Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Isn't accepting the Western 5 "picking and choosing?"
Im no expert, forgive me if im inaccurate about anything, but...

It seems like theres a general view on this board that the pericope adulterae is a fake, due to its peshitta omission and no early greek manuscript has it, which makes sense.

1 John 5:7 isnt in the Peshitta either, which we know due to Greek mistranslations that the Greek came from the original ARAMAIC, so the Peshitta will always be the main base...which makes sense.

But the Western 5 we also all know was not in the Peshitta....yet its in Andrew's AENT and nobody has a problem with it....why do we all seem to bend the rules for these particular books?

Forgive me for any ignorance, its just been a nagging problem in my head....
Hi Rungold.

I wouldn't say that no one has a problem with it. I, for one, strongly feel that it is (at best) disingenuous and revisionary to include any of these things into a single work that incorporates the original twenty two books of the Aramaic new testament. I've voiced my opinion on this point in the past, starting with Lamsa's translation. (and Bauscher's). And yes, this includes Andrew's work as well.

As noble as the intent may be, which I think is to be sensitive to the tradition of most Christians today, and perhaps to appeal to them, I don't think it's right.

I would much rather these books be included in these translations in the original Greek, so as to alert the reader to their origin. There are no ancient manuscripts in Aramaic with any of these readings or books.
Hi Paul,

Bauscher has translated from the Crawford codex. It clearly has the same wordplay and beauty as other Aramaic scriptures have.
So, I do not agree with your last remark <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> And I have the idea that openess of mind is lacking those sharing the idea that there can be no aramaic original. I believe the crawford codex, is not just a copy of an ancestor of the Harklean (or something like that).
Somebody even has explained, that the 22-book canon of the OT, as Flavius mentioned the number of accepted books in Jewish OT, must be applied to the NT as well. So, not 1 & 2 Peter, but Peter. Not 1 & 2 Corinthians but Corinthians etc.
So, if you do this, there still are 22 books in the canon, just as in the OT.


Shlama Akhi:
Although the Crawford Codex, for the most part is the Eastern Peshitta, it has been revised in Hebrews 2:9, reflecting the Western Peshitto. The addition of the Passion Story and the Western Five makes it the oldest Western Aramaic Canon, but it is not The Eastern Peshitta. The Crawford Codex (Syriac MS-2) is a Western novelty as such. Bauscher is correct, when speaking of the 22 books that match the Peshitta, for the lion's share. However this has nothing to do with the Western Five. The origin of the Western Five would appear to be Greek. If an original Aramaic text existed it is lost at this time.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)