New post for the Erros in the Peshitta OT from Leiden - Printable Version +- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for) +-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7) +--- Thread: New post for the Erros in the Peshitta OT from Leiden (/showthread.php?tid=1313) |
New post for the Erros in the Peshitta OT from Leiden - JohnPooPoo - 07-06-2005 Take it outside boys! - Outside of my post. I am re-submitting so that others will be able to understand the simple issue here. Now, can someone please tell me where I can find an accurate copy of the Peshitta OT? The issue at hand is simple: The Leiden institute has a website which has it's compilation of the Peshitta OT, but seems to have errors in editing. I am not claiming that the Peshitta OT has errors. Even if the Leiden Peshitta OT is compiled from many different sources - it still has to have unique verses, or else you are not compiling - but just sort of combining. Again, I will point out a blatant error: Exodus chapter 10 verse 22 has two different entries, out-of-sequence: 1021 w)m_r mry) l-mw$), )rym )ydk lwt $my), wn_hw) x$k) (l klh. )r( d=mcryn, wn(m_T x$k), 1022 w)rym -mw$) )ydh l$my) whw) x$k) w(mTn) bklh. )r() d=mcryn, tlt ywm:y_n, 1023 l) x_z) )n$ l)xwhy, 1022 wl) qm )n$ mn dwkth_ tlt) ywm:yn, wlklhwn bn:y -)ysryl hw_) nwhr byt mwt.bhwn, 1024 wq_r) pr(wn l-mw$) w)m_r lh zlw plwxw qdm mry) bl_xwd (nkwn wtwr:ykwn $bwqw, w)p )yqrtkwn t.)zl (mkwn, You can quickly link to the leiden via here to confirm: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/Peshitta.notice.html">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/Peshitta.notice.html</a><!-- m --> Here is the list of discrepencies on the Leiden website Book/ Chapter / From-verse / To-verse GEN 9 15 18 EXO 4 25 27 EXO 10 23 22 EXO 10 22 24 EXO 29 10 12 EXO 29 30 34 EXO 30 18 20 EXO 33 7 10 EXO 35 17 19 EXO 35 21 23 EXO 40 2 4 EXO 40 12 15 EXO 40 22 28 LEV 3 2 5 LEV 4 5 8 LEV 4 14 20 LEV 8 3 5 LEV 8 33 35 LEV 9 5 7 LEV 10 7 9 LEV 10 9 12 LEV 11 42 41 LEV 14 11 13 LEV 14 23 26 LEV 16 7 13 LEV 16 16 18 LEV 16 20 22 LEV 24 3 7 NUM 2 17 20 NUM 3 7 10 NUM 4 28 31 NUM 4 35 44 NUM 8 9 13 NUM 10 3 6 NUM 11 16 18 NUM 14 10 16 NUM 16 18 26 NUM 17 19 21 NUM 18 4 9 NUM 18 22 24 NUM 20 6 8 NUM 25 6 8 NUM 27 2 12 DEU 2 31 33 DEU 14 17 16 JOS 1 1 3 JOS 6 6 8 JOS 14 1 3 JOS 15 8 10 JOS 15 32 34 JOS 19 38 40 JOS 19 49 51 JOS 21 34 36 JOS 21 37 34 JOS 21 35 38 JOS 24 1 4 JUD 1 1 11 JUD 11 11 2 JUD 20 19 21 1SA 2 22 24 1SA 14 35 37 1SA 23 10 12 1SA 25 24 26 1SA 28 18 22 2SA 1 16 0 2SA 1 0 17 1KI 3 22 24 1KI 8 4 7 1KI 12 21 21 1KI 13 34 34 1KI 14 1 1 1KI 14 2 2 2KI 9 14 17 ISA 38 12 14 ISA 38 20 22 ISA 38 22 21 ISA 48 1 3 JER 37 8 10 JER 52 16 18 EZE 1 1 6 EZE 3 15 21 EZE 10 15 17 EZE 40 7 9 EZE 43 3 7 EZE 48 5 7 JOE 2 2 20 JON 2 1 0 JON 2 0 2 PSA 34 9 11 PSA 73 22 24 PSA 73 25 23 PSA 73 23 26 PSA 89 31 33 PSA 109 9 11 PSA 111 8 7 PSA 119 90 92 PSA 119 151 148 PSA 119 148 152 PSA 119 170 172 PSA 119 172 171 PSA 119 171 173 PSA 136 10 12 PSA 140 1 3 JOB 29 5 7 JOB 30 2 5 JOB 41 21 24 PRO 13 22 24 DAN 3 57 59 DAN 3 59 58 DAN 3 58 61 DAN 3 61 60 DAN 3 60 62 DAN 3 66 71 DAN 3 72 69 DAN 3 70 73 DAN 3 76 78 DAN 3 78 77 DAN 3 77 79 DAN 3 90 24 NEH 3 16 18 1CH 2 22 24 1CH 2 44 46 1CH 2 46 50 1CH 2 52 54 1CH 3 6 8 1CH 3 8 7 1CH 3 7 9 1CH 4 6 9 1CH 4 12 15 1CH 4 15 19 1CH 4 21 24 1CH 4 31 38 1CH 5 12 14 1CH 7 33 39 1CH 8 7 9 1CH 8 16 23 1CH 8 26 28 1CH 11 44 43 1CH 12 23 25 1CH 22 6 8 1CH 23 4 6 1CH 24 26 30 1CH 25 4 7 1CH 28 11 20 2CH 4 2 4 2CH 4 10 18 2CH 5 11 14 2CH 9 24 26 2CH 9 28 30 2CH 13 12 15 2CH 20 21 24 2CH 24 12 15 2CH 25 21 23 2CH 26 6 8 2CH 26 13 15 2CH 27 7 9 2CH 28 13 15 2CH 28 15 22 2CH 28 25 16 2CH 28 21 26 2CH 29 6 10 2CH 29 10 8 2CH 29 9 20 2CH 33 3 5 - Dave - 07-06-2005 Hmmmm, you want me to take it outside of your post (which I sorry that it heated up on the other), yet you want me to answer you here? Well,....have I ever said that none of the books could have been written in syriac/aramaic? I do give preference to the greek as it has a more solid base to stand on. I do accept the old syriac version as a comparison as it has greek backgrounds, but I never closed the door to one of the letters possibly having a syriac background. I just haven't seen one yet that I could say with certainty, yes this one has the witness to it as being closest to the original. Also, I'm not sure if it is that text or in another gospel, when Jesus calls out in aramaic, the people do not understand what He says, they make a comment about Him calling Elijah or someone. My question for you is why? If this particular language is as widespread as the folks on here go about saying so, then why did the crowd not understand Him? Some food for thought there. - ograabe - 07-06-2005 Words spoken by a dying man in great pain can be difficult to understand, and two words that are very similar can be confused. Otto - Dave - 07-06-2005 Let's see if someone can answer John's question here rather than derail the topic again. Otto, if you wish to talk about that some more, you can make a post for it so that we can. - JohnPooPoo - 07-06-2005 Please delete unrelated posts - I have moved them to the spoiled topic |