judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 04:31 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Hi all! I have been reading a few of the archives and I have a question related to the "a real shocker from philo" thread that Andrew posted last year. Because it is in the archive I can't 'resurrect' it. Andrew began the thread by noting that Philo tells of a greek translation (the lxx?) being translated from "chaldaic words", and then wonders if the lxx was translated from aramaic version of the scriptures. Paul then points out that this was probably not the case as after the return from babylon the jews would have used the Chaldean/ashuri script although the words would have still been hebrew. Fair enough! But i have a question for Andrew. Andrew you had previously stated "However, Philo here paints a different picture on at least what this source that I call the H-LXX would have looked like superficially. He could have used the term for Hebrew letters as he does elsewhere in his writings (hebraidi) but instead he goes out of his way here to say chaldean (chaldaion)." In what context did philo refer to Hebrew letters? What was he talking about that was written in hebrew letters?.... Secondly in response to this Dean asked why (if this was the case) the lxx would vary from the Peshitta tenak? How much does the PT vary from the lxx? I have read that it agrees (at least at times ) with the lxx against the MT? A question for paul while I am here... ... Paul in another archived thread you refer us to footnote 5 on page three of the following.... https://www.jaas.org/edocs/v12n1/JohnJoseph.pdf ...to help us with the origin of the Peshitta O.T. I think I remember you saying that you believe the O.T. quotes in the N.T. probably came from galilean targums which have since been lost. Fair enough. But is there any relationship between these quotes and the Peshitta tenak? Thanks again for all your time! ...Michael
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
- RE: philo and the lxx...for andrew ,dean and paul.,
Andrew Gabriel Roth, Feb-16-2002 at 05:05 AM, (1)
- RE: philo and the lxx...for andrew ,dean and paul.,
Paul Younan
, Feb-16-2002 at 10:14 PM, (4)
- RE: philo and the lxx...for andrew ,dean and paul.,
Dean, Feb-18-2002 at 08:40 AM, (6)
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 05:05 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Hi Akhi Michael! Great questions, and I am afraid I will leave more unanswered than answered here, because as I said before, I just don't know. When Philo mentions Hebrew, he of course means Tenakh, and --more specifically--the Torah. Starting with Philo (The Works of Philo, p. 494 "On the Life of Moses II, VII,40"): "...for if the Chaldeans were to learn Greek and the Greeks were to learn Chaldean, and if each were to meet with those Scriptures in both languages, they would admire and reverence them as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and language; considering these translators were not mere interpreters but heriphants and prophets to whom it had been grantedit their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses." Now, the MT, as you say, has many differences from the LXX and PT. However, I suppose it is possible that Philo might be referring to a hebrew variant (in chaldean letters???) similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch, which agrees with the LXX and against MT 90% of the time in over 2000 variants. But, as I said, I don't really know. Finally, to answer a little for Paul, I don't know about the ultimate source of PNT Tenakh quotes either, perhaps a lost targum of Galilee or maybe the evangelists themselves are targumming. Maybe someday we will understand this better. But for now, I know I am stumped. Shlama w'burkate Andrew Gabriel Roth
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 09:38 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama, Akhay! My two bits... I've been reading Torah in Hebrew, Peshitta, and Onkelos, and comparing. For what I've seen, Onkelos and Peshitta are impressively similar. I'm not aware of anyone's work on this topic, but I'm going to continue with the investigation. One interesting note, is that Yosef's 'ketonet passim' (commonly mis-tranlated as "coat of many colors") was translated correctly in the ancient Peshitta as "long-sleeved tunic", where Onkelos just transliterates the Hebrew. The "coat of many colors" misunderstanding goes way back, even in Islamic and Persian accounts. Hurrah for Peshitta! Regarding quotes of OT in NT, I've made some interesting observations regarding use of Aramaic/Greek, but not yet ready to publish... In Yeshua, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
howard
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 09:32 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhi Rob >One interesting note, is that Yosef's >'ketonet passim' (commonly mis-tranlated as >"coat of many colors") was >translated correctly in the ancient >Peshitta as "long-sleeved tunic", where >Onkelos just transliterates the Hebrew. >The "coat of many colors" >misunderstanding goes way back, even >in Islamic and Persian accounts. > I'm interested to know on what grounds you can say "...translated correctly...". I've read that the meaning of the Hebrew phrase is unclear. What's so special about a long-sleeved tunic that would make it a symbol of favouritsm and a unique identifier? (Hope you don't think I'm being antagonistic - I'm here to learn.) Thanks Akhi Howard
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 07:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Shlama Howard! I'm here to learn as well, so questions are great. I'm about 350 miles away from home right now --- so I don't have access to my notes, but a cognate for 'passim' was found in the ancient near east, and it means 'long sleeves'. This type of coat was worn by princes. Their hands were covered up by the sleeves --- they didn't have to do any work, or get their hands dirty. If you check, you'll find one or two English translations have got this now. I never thought about it before, but this fits with what his bro's call him: " Ba'al haHalomot ", i.e., Lord of the Dreams! Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
howard
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-19-2002 at 09:38 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Shlama Rob Thanks for your reply - when you get back to your notes if there's anything else I would appreciate it. However, I was wondering if there was any special significance in the tunic. Was his father therefore actually prophesying Joseph's future? Thanks Howard
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 10:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama Akhi Michael, >A question for paul while I >am here... ... >Paul in another archived thread you >refer us to footnote 5 >on page three of the >following.... > >https://www.jaas.org/edocs/v12n1/JohnJoseph.pdf > >...to help us with the origin >of the Peshitta O.T. >I think I remember you saying >that you believe the O.T. >quotes in the N.T. probably >came from galilean targums which >have since been lost. >Fair enough. But is there any >relationship between these quotes and >the Peshitta tenak? > Akhi - there is no direct relationship between the Peshitta Tanakh and the Peshitta New Testament. The readings, where the same, are probably by chance (they are almost never the same, though.) The Peshitta Tanakh was not known outside of Mesopotamia (Iraq, Iran and eastern Syria) - this translation was done (as Profrs. Brock & Joseph say) by Mesopotamian Jews for Mesopotamian Jews. It was never used in the Holy Land. The CoE and other middle-eastern churches rooted in Mesopotamia inherited this version from the Jews when the vast majority of them became believers in Messiah and formed these Mesopotamian churches. So while the have the same generic "name" - the Peshitta Tanakh and the Peshitta New Testament have nothing in common except for the Aramaic language. Think of them as completely different works that do not have any relationship. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-18-2002 at 08:40 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Hi Guys, >Secondly in response to this Dean asked why (if >this was the case) the lxx would vary from the >Peshitta tenak? I dont remember making that commment but while I'm here I might as well reply! I suppose they (LXX & PT) should vary somewhat since it appears they have little to do with each other! I've wondered recently where the common names of the books (first 5 books) came from since they both share the common descriptive names (Gen, Exo, Lev ... etc) opposed to the Hebrew titles which have very little to do with what the book is actually dealing with (with the exception of Genesis/Bresheet). Since we know when the LXX was done but not the PT, is it possible that the PT was actually translated before the LXX? History seems to imply the need for the PT predates the LXX (722 b.c. captivity)? If so, did the Greek Jews borrow the book names from thier Mesopotamian brothers in the north? Or did the Masoretic names (Beresheet, Shemot, Vayikra, etc) come later? -Dean
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-18-2002 at 05:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
But again thanks for the reply! Thanks for the other recent replies also. I haven't replied to a couple but don't imagine that I am not thinking about your posts! Michael
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 02:34 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #7
Hi iakov hope that all is well! I ahve a question for you. On aprevious thread which is now archived (a real socker from philo on the lxx) you mentioned that the peshitta tenak difers from the lxx. Can you tell me exactly how it differs? I ahve checked out Victor alexanders ongoing translation of Genesis and see that the geneologies of chapters 5 and 11. do you know how the PT compares in other areas that the LXX varies from the MT? Such as Samuel ,Jeremiah Isaiah and the end of proverbs (I think)? Thanks in advance ,and all the best....Michael
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 03:34 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #9
Ani M'ts'ta'er Akh Michael, (I'm Sorry) From my recollection we compared an OT quote to MT, LXX, and POT. I don't remember which NT quote it was either. Where can we access a POT with Eng translation? I'd like to help you but cannot. Sorry. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 10:07 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Erev Tov Ya'acov, Is'nt the OT portion of Lamsa's "Holy Bible" translated from the POT? -Akhi Dean
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 06:18 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Akhi Dean, I don't have a Lamsa. I've read only electronic portions. I need to break down and get one. Also need to buy the Compendius. Thanks for the help. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-25-2002 at 05:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Hi dean -For interest sake, Lamsaa introduction says manuscripts used in making this translation were codex ambrosianus (7ce & earlier) for OT and Mortimer-mccawley for NT. He says: Comparisons were made to peshitta mss in pierpont morgan library, new york, the freer collection, wasington DC, and bristish museum (Pentateuch dated 464 ce) showing no differences in text between these mss. Ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 06:18 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Thanks anyway Iakov! I know that the LXX MT and Samaritan penta, vary as to the geneologies in genesis. Victor Alexanders translation (he has done chapters 1-16) online, seems to agree with the MT here. However I found the following book reveiw today.. https://rosetta.atla-certr.org/TC/vol04/Weitzman1999rev-x.html ...which says that genesis has "less" reliance on the LXX, than some other books. (whatever that means!) and that the various books seem to similair to the LXX to varying degrees. (see point 6). Which leads me to the present position that, as per the article paul referred us to, that the origins of the various portions of the PT are somewhat 'obscure'. I am presently following up some other leads, and will let you know if I come up with anything. All in all the message has been preserved incredibly well! Imagine someone in the future trying to sort through the myriad of english versions around today!! Peace from the land downunder.....Michael
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-20-2002 at 08:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Akhi Michael, >I am presently following up some >other leads, and will let >you know if I come >up with anything. Please do. B'M'shikha, Maran w'Alahan, Yaqub,
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|