Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Isn't accepting the Western 5 "picking and choosing?"
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.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Isn't accepting the Western 5 "picking and choosing?" - by distazo - 04-25-2012, 05:47 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)