10-12-2008, 04:26 AM
Shlama to you Oz-Hareef and welcome to the forum Many thanks also for your question.
Someone asked here a while ago if any of us subscribed to the idea that the Peshitta Tanakh was an original version, and the prevailing opinion here was no. We know the Peshitta Tanakh was a translation from Hebrew sources. However, it is a very undervalued translation from those same Hebrew sources. It seems the LXX gets all the good press! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->
But on the other hand we know the Masoretic Text did not reach final standardized form until the 11th century, although I believe it to be an essential standardization that has many ancient marks on it, like Isaiah for example matching up so well with the Dead Seas Scrolls from a thousand years earlier.
I agree with Stephen Silver when he talks about Tanakh being originally in hebrew and in the need to study Hebrew, but I would also argue that the Aramaic Tanakh, along with Targums and some other key pieces of Jewish liturgy also in that language, beg for attention that has long been denied them.
My view in this regard may not be popular simply because I advocate a lot of additional work in learning both languages, but I also think that since many of here love the Peshitta Aramaic NT and study that, there is no harm in reading the Peshitta Tanakh in the same language and then switching over to the Hebrew Tanakh which many of us learned first anyway. The overarching point then to me is that all of Scripture was revealed within a Semitic framework and that the aspects of that framework need to be appreciated both collectively and separately, for the insights that come sometimes only in one language over the other.
The most common complaint I get about this is ironically the easiest to remedy--a lot fo folks who are comfortable in square script "Hebrew"" aka ktav ashurri, don't want to learn estrangela or some of the other forms of Aramaic. To me, I always found estrangela easier than Hebrew, but I guess that's just me. In any case there are resources that have the Aramaic in pointed Hebrew script too for those who may need it at present.
Hope this helps!
Someone asked here a while ago if any of us subscribed to the idea that the Peshitta Tanakh was an original version, and the prevailing opinion here was no. We know the Peshitta Tanakh was a translation from Hebrew sources. However, it is a very undervalued translation from those same Hebrew sources. It seems the LXX gets all the good press! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s --> But on the other hand we know the Masoretic Text did not reach final standardized form until the 11th century, although I believe it to be an essential standardization that has many ancient marks on it, like Isaiah for example matching up so well with the Dead Seas Scrolls from a thousand years earlier.
I agree with Stephen Silver when he talks about Tanakh being originally in hebrew and in the need to study Hebrew, but I would also argue that the Aramaic Tanakh, along with Targums and some other key pieces of Jewish liturgy also in that language, beg for attention that has long been denied them.
My view in this regard may not be popular simply because I advocate a lot of additional work in learning both languages, but I also think that since many of here love the Peshitta Aramaic NT and study that, there is no harm in reading the Peshitta Tanakh in the same language and then switching over to the Hebrew Tanakh which many of us learned first anyway. The overarching point then to me is that all of Scripture was revealed within a Semitic framework and that the aspects of that framework need to be appreciated both collectively and separately, for the insights that come sometimes only in one language over the other.
The most common complaint I get about this is ironically the easiest to remedy--a lot fo folks who are comfortable in square script "Hebrew"" aka ktav ashurri, don't want to learn estrangela or some of the other forms of Aramaic. To me, I always found estrangela easier than Hebrew, but I guess that's just me. In any case there are resources that have the Aramaic in pointed Hebrew script too for those who may need it at present.
Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth