Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I now have a website!
#1
Shlama all--

I just thought you should all know that through the gracious contribution of a fellow Nazarene, I now have a website with large portions of my writings available for download.

If anyone is interested, even though it is still just starting, please go to:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicNTtruth.org">http://www.aramaicNTtruth.org</a><!-- w -->.

Hope you all like it! Akhi Paul, please feel free to link the site to peshitta.org if you choose.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#2
Hi Andrew,
at one stage you had an article dealing with the early portion of Jons gospel. For some reason it is no longer here.
Will it be or is it on your website?
Reply
#3
Akhi Andrew,

Congratulations! It looks great.

Just a quick observation - the article you have listed needs some clarification. On the section regarding Rabbula, the reader is led to believe that Rabbula was part of (or a "bishop of") the CoE. This, of course, is completely wrong.

As you know, the two areas in Persia from which the CoE grew were in Adiabene (Assyria) and Seluecia-Ctesiphon (Babylon.) Edessa is part of Western church history - specifically, the SOC.

Take care, Akhi.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:www.aramaicNTtruth.org

AramaicNTtruth, eh? ~Grins~ Just teasing :-)

It looks wonderful, akhi! :-) As soon as I get the links section on AramaicNT.org up again, I'll include it.

Shl??m??,
-Steve-o
'Just your average Antithetical Italian "Protestant" House-churching Charismatic Evangelical Karaite "Fundamentalist" for Aramaic Primacy... Drat I think I left something out... One sec.. I'll add on more as I think of it.
Reply
#5
Looks like a winner, akh! Hope all is well in 'New England', although I'm sure your key interest is the 'New Jerusalem' of Gilyana 3:12 & 21:2 !! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#6
Shlama all--

Thanks for the warm reception! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Akhi Larry, I'm actually from Philadelphia, not New England. But you are right about the New Jerusalem/Revelation connection, because guess what the name of the only assembly not rebuked in Revelation is???

Akhi Judge, I'm not sure what you mean about an article about John's Gospel on my website. The first piece was PATH TO LIFE, and thanks to excellent scholarship of Akhi Paul, I have updated that essay with some clearer language and more powerful evidence--seeing that proof that Rabulla wrote Old Syriac blew my mind and I could not wait to write about it. I will send it to my webmaster tonight and hopefully the new version will be up this week.

However, there are a lot more of my writings up on the website to look at in the meantime. One is about the mystical side of the apostle Paul, another is my Ruach Qqadim analysis of Galatians and another deals with my NT transmission theories.

I pray you all like it and thank you all for your dedication that makes peshitta.org the precious and unique resource that it is.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#7
showe ltoobe oh 'al beth hezwo deelokh!

Congrats., although I haven't gone through it yet, it looks nice!

keefa-moroon

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

Thanks for the warm reception! :biggrin:

Akhi Larry, I'm actually from Philadelphia, not New England. But you are right about the New Jerusalem/Revelation connection, because guess what the name of the only assembly not rebuked in Revelation is???

Akhi Judge, I'm not sure what you mean about an article about John's Gospel on my website. The first piece was PATH TO LIFE, and thanks to excellent scholarship of Akhi Paul, I have updated that essay with some clearer language and more powerful evidence--seeing that proof that Rabulla wrote Old Syriac blew my mind and I could not wait to write about it. I will send it to my webmaster tonight and hopefully the new version will be up this week.

However, there are a lot more of my writings up on the website to look at in the meantime. One is about the mystical side of the apostle Paul, another is my Ruach Qqadim analysis of Galatians and another deals with my NT transmission theories.

I pray you all like it and thank you all for your dedication that makes peshitta.org the precious and unique resource that it is.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#8
Akhi Andrew,

I have downloaded and read your Textual Transmission excerpts. It is very interesting material and I agree with your 27 book canon position. I also believe "the 5" have an Aramaic original and that original is neither the Peshitto Harclean nor The Crawford ms. of Revelation. I find that Gwynn's edition represented in The UBS 1979 Syriac Bible is probably the closest to the Aramaic original we have at our disposal. In Revelation, it is similar to Crawford but has significant differences. You should check out this text; Online Bible has it in its Peshitta NT.

Your section on Rev. 10:1 has an error which you will want to correct:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rwnd 0dwm9 Ky0 yhlgrw [/font](Crawford)
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rwnd 0dwmg Ky0 yhlgrw [/font](Peshitto)
You state that Crawford has a scribal error in its reading of "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0dwm9[/font]". This word means "pillar, column, meteor", according to Smith's Compendius Dictionary.
The Peshitto reading "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0dwmg[/font]", apparently means "boldness". I would assign the scribal error to The Harclean text of The Peshitto and accept the Crawford and Gwynn's edition as correct here.

A letter frequency comparison of the Aramaic books of John and Rev. shows a higher correlation between the two than between the same books in Greek. I take this to show that John & Rev. were more likely to have been written in Aramaic by the same man than those books in Greek would have been. Apparently the Greek comes from two different writers.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwb[/font],

Dave B
Reply
#9
Akhi Dave:
Quote:I find that Gwynn's edition represented in The UBS 1979 Syriac Bible is probably the closest to the Aramaic original we have at our disposal
I agree with your theory on Yochanan's authorship of Revelation. btw, can you give me a link where I can pick up that edition?

Akhi Andrew:
I love your theories on biblical transmission. So many people think that exegesis can only be done when the writings comes out and smack them in the face. I found a christian resource from an early church father (Jerome; in an argument with Augustine) who names Minim as "The Synagogues of the East who are neither Christians nor Pharisees". Unfortunately, I can't find Augustine's writings on the matter; only Jerome's response to him. It appears as though Augustine was Pro-Torah.
Reply
#10
Shlama Akhi Dave,

My eyes must be playing tricks on me. It turns out that both Peshitto and Crawford Revelation have the same reading. There is no "scribal error" as such, and so both may be pointing to the lost Nazarene Revelation I mention. In both cases, PILLARS is the better reading and I will mae that correction. However, the concordance between the two plays into another point that I also make consistently, which is that Trimm dismisses Peshitto Revelation as a translation from the Greek, and effectively stops studying it, and this I feel is deceptive.

While the translational aspect of Peshitto Revelation is undeniable, my problem with his excising it is that it leaves the false impression that only lone Crawford has this "ancient" recension and must therefore be the original version. However, one verbatim match between Peshitto and Crawford after another surely point to a different scenario. Bottom line, whatever Trimm allows as "evidence" for Crawford originality must also allply to Peshitto Revelation--but the only problem is that one we KNOW is a translation, which is surely an inconvenient fact for him.

Now, while Crawford has some truly peculiar readings that may hark back to the lost Aramaic original, I would venture to say that Greek Revelation has ten times more. Crawford is a very late (12th century) version, an odd SOC variant of done by a monk at Mar Saba monastery, and honestly, I don't know how anyone can look at it and think the Aramaic is compositional-original! What a joke that is!

As for the error, I am not sure how that creeped in. Near as I can tell I was using Trimm's essay as a basis for Crawford and then writing about it, so it may be I carried over an error of his without carefully checking back on the versions of Crawford and Peshitto Revelation that I have at my fingertips.

Thanks for the heads up--the rest of my points against Crawford still stand though 100%. It is a downright weird situation though.

As for my position on canon, it is a bit complex. If you read carefully, you will see that I have bi-furcated my understanding of Scripture between "inspired" and "canonical". In my view the 22 books of the Eastern Peshitta are CANONICAL, in that we have 100% certainty that they came from the apostles and their immediate associates, and this is referenced universally and not just in the East.

By contrast, the "Western 5" are INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, but there was uncertainty with them even in the West. Revelation was debated in the West, for example, into the 9th century. Nevertheless I believe the Aramaic originaals of thes 5 books have been found and that they reflect a longer but currently lost Nazarene canon. I believe it will be for them like it was for "Tobit", a book assumed for along time to have been done only in Greek, but that later was proven to have an Aramaic predecessor. But, that is my FAITH, and the PROOF eludes me.

However, keep in mind that the clear additions in Scripture that the West accepts, such as the adultress in John 8, three lines in Luke 22 that are not in the Peshitta, and the post-Council of Carthage (397 CE) additions in 2 John supporting trinity, are NOT part of my canon. Nor are the later readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 either canonical or inspired, but are man-made and in error.

Finally, I have the UBS 1979 Edition of Peshitto Revelation, and as far as I can tell, the only difference between it and the two other versions I have (swadaya-vowel script in the COE-SOC "compromise edition" and "The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation" in ktav asshuri script), is that they are easier to read than the UBS. I have yet to find a variance between them, and simply HATE serto script. It is such a blessing to have Peshitta Tanakh in swadaya too now so I don't have to use that UBS one, that I can't begin to tell you.

Shlama w'burkate

Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#11
Ahka Andrew & Rob,

I have the Aramaic - Hebrew Version you mention as well; I have found a considerable number of very interesting variants between it and the edition of Gwynn in the Catholic epistles as found in 1979 Syriac Bible (identical to Online Bible's Peshitta version in Hebrew letters). Jude and Revelation especially have interesting differences from The Peshitto edition above(Aramaic-Hebrew).

For Rob : The Syriac Bible can be found at
http://www.anybook4less.com/compare.html

The Online Bible Peshitta module and the free Online Bible program is at:
http://www.online-bible.com/winonlinebible.html

These are critical editions of the Peshitta Bible. The Gospels are based on 42 mss. from Gwilliams edition;the Pauline epistles are based on Gwilliams critical edition using 14 ancient Peshitta mss; The Catholic Epistles and Revelation are based on 7 Peshitta mss. There is no other such critical edition of the entire NT aside from Kiraz comparitive edition.

We need to become familiar with this , as it the basis for comparison in modern studies of The Peshitta.
Using one or 2 mss. for an edition is woefully inadequate, as The Aramaic- Hebrew edition uses.


[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwb[/font],


Dave B
Reply
#12
Shlama all--

It's been a busy couple of days, but all worth it. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

My webmaster has upgraded the website and I have added a lot more material.

Akhi Paul--The Rabulla section in PATH TO LIFE is now corrected. I have actually expanded it with some of your excellent scholarship showing that Rabulla probably wrote Old Syriac ( the separated Gospels).

Rob, Dave and everyone. While the Revelation 10:1 citation still needs updating, I am particularly happy about a brand new essay called "Ancient Evidence: A Fourth Century Witness to the Originality and Antiquity of the Peshitta Text". This essay is largely an adaptation of Paul's multi-post series on Mar Aphrahat's quoting the Peshitta text. I have unified those points and added my own spin where appropriate. Best of all, I have added 30+ pages from Ruach Qadim showing the inferiority of the Old Syriac text. It's a unified attack against the counterfeits and I am glad to have it online for everyone to see and use.

I hope you all like it.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#13
Akhi Andrew,

I don't know how I missed this before....but in addition to the damning epilogue of OS Yukhanan - the beginning to Mattai has the prologue: "Evangelion de Mepharreshe."

So you have both the introduction to OS Mattai and the ending to OS Yukhanan bearing witness as to who was responsible for their creation - the very man who coined the term "Evangelion de Mepharreshe." <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
Akhi Paul, that is WONDERFUL news! I take it both are from the George Kiraz book that you have???

I have to say, I am amazed that I did not pick up on this sooner myself. You presented the evidence after all 5 months ago, and I really could have used it for my teaching sessions in Florida during the Hanukkah season.

Another thing too, this proof is HUGE to me, a real spike in the OS coffin. It could, in fact, be the most important proof since GOWRA. Once OS is dealt with, debunking Dutillet and Friends is effortless. And so, from where I sit at least, that brings the debate back to where it belongs, Peshitta vs. the Greek, and we both know about what we can do when the focus shifts to that.

I hope then you will get a chance to see the revised Rabulla section, which will probably be revised to include this new fact as well. I would also like your opinion on how well I did in compiling your thread on Mar Aphrahat (called "Ancient Evidence") for my essay.

Thanks so much for your guidance. I go to battle against the Greek dragon with renewed fervor. Watch out Zorba--Teveye is comin' your way!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#15
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Akhi Paul, that is WONDERFUL news! I take it both are from the George Kiraz book that you have???

Shlama Akhi,

The article looks great, and so does the 4th-century witness article.

Actually, you can see the text of the OS for yourself at CAL:

Old Scratch Mattai:
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showsubte...word=60040 (highlight "100" and click "Submit", you will see the prologue to Mattai)

Old Scratch Yukhanan:
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showsubte...word=60043 (highlight "2" and scroll all the way down to "29999", you will see the epilogue to Yukhanan)

Clicking on the number link will give you a word-by-word translation straight out of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.

Take care, Akh.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)