

Y'shua consantly and consistently would quote Scriptures to the Jews. How could they possibly not know what he was talking about. Shall we begin with Y'shua's words in Luke when He quotes Isa 61:1-3, that famous "The Sp. of Aloha is upon me because He has anointed me. He has sent me to preach good news . . . ."(Luke 4:18, about and me doing little paraphrasing.) How about so many of the other "it is writtens?" It has never occured to me that any of the Old Covenant books that the Jews accepted and knew as Scripture were ever disputed. Never.

AGR:

Again, Y'shua knew his canon but it was not codified in writing. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and see that they kept a different canon but the Essenes still essentially agreed with their counterparts in the rest of Israel, and kept every book we know in Tanakh except Esther. This is VERY analgous to the 22 Eastern Peshitta books. EVERYONE agreed on those but SOME had ADDITIONAL books. You seem to have trouble accepting this dear brother but that is history.


Then you have that big, big statement by Y'shus Himself (in the Gospel of John), ". . . and the Scripture can not be broken..." And I don't know exactly where that is right off now. It is in John and should be very easy to spot. But such a statement is rather foolish unless the Jews knew and understood what these "the Scriptures" actually were.

AGR:

See above.

A comment was made by Andrew on the evident Aramaic nature and composition of the 22 book Peshitta (including John and 1 John) and also, the very clear compositional nature of Greek in the Western 5. I would really like to know more about this or if Andrew or someone can shed some more light on this. As far as we know the Apostle John wrote his Gospel along with his other 3 epistles. What makes the Gospel of John and 1 John so compositionally Aramaic and Aramaic by nature and, yet, 2 and 3 John so "un-Aramaic." This may be a big assignment. If this is the case maybe you can give 3 examples or summerize it down some as I can imagine one could write a 10 page paper on this.

AGR:

I would start with the free Revelation article on my website Mike as I get into that in great detail there. I am sorry but I don't have time to that all over again right now. I also detail this information in Mari and in my book "Path to Life", not to be confused with the same name of an essay also on my website. I would also encourage you to read the John Gwynn book that Paul calls "Western 5" in a link recently. That is as good a summary on the matter as you are likely to see.

Well, I will leave this last one as an option for reply; at least for now. But Paul, and Andrew, were you both not behind the work of Mr. Lancaster and his book: "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?" I am still plagued just a little by this statement: " . . . 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 Peter, {2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation}. That would fo course, be absurd."

AGR:

I have responded to this at least two other times. Chris Lancaster is now Raphael Lataster, so call him by that name as I am sure he would appreciate it. I wrote the foreword to his book because I thought, and still do, that it did a good job showing a lot of examples from the Eastern 22 books that we all agree on. At the time, there was very little on the web that pooled a lot the research together, so I was glad to help him out. He put it together on his own initiative and created a web space clearinghouse for Aramaic NT stuff so of course that made me happy and of course I view that as worthwhile.

But that doesn't mean I agree 100% with everything Raphael says and I also mentioned that he is NOT a translator. Yes Bauscher is a translator and has a similar postion to Raphael, but so what? That doesn't mean Raphael has the same tools to make that choice as we do here. I have not read Bauscher's NT either, so I can't really comment on that.

What I will say is that I believe Aramaic originals were done for the Western 5, that these originals were lost, that the oldest surviving mss of the Western 5 are from the Greek, and that these Greek versions were the source of the Aramaic versions we have now. That is the chain of events i agree with. That has always been my position.

Next:

Well, Mr. Lancaster is an Aramaic Primacist. He is indeed making a case on these W-5 books for Aramaic origins (for these 5 letters). Both Paul and Andrew endorse this work by Mr. Lancaster and I do not believe to my knowledge that either Andrew or Paul qualified their support when it came to the issue of the Western 5. So, is there any solid support for the Western 5 books as being written originally in Aramaic?? How about any support at all?? Any undisputable support?? Probable support?? Can a case be made that these W-5 books are of Aramaic origins?? Thank-you.

AGR:

Again, the answer, my answer, is NO. There are tanatalizing clues of possible Aramaic origins in BOTH the Greek and later Aramaic versions of these works, but nothing authoritative. I think the whole "coffin/bed" thing in Revelation is the closest piece of evidence approaching a strong hint as to Semitic origins of that book, but I wouldn't use that and maybe half a dozen other intriguing clues to build a "solid case" as you put it. I coined the term "Western 5" myself because that is precisely what they are--WESTERN. Doesn't mean they are not sacred to me, but that's another question.

Y'shua lives. King of kings
Mike Karoules

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#29
Hi, Mike.

You seem to be stuck on the fact that we ???Aramaic??? folk are not in total agreement on ???everything.??? We are not clones. Raphael???s opinions go beyond Peshitta Primacy. I haven???t read the latest edition of his book, but I???ve read earlier editions, and he???s been up-front with his views regarding the Peshitta and the Peshitto. Comparing ???Aramaic Primacy??? with ???Peshitta Primacy??? is kinda like comparing rectangles with squares; there will be many similarities, but there will NOT necessarily be total agreement. Raphael???s ???rectangles??? are not necessarily Paul???s or Andrew???s ???squares??????and that does NOT represent contradiction! When Raphael refers to examples from Revelation or others of the ???Western Five,??? he is NOT doing so from a ???Peshitta Primacy??? position.

The point has been made that even if someone feels that there may be Aramaic roots to the ???Western Five,??? those roots cannot be demonstrated conclusively. However, this DOES NOT IN ANY WAY weaken the argument for Peshitta Primacy (and, therefore, Aramaic Primacy of the 22 books contained in the Peshitta). I know you???re concerned about those who hold to a 27-book canon, but do you think any logical person would throw away 22 ???sure things??? because another five cannot be supported quite as well?

I believe most of the regulars here DO AGREE that the 22 books of the Peshitta represent the Aramaic originals of those books. Do you agree with them?

Respectfully,

-Whitey
Reply
#30
If it were possible to make a solid case for Aramaic Primacy using the other 8 books of the 35-book canon of the Ethiopian Church, let's call them the "A8" (African Eight), I would jump right on it. But I don't have copies of an Aramaic "1 Clement."

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)