Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books
#16
Welcome to the forum Eddie Yousif <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama w'burkate,
Christina
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#17
Quote

In general though I really try to show variances between the groups to let the reader decide, so for the 22 I compare Khabouris and 1905 and with their variants, especially places like Rev 1:10 and 22:14.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Unquote

I am interested to know whether Khabouris and the Aramaic NT Bible are one the same? As comparison between KJV or Greek Textus Receptus and Peshitta Lamsa Translation on Revelation 1:8 there is some differences which is doctrinally important to prove that it was Lord Yeshua speaking in this particular verse.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (KJV)

vs.

Rev 1:8 I am Aleph and Tau, the beginning and the ending says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (Peshitta Lamsa)

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha, also Omega, saith the Lord God; who is, and was, and is to come, the omnipotent. (Peshitta Murdock Translation)

I am Olaph and Thau, saith Aloha the Lord, who is, and who was, and who cometh, the Omnipotent.5 (Etheridge Translation)

Now, one can see the difference in the Aramaic NT Bible as well. So which Aramaic version is based on Khaburis believed to be written around 165AD, the earliest known Aramaic Bible?

Lamsa version has "the beginning and the ending" says the Lord God. while the other 2 Aramaic translation does not have the said phrase. While KJV has the same phrase but it does not have "God" in the verse, merely says the Lord.

When I read KJV on Rev 1:8 for the first time, it immediately dawn on me that it was Lord Jesus was speaking and claiming to be the Almighty God. But critics pointed out to me that it was Lord God or the Father was speaking and not Lord Jesus. But the other verses in the Book of Revelation with the title "The First and the Last" are sufficient evidence to conclude that "The Alpha and Omega" which is "the First and the Last" letters of the Greek Alphabet points to the identity of none other person than Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Yeshua Himself.

Secondly, the Book of Revelation is (Rev 1:1) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him". So Rev 1:8 must be Lord Jesus because God the Father gave it to Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, the continuation of message is in the context of Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." which is referring to Lord Jesus' second coming. Then He proclaimed Himself as the Alpha & Omega and the Almighty in Rev 1:8. If it was Yahweh the Father speaking, it would be also correct. As Yahweh spoke in the OT too as "the First and the Last" in OT

Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. (KJV)

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

versus

NT

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)


Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Now, the Title "The First and the Last" is obviously the same term as "The Alpha and the Omega". So it proves that Lord Yeshua was speaking as the Almighty in Rev 1:8 when all other verses affirm that the said Title is spoken by Lord Jesus. Could the "Lord God" in Rev 1:8 proves that it was Lord Yeshua and it is the same person?

Of course, there are other verses in the Scripture that speaks of Lord Yeshua as God the Almighty.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

John 1:18. No human [being] ever saw God, except for the only born God,
He who existed in the bosom of his Father, [Who] proclaimed* Him. (Younan Peshitta NT)

If the words were from the lip of Lord Yeshua, it is more authoritative than any other apostles. Can anyone comment on this viewpoint?

Thanks.

<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#18
Quote:I am interested to know whether Khabouris and the Aramaic NT Bible are one the same?

Shlama Positron:
The Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Peshitta. It contains 22 books. Excluded are II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation. Now, the Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Bible. The Crawford Codex, which contains 27 books, including the five books mentioned above is the also called the Aramaic New Testament Bible. The only substantial difference being the inclusion in the Crawford of the Philoxinian Recension. The only other difference is the reading of Hebrews 2:9

Crawford
"b'taybuta Alaha", "by the grace of God".

Khabouris
"s'tar min Alaha", "apart from God".

In my opinion the 1905 (Peshitta) / 1920 (Western Five Harklean) UBS is not as true to the "autograph" of the original Aramaic New Testament as the Khabouris or the Crawford Codex.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#19
Stephen Silver Wrote:
Quote:I am interested to know whether Khabouris and the Aramaic NT Bible are one the same?

Shlama Positron:
The Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Peshitta. It contains 22 books. Excluded are II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation. Now, the Khabouris Codex is the eastern New Testament Bible. The Crawford Codex, which contains 27 books, including the five books mentioned above is the also called the Aramaic New Testament Bible. The only substantial difference being the inclusion in the Crawford of the Philoxinian Recension. The only other difference is the reading of Hebrews 2:9

Crawford
"b'taybuta Alaha", "by the grace of God".

Khabouris
"s'tar min Alaha", "apart from God".

In my opinion the 1905 (Peshitta) / 1920 (Western Five Harklean) UBS is not as true to the "autograph" of the original Aramaic New Testament as the Khabouris or the Crawford Codex.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

In the first place, why Western Canon of SOC has 27 books while Eastern Canon of COE has 22 books?

Of course Western Canon of SOC has 5 books reconstructed from Greek Text but Eastern Canon did not bother to include them for some theological reason.

Is the name of Alaha being used for Western Canon and Eastern Canon? I read some where that Alaha is only used in the Eastern Canon.

Now these Aramaic versions are different too?
1John 5:1 - ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?? (Western) Shorter verse
1John 5:1 - ???? ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?? (Khabouris)

1John 5:1 Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Messiah, is born of God. And whoever loveth the begetter, loveth him also that is begotten of him. (Murdock)

In addition why the bystanders at the Cross mistaken Yeshua was calling Elijah if the name of God is Alaha?

Obviously the Khabouris with 22 books omitting the last 5 books of the NT namely 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation is very serious to consider the whole book as authentic. The compiler of the Khabouris codex may have ignore the most important warning in the Book.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

In my opinion, the book of Eastern Canon, Aramaic Peshitta is not an original autograph too because of the primary reason that the Greek manuscript have the Book of Revelation and Western Canon of SOC have the book too. Why Eastern Canon of SOE did not have the book? This is very serious question which many bible scholars will have to bear in mind on the possible deletion of the text or interpolation of the text.

If both the 22 books of the Eastern and Western Syrian Church are the same, then we can still consider it as authentic. But the name of God used by Yeshua is "El" or Elohim and not Alaha or Aloha. This is because the Textus Receptus has the name of God as "El" and Western Church is believed to use "El" too.


Shalom
Reply
#20
Hello, positron.

You stated "Of course Western Canon of SOC has 5 books reconstructed from Greek Text but Eastern Canon did not bother to include them for some theological reason." Then you continued down the hill from there.

What "theological reason" do you think kept those five books from the Peshitta? I'm not aware of any.

I'm having difficulty following your many posts. You seem to be camping out on false assumptions.

If you don't know why the Peshitta has 22 books instead of 27, then ask that question (which you did); but do not cavalierly answer your own question and then continue on (which you also did). This question has been answered many times before. Please search the forums. If you need help with doing that, then please ask.

Kindly,

-Doug "Whitey" Jackson
Reply
#21
positron Wrote:Of course Western Canon of SOC has 5 books reconstructed from Greek Text but Eastern Canon did not bother to include them for some theological reason.

Of course?

positron Wrote:Is the name of Alaha being used for Western Canon and Eastern Canon? I read some where that Alaha is only used in the Eastern Canon.
There a linguistic differences in these regions. eg. Alaha or Aloha

Now these Aramaic versions are different too?
1John 5:1 - ???? <snip>
1John 5:1 - <snip>
The differences you found are minimal. There are, just a few differences. They speak for a honest try to copy the scriptures instead of willfully change the scriptures to ones own desires.

1John 5:1 Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Messiah, is born of God. And whoever loveth the begetter, loveth him also that is begotten of him. (Murdock)
positron Wrote:In addition why the bystanders at the Cross mistaken Yeshua was calling Elijah if the name of God is Alaha?
Because 1) Jesus spoke an other dialect 2) Might not have had full breathing capabilities anymore (because of hanging) 3) 'El' IS ancient Hebrew form likely to alohah, allah, Elohim. eg. Psalms 22. The Judean people (except the clergy) might not have had this knowledge.

So Jesus said: "El-i" Where the extension 'i' means genitive. ie. MY God.


positron Wrote:Obviously the Khabouris with 22 books omitting the last 5 books of the NT namely 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation is very serious to consider the whole book as authentic. The compiler of the Khabouris codex may have ignore the most important warning in the Book.

It seems you never did a contextual compare yourselves. I did, and found many constructs which are NOT explainable from a translation from Greek to Aramaic.
Reply
#22
Hello,

It is my understanding from a document that was shown here a few months back that the Aramaic New Testament Books was delivered to the believers in Edessa, Mesopotamia, in the year 78 A.D. and this would be before the 5 other books were written down, they all being said by tradition to have been written later than the other books of the New Testament.

This could account for they not being present in the Eastern Peshitta.


..
Reply
#23
Alright, i downloaded the book, and, in time i will read it, but would someone have mercy on me and quickly tell me
1) does the CoE use the W5 at all?
2) if yes, do they believe them to be inspired, like the rest of the NT?
3) do they believe them to be originally written in aramaic
4) do they believe them to be preserved in aramaic
5) What is the most common used text for the CoE?
6) are there fractions with 22 books that believe the W5 not to be part of the NT?

7) What about the other aramaic churches?


Thanks a lot!
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#24
As you all know, 2nd Peter is very similar to Jude's Epistle. While reading 2nd Peter, I noticed something interesting.

2 Peter 2:5 - "and spared not the former world, but preserved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the wicked;"

Isn't Noah tenth person counting from Adam?

As you know, 2nd Peter is very similar to Jude's Epistle. Since Jude's Epistle refers to apostles as a third party (Jude 1:17), he cannot be identified with Apostle Jude. So I don't think Kaypha Shlikha wrote 2nd Peter.
Reply
#25
This is also the conclusion of modern scholars, who consider them pseudepigrapical works (See Wikipedia: Pseudepigraph, Wikipedia: Second Epistle of Peter: Composition: Authorship), & Wikipedia: Epistle of Jude: Jude and 2 Peter). Though we know Peshitto Jude to be a translation, consider that the phrase 'the apostles of our Master Yeshua the Anointed' may be understood in modern English as 'our Master Yeshua the Anointed's apostles'. In this sense, it's completely reasonable that he wouldn't write it as us, because the emphasis is on whose apostles they are.

Perhaps it intends to read "Noah's eight" or "Noah of the eight he saved"; see 1Peter 3:20.
Reply
#26
I checked 1 Peter 3:20. I think you are right. And I agree with you about Jude.
Reply
#27
Aaron S Wrote:This is also the conclusion of modern scholars, who consider them pseudepigrapical works .
if we are to let modern scolarship decidethis matter, almost none of the bible books were written by their claimed authors. Not a good indication.
konway87 Wrote:Isn't Noah tenth person counting from Adam?
Why would "person" mean "generation"? Should we apply that interpretation all over the bible? No connection whatsoever here. Of course he was referring to the eight people saved on the ark, possibly Noah being the eight of them by age.

Quote:As you know, 2nd Peter is very similar to Jude's Epistle. Since Jude's Epistle refers to apostles as a third party (Jude 1:17), he cannot be identified with Apostle Jude. So I don't think Kaypha Shlikha wrote 2nd Peter.
i think i can remember similar phrases from paul, i might be wrong though.
Reply
#28
I was only asking a question about Noah being eighth man. I wasn't sure. I speak 3 different languages. So I can get confused. I do think Aaron makes some good points about 2nd Peter. Eusebius had doubts about 2nd Peter. And Aramaic regions didn't even known about this text in early centuries.
Reply
#29
Shlama Andrej,

Andrej Wrote:1) does the CoE use the W5 at all?
2) if yes, do they believe them to be inspired, like the rest of the NT?
3) do they believe them to be originally written in aramaic
4) do they believe them to be preserved in aramaic
5) What is the most common used text for the CoE?
6) are there fractions with 22 books that believe the W5 not to be part of the NT?

7) What about the other aramaic churches?

The CoE does not use the W5 at all. We do not hold any official opinion on their inspiration, original language, or any other topic related to these books. We do not have them in our canon, because the books delivered to us never contained them, and we never added them.

We respect that other branches of "Christendom" accept them as canonical. Like we respect that even others consider books like the Epistle to Clement to be canonical.

Other Aramaic churches, exclusively in the western empire, eventually translated them from Greek and gradually began to make use of them in other versions they created. Not all revised their copies of the Peshitta. Some created new versions with varying reception and rejection, others added them to the end with explanations of their origin.

+Shamasha
Reply
#30
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Andrej,


We respect that other branches of "Christendom" accept them as canonical. Like we respect that even others consider books like the Epistle to Clement to be canonical.

Other Aramaic churches, exclusively in the western empire, eventually translated them from Greek and gradually began to make use of them in other versions they created. Not all revised their copies of the Peshitta. Some created new versions with varying reception and rejection, others added them to the end with explanations of their origin.

+Shamasha

Still wondering; the crawford codex (which includes the 5) does not seem to be a Greek translation at all.
It's a pity that these documents do not have the respect they deserve.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)