Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books
#31
With Crawford, I think Four Epistles (2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude) are translated from Greek. Stephen Silver pointed this - In 2nd John 1:7, you will see tis word "antichrist." In the Crawford manuscript, we see the Greek "antichristos." That is an evidence that shows that 2nd John was actually from Greek. And it was written by John the Elder. And not Apostle John.

But Revelation has lots of Aramaic feel. I agree with that. Anyway, I consider 22 books in Peshitta as original and I also think Revelation was originally written in Aramaic. But not 4 four epistles from Western Five.
Reply
#32
konway87 Wrote:In the Crawford manuscript, we see the Greek "antichristos." That is an evidence that shows that 2nd John was actually from Greek.

This is only evidence if we take into account that it's written as mshiha dagala in works preceding it. You know this of course, but it's always important to state unequivocally that loan-words don't prove primacy.
Reply
#33
distazo Wrote: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.
Same thing i thought. To me, Crawford is the top candidate for divine preservation.
Reply
#34
Rafa Wrote:
Andrej Wrote:
distazo Wrote: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.
Same thing i thought. To me, Crawford is the top candidate for divine preservation.

The ACOE does not include these books in it's canon. The bible did not drop from the sky,these books were not part of ACOE tradition and we must respect that.
Yes, but i always hear "the ACOE never formally agreed on a canon" and stuff, but the greater partof the world did. i am not saying they shoud do what the world does, or that they need a formal statement, but they do seem biased concerning the topic (i got that impression several times). And that doesn't add up.
Reply
#35
konway87 Wrote:And it was written by John the Elder. And not Apostle John.
I've always been mystified by this reasoning and I assume I'm missing something here. I would like to better understand. Can you sum up for me why this position is generally taken? I know what the text says, but it's yet beyond me why one would conclude that finding two titles separately for "Yukhanan/John" necessitates two separate characters so named.
Reply
#36
I thought St. Jerome mentioned that there were 2 sepulchres at Ephesus. One to the memory of John the Apostle and the Other to the memory of John the Elder. Saint Jerome also says that John the Apostle and Gospel writer wrote the first of these three Epistles, and John the Presbyter (or Elder) wrote the other two. Peshitta has only 1 John. This may explain why the other two weren't part of Peshitta.
Reply
#37
How logical this sounds. <!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: -->
2 and 3 John start with 'the eldest/older to'. John, the beloved Apostle, never started like that.
Reply
#38
distazo Wrote:How logical this sounds. 2 and 3 John start with 'the eldest/older to'. John, the beloved Apostle, never started like that.
Sorry if I'm taking you wrong, but... are you being sarcastic?
Reply
#39
hi i'm sorry if that sounds like that, but I see no reason to be sarcastic. English is not my mother tongue.

in fact, my remark is written in surprise. I've never understood why those two letters, start with 'the elder'. It is because the author is different. That is quite logical in fact, while I always ignored it before.
Reply
#40
The statement about "John the Presbyter" is 1st mentioned by Bishop Papias in the early part of the 2nd century, him being a hearer of the Apostle John himself. He seems to give the idea that The Apostle and the Presbyter are not the same John...and this has given rise to the thought that the 2nd and 3rd letters are not by The Apostle John, but by the Presbyter John.

Here is some info about Bishop Papias:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis</a><!-- m -->

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#41
Thirdwoe Wrote:The statement about "John the Presbyter" is 1st mentioned by Bishop Papias in the early part of the 2nd century, him being a hearer of the Apostle John himself. He seems to give the idea that The Apostle and the Presbyter are not the same John...and this has given rise to the thought that the 2nd and 3rd letters are not by The Apostle John, but by the Presbyter John.

Here is some info about Bishop Papias:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis</a><!-- m -->

Blessings,
Chuck

Thanks, Chuck!

Would you be so kind as to provide the quote and reference so I can read Papias' own words on the topic?

-Peace & blessings
Reply
#42
Here is one link to the qoute of what Papias wrote, which Eusebius recoreds in his Church history.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html?highlight=john,the,presbyter#highlight">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v ... #highlight</a><!-- m -->

You can find it elsewhere too..if you just google some of those key words or a phrase of it. There is another sayinng about two markers being seen in Ephesus by someone, who said both John the Apostle and John the Presbyter had seperate grave markers...

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#43
So are we saying that Jon the elder is John the Apostle are two distinct people?

Are we also saying that 2nd and 3rd John were written by John the elder and the first epistle by John the Apostle?
Reply
#44
:

Yes...that is what was believed to be the case by many in the early centuries. It may be true, but can't be proven 100%.
Reply
#45
It is also believed by some that the Book of Revelation was written by Yo-Khawnawn the Presbyter/Elder.

SEE: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://yahweh.org/publications/articles/dates/dates_for_the_nt.pdf">http://yahweh.org/publications/articles ... the_nt.pdf</a><!-- m -->
(This PDF references some of the quotes mentioned above)


If the Books of 2nd and 3rd Yo-Khawnawn and the Book of Revelation was written by the Presbyter and not the Apostle then that would be a good reason not to have included them in the PeshittA!

Personally, I still like the Book of Revelation and will continue to study it, and will have to use English translations of the Crawford Codex for such purposes (Bauscher's and Trimm's English translations of Revelation). I also find nothing wrong within the other 4 Western 5 Books and I am wondering which Text is considered to be the most authentic of these other 4 of the Western 5 Books. Which Greek Text shows to be the most authentic or does the Crawford Codex show to be more authentic of these 4 book of the so-called Western 5?

I am already completely convinced that the Eastern PeshittA is the most authentic we have for the other 22 Books and that they were written by the Apostles and delivered to the COE, and that the Khaboris Codex is the oldest copy we have available as of today (And it will be nice once an accurate English translation becomes available to the general public free of charge). Yet I am still left with a need to know which Ancient Text of II Kepha, II @ III Yo-Khawnawn, as well as the Book of Yehudah is the most authentic so I can figure out which English translation I should study. So based on textural studies which Ancient Text is the most authentic? And if Greek which one (e.g. - Alexandrian, Egyptian, Eclectic, Byzantine, Western, etc..)? According to the Wikapedia online Encyclopedia the Alexandrian Texts are the Oldest and definitely the most frequent of Greek Text type within the 2nd and 3rd centuries (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories ... anuscripts</a><!-- m -->). Which leave me wondering if the PeshittA lines up with the Western Text type why is there only a hand-full of the Western Texts as opposed to the others?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)