Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic?
The Syrian churches compiled their canon (which lacked the 'Western Five') long before Origen's birth.

John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 41-98, on 53-54
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAA...&q&f=false
There is no question, but that scattered manuscripts of the several books of the New Testament, in Greek, were in existence very early, for the Fathers quote from them,-- but there is no evidence that any attempt was made to collect them into one code, or canon, till after the Second or Third Century. But it is certain, on the other hand, that the Syrian Churches had their canon long before this collection was made; tradition says, between the years 55 and 60, and that this was done by the Apostle Jude. This canon is known to have contained all the books now included in our New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse, and the brief Epistles of 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude. This tradition is strongly corroborated by the fact that these closing portions of our present canon were not then written; and this is a good and sufficient reason why they were not included in the first collection. The abrupt closing of the Book of Acts-- for it was evidently written at about that time-- that it might be ready for inclusion in this collection, goes to confirm the tradition as to the date of this collection. The Apocalypse and the four short Epistles which were not in readiness to be included at that early date, were afterward received into the Syriac Canon, but not till the sixth century.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic? - by DavidFord - 02-15-2020, 04:18 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)