08-29-2008, 07:43 PM
Shlama Akhi Stephen,
You ask:
Do you agree with Paul Younan that the Western Five (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation) are not inspired by Alaha on par with the 22 book Peshitta?
My answer:
I believe that inspiration and canonicity are two different processes. I believe in terms of doctrine it is appropriate to be a Berean and measure the Western 5 against the the Eastern 22 (and both against Tanakh) and that when we do so we find no errors on that score. But no, I would not do it the other way around and filter the Eastern canon through the Western 5 even though it would in my judgment yield the same result.
There is no question from my Jewish tradition that it is possible to view a full canon with varying degrees of authority, as the sages view the Torah as having greater weight than the prophets and the prophets than the writings. I have faith in the Western 5 but greater confidence in the 22, even though I feel there are no errors in the Western 5.
It is also the case that there are areas of Scritpure which many in Christendom are comfortable with that are nonetheless of later derivation, regardless as to them being in the Eastern or Western collections. So I would argue for the original readings of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 and reject the WESTERN versions within these books. There are other examples I could use of this, but I think you get my meaning.
Having said all of this, I think the simpler answer is YES, I agree with this position. There is no way to look at the Western 5 and be absolutely certain of its linguistic or custodial pedigree. The best I think we can do is to say the SOME VERSIONS of these books were very likely part of the original Nazarene canon in Israel but their ultimate version/content is not as certain.
Does that help?
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
You ask:
Do you agree with Paul Younan that the Western Five (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation) are not inspired by Alaha on par with the 22 book Peshitta?
My answer:
I believe that inspiration and canonicity are two different processes. I believe in terms of doctrine it is appropriate to be a Berean and measure the Western 5 against the the Eastern 22 (and both against Tanakh) and that when we do so we find no errors on that score. But no, I would not do it the other way around and filter the Eastern canon through the Western 5 even though it would in my judgment yield the same result.
There is no question from my Jewish tradition that it is possible to view a full canon with varying degrees of authority, as the sages view the Torah as having greater weight than the prophets and the prophets than the writings. I have faith in the Western 5 but greater confidence in the 22, even though I feel there are no errors in the Western 5.
It is also the case that there are areas of Scritpure which many in Christendom are comfortable with that are nonetheless of later derivation, regardless as to them being in the Eastern or Western collections. So I would argue for the original readings of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 and reject the WESTERN versions within these books. There are other examples I could use of this, but I think you get my meaning.
Having said all of this, I think the simpler answer is YES, I agree with this position. There is no way to look at the Western 5 and be absolutely certain of its linguistic or custodial pedigree. The best I think we can do is to say the SOME VERSIONS of these books were very likely part of the original Nazarene canon in Israel but their ultimate version/content is not as certain.
Does that help?
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth