Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta/o Old Testament
#1
I have recently acquired a copy of "The Syriac Bible" which is the Peshitta written in the Serto Script with a foreword from the "Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East". I am eager to begin my personal studies seeing as I bought it mainly for the OT, as this site already has an interlinear Peshitta NT. The OT also contains the"Apocrypha" [by which I mean the additional books left out of the Protestant and Judaic canons].

However I do want to know the exact origin of the "Syriac" or "Aramaic" Tanakh. I have researched this on the web, and most explanations say this comes from a "variety of different sources" which is vague at best. A friend of mine told me that the "Syriac OT" is a translation of an earlier 'Hebrew' OT that was older than the Masoretic Text but is now non-existent. As I am personally not keen at all on the Masoretic Text, not least because of its late dating and its use of 'God' in the plural way too often. Hence I am attracted to the Peshitta/Peshitto OT. The one I have bought is unvowelled in Serto. But any views on this OT version's origin would be appreciated because the Web has little detailed info on it <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#2
I have to say that I am quite disappointed about the apparent disinterest in the Peshitta Tanakh. I think it is probably the best version of the OT around given the flaws in the Masoretic Text and the fact that the Septuagint isn't in its original 'Semetic' tongue therby limiting possible word meanings. I know most Peshitta websites focus in on the NT but lets not forget what came first and what the Messiah quoted from! <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#3
Gentile Wrote:I think it is probably the best version of the OT around given the flaws in the Masoretic Text

I don't think there are grave flaws in the Masoretic Text, and if there were any I certainly wouldn't number among them "its use of 'God' in the plural way too often." On the contrary I consider that to be among the things in the Scriptures reflective the very nature of YHWH Eloheynu.

Quote:and the fact that the Septuagint isn't in its original 'Semetic' tongue therby limiting possible word meanings.


The Septuagint translation of the OT was always in Greek. Or, perhaps you know that and mean that a lot was lost in the transition that would not have been to another Semitic language like Aramaic?

Quote:The OT also contains the"Apocrypha" [by which I mean the additional books left out of the Protestant and Judaic canons].

What books exactly are included in that OT? Could you give us a list? What books are considered worthwhile to include in the Apocrypha varies widely and I'm curious as to what the CoE includes.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#4
Here's something interesting:

"It is also remarkable that the western versions [of the Peshitta OT], equally the latin and greek ones present a division of 150 Psalms, so also the jewish massoretic, notsoever, among the parchments found at the caves in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, scrolls that were owned by the library of the Essenes and that were dated from the II/I century b.C., the division of the Psalms is 151, just as in the Peshita version."

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#5
Gentile Wrote:I have to say that I am quite disappointed about the apparent disinterest in the Peshitta Tanakh. I think it is probably the best version of the OT around given the flaws in the Masoretic Text and the fact that the Septuagint isn't in its original 'Semetic' tongue therby limiting possible word meanings. I know most Peshitta websites focus in on the NT but lets not forget what came first and what the Messiah quoted from! <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Paul has posted some links which try to begin to address this before, but from what I have read the origins of the various books within the peshitta OT may be diverse (not to mention lost in history perhaps).

I might have a slightly different take on the importance of the primacy of the peshitta NT than others here. For me is it very ironic that we western Christians can at times spend SO much effort trying to extract the exact menaing of of a particular word in ancient greek, only to now find out that it is only a translation anyway.
Perhaps the message is that we need to look at the message.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)