09-02-2008, 09:54 PM
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 up
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
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