judge

Does anyone have any evidence that the book of Hebrews might have been written in greek originally. I thought I might have had Spin prepared to argue for a greek version here but ti seems he is not game. (Although to be fair he has not had any time to prepare anything yet)
Anyone else?

CX

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Rather shouldn't you be providing evidence that Hebrews was not written in Greek?

RRK

Sigh, I really don't want to get sucked into this debate, but don't you find it somewhat odd that St. Ephraim and other second century writers don't quote the Peshitta?

judge

Not all, one would not expect Ephraim who was SOC to quote the peshitta, the text of the COE. Like good Christians these two different communities were enemies!

I think you will find St Ephraim is 4th century not 2nd century also.

Who are the other writers you refer to?

Also note that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word!

As far as I am aware western scholars have never dealt with the fact that Aphrahat quotes the peshitta word for word.

As to ephraim, also note that very unusually western scholars fail to understand the middle east, and usually don't grasp the complexities of events there asuming there was some kind of homogenous "Syrian speaking church". See my post here .

The church communities that spoke Syrian or Aramaic became sharply divided over theological issues by the 4th century. That group in persia, the COE, became isolated and their kept using the original peshitta.

Over the border in the Roman empire the community that was to become the SOC conformed their theology to the monophysite teachings in that area.

This is a matter of historical fact. The peshitto, used today by the SOC edited the peshitta to make it monophysitic. They changed the reading in Hebrews 2:9 and in acts chapter 20 for example.

The monophysites on a few occaisions did their own translations or versions attempting to make a syriac or aramaic version that agreed with their theology.
Hard to believe I know!

Thus we should not expect SOC monks to quote the peshitta, but we should expect COE monks to quote the peshitta, which they do.

mrmoderate

For what reason would Hebrews, like all of the other letters of Paul as well as the gospels, not be originally written in Greek?

Greek was the most widely used written language of the times and was used by most races living in the Middle East and EuroAsia.

Vorkosigan

Judge, the mainstream position is that Hebrews was written in Greek. This site is full of people who subscribe to non-mainstream positions, so we're not congenitally inclined to reject such positions. So why don't you provide evidence that indicates Hebrews was originally composed in Aramaic?

Vorkosigan

spin

Is there any reason to believe Hebrews had anything to do with Paul? It is nothing like those letters that have his name. It has no ancient attribution to Paul. It ues HB differently from Paul. It has a different theology. It's not addressed to a church. It has none of the personal knowledge that we get from Paul.


spin

judge

Hi Spin, I don't think Hebrews was necessarily written by Paul but I am interested in why you think Hebrews uses the HB differently from Paul.

Thanks again

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, I don't think we should exaggerate these difference between the SOC and the COE in these matters.

That's right.

Well, that's perhaps because Aphrahat doesn't in fact quote the peshitta word for word...

Aphrahat gospel citations are often paraphrased, and do not follow any version exactly. But most of the time he seems to be quoting the Old Syriac, in the form of the Diatessaron (i.e. a harmonised gospel).

Actually, it's the 5th century (the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 CE)

AFAIK, the SOC isn't any more monophysite than the COE.

After the Council of Chalcedon, the whole of the Syrian Church became known as monophysite. Since SOC accepts the rulings of the Council of Chalcedon, it seems to be less monophysite than the COE.

How so?

The last I've heard of it, the Syrian Orthodox Church officially denies the designation 'Monophysite'.

This doesn't prove anything.

Regards,

Yuri.

judge

Judge wrote: Not all, one would not expect Ephraim who was SOC to quote the peshitta, the text of the COE. Like good Christians these two different communities were enemies!


Judge wrote:Yuri he was known as the "tyrant of edessa" was he not. Is this a term of endearment or something






I think what you meant to say is that Aphrahat does not quote the peshitta word for word every time!
I know you are aware that Aphrahat does in fact quote the peshitta.



OK Yuri, I am going to call you on this.
What precisely do you mean when you say most of the time. Do have some facts or figures to support this?






As far as you know? This begs the question of exactly how much you do know
I know from your comments below that you are aware that the SOC peshitto reads differently than the COE peshitta in Hebrews 2:6 and acts chapter 20.

In view of the importance of these readings in relation to monophysitism howe can you make the above statement?

Again look to the changes made in Hebrews 2:9 and Acts cahpter 20.
It should be clear from these verses which is more monophysitic.

How can you say the SOC is less monophysitic when their very own bible has the altered verses in Acts chapter 20 and Hebrews 2:9.

Come on Yuri!

Judge wrote:
That group in persia, the COE, became isolated and their kept using the original peshitta.

Over the border in the Roman empire the community that was to become the SOC conformed their theology to the monophysite teachings in that area.

Just what is the Syrian Church? Is there or was there one "Syrian Church"?
Recently I began some discussion here






Judge wrote:This is a matter of historical fact. The peshitto, used today by the SOC edited the peshitta to make it monophysitic.

Acts cahpter 20 reads in the peshitta "the church of Christ which he purchased with his blood" whilst the peshitto reads "the church of God...."

How does God have blood?

Thanks for youe input Yuri! :notworthy