Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Heb 10:36-38

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #480
Help Print Share
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

Heb 10:36-38

May-27-2001 at 03:55 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shalom Kol Akhay,

I'm intrigued by Heb 10:36-38. (Hab 2:3,4)

The text is pure LXX even in the Peshita.

The early Church fathers tell us Luke translated Paul's 'Hebrew'into Gr. We know the P. Tanakh was only being compiled in the first century and even later in circulation. Although P. Tanakh may render the same reading as LXX in Hab. its production is much later than LXX (285-250 BCE).

The context of Hebrews calls for the LXX reading as the Tanakh would make no sense here.

Is it possible the P. Tanakh was influenced by LXX? The COMPLETE divergence from the Heb. Tanakh indicates that may be a possibility. One would think P. Tanakh would follow closely the original Heb.

Does a targum exist for Habakuk?


I will look into Neusner's Eng. translation of Mishna. What about the Talmuds; anything there?

Is it possible Paul wanted to stress a point implied by LXX but completely missing from Heb. Tanakh? The greater puzzle is, considering his audience, why he would abandon the Tanakh in favor of any other rendering.

Ma atem khoshvim?
Iakov.

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: Heb 10:36-38

May-29-2001 at 00:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shalom Kol Akhay,

>>Is it possible Paul wanted to
>stress a point implied by
>LXX but completely missing from
>Heb. Tanakh? The greater puzzle
>is, considering his audience, why
>he would abandon the Tanakh
>in favor of any other
>rendering.
>
I think we have found some leads thanks to Akhon Shmuel and Andrew.

1. Akh Shmuel's point is well taken that a time lapse between writing and circulation also may establish an ideology existing sometime before an actual document appears.

2. Akh Andrew has a valid point that similarities exist among PT and LXX which may point to a common source text along with Samarian Pentateuch. None-the-less it has been demonstrated before and now again that PT and LXX have shown some similarity.

3. The understanding among the Essenes @ Qumran concerning Hab 2 fits the Hebrews context.

The missing pieces of the puzzle are more defined but still missing.

1. How do we reconcile PNT/PT and GNT/LXX to Tanakh. Is it a missing common source, Targum, or commentary?

2. How do we address the 'shrinking back' soul LXX/GNT as opposed to the 'puffed up' soul?

3. Considering Hillel as Paul's teacher would we expect to find Mishnah on the Hab. text?

4. We would expect since Luke translated into Gr.
he would follow the LXX closely on all OT quotes. Wouldn't we expect Paul then, as the author, to follow the Tanakh rigidly?

Shlama,
Iakov

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

2. RE: Heb 10:36-38

May-30-2001 at 05:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

PT and LXX which may point to a common source
text along with Samarian Pentateuch. OT "Q" source.] None-the-less it has been demonstrated before and now again that PT and
LXX have shown some similarity.

Very true, but please keep this in mind - it is universally held and accepted that the Peshitta NT has no relation whatsoever with the LXX. It is translated from the Hebrew directly, something which Burkitt even admitted.

We can argue the timelines, but the fact is that the PT is dependent only on the original Hebrew.

Whenever the PT and the LXX agree against the MSS, it can be reasoned that perhaps these two versions reflect an older and more accurate reading that a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text contained, but not always.

From our own tradition within the East, the Peshitta Tanakh represents an Aramaic translation from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text sometime after the Captivity in Babylon.

As we know from history, a significant population of Jews chose not to return to the Holy Land after King Cyrus gave them the go-ahead.

A large population of Jews lived in Babylon even up to the Arab conquest. Even in 1970, large numbers began to emigrate to Israel from Baghdad.

Anyway, sometime between the Captivity and the coming of Christ, the Jews of Babylon (and of Mesopotamia in general) produced an Aramaic version which later, in the 9th Century AD, became known as the "Peshitta (Tanakh.)"

This version was inherited by all the Aramaic-speaking Churches, including the CoE.

The date is obscured because the CoE had no involvement in the production of this version...it simply inherited it from the Jews in the area of Persia-Babylon.

This version was not known in the West (Levant, Egypt, etc.) until much later.

The Jews who chose to remain in Babylon and Adiabene needed a version in their vernacular Aramaic, hence the Peshitta Tanakh is written in Eastern Aramaic, much in the same way the Jews of Alexandria needed a version in their vernacular Greek.

The largest population of Jews outside of the Holy Land during the time of Christ was not in Rome, nor in Alexandria....but in Babylon and Adiabene.

Therefore, Mar Shimun Keepa (the 'Apostle to the Circumcized') wrote his Catholic Epistle from Babylon. (Keepa 5:13)


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Samuel
 
Send email to SamuelSend private message to SamuelAdd Samuel to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: Heb 10:36-38

May-30-2001 at 07:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Akhi Paul:
The Talmud agrees with COE in that they atribute Ezra the Scribe from around 445B.C. as translating the Torah and later other books were added into aramaic of the returning Jews from the Babylonian exile, only the translation that was writen became lost and was some what memorized and after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70a.D. New writen Targums in Aramaic made thier apparance into the Jewsih community. The Talmud says the Peshitta was translated fromthe Original in 55AD. for King Izatates of Abaine, Syuria for his people converted to Judaism and needed the Tanukh in their own language that is Aramaic. So you see the Jewish traditon and the Assyrian COE are almost identical. If the traditons are true then the true origin of the Peshitta goes back to the time of Ezra in 445B.C. about several hujnhdred years before the LXX was born and almost 200 years before Greek was introduced into the Middle East by aleander the Great in 323B.C. The lingua franca of the Persian Empire was Aramaic and remained so to about 650A.D. after the Arab conquest and the rise of Islam. This period lasted more than 1,200 years a long time indeed.
Shlama W'Berkhata, Sam

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

4. RE: Heb 10:36-38

May-30-2001 at 07:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Welcome back.
>
>Very true, but please keep this
>in mind - it is
>universally held and accepted that
>the Peshitta NT has no
>relation whatsoever with the LXX.
> It is translated from
>the Hebrew directly, something which
>Burkitt even admitted.

Allow me to fill you in a bit as the largest portion of this discussion has gone the was of the dot coms. The PNT and GNT agree on the referenced text. The PT and LXX showed some commonality foreign to the Tanakh. Also it was discovered that DSS supported the NT rendering.

Now if there is no relationship whatsoever,
not even a common source text,
and they were both translated from Hebrew,
how can we explain variances from Tanakh
where they both agree?

>, but not always.

How is that explained?


> the Peshitta Tanakh represents
>an Aramaic translation from a
>pre-Masoretic Hebrew text sometime after
>the Captivity in Babylon.

Targums?
And what empirical evidence supports the PT?


sometime between the Captivity and
>the coming of Christ, the
>Jews of Babylon (and of
>Mesopotamia in general) produced an
>Aramaic version which later, in
>the 9th Century AD, became
>known as the "Peshitta (Tanakh.)"

From Targums?
Aren't Targums paraphrased?

Shlama,
Iakov.


Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service