Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta and the other Syriac versions
shlom lkhun,

Mat 1:1
PSH: ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????????????
OSS: ???????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????????????
PLX: ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????????

PSH: The book of genealogy of yeshu' msheeHo son of dawid son of avrohom
OSS: The book of generations of yeshu' msheeHo son of dawid son of avrohom
PLX: The book of being of yeshu' msheeHo of the son of dawid of the son of avrom

The author of the OSS tried to modify the original PSH word for genealogy to generations, but unfortunately they wrote the beginning of the word like generations, but finished it like genealogy:
PSH (Genealogy): ????????????????????
OSS (Generations): ??????????????????
Proper Spelling (Generations): ??????????????

Mat 1:3
PSH: ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ??????. ?????? ????????
OSS: ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ??????. ?????? ????????
OSC: ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ??????. ?????? ????????
PLX: ???????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ???? ??????????. ?????? ?????? ????????
HRK: ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ??????. ?????? ?????? ??????

ODD: ??????????
Proper: ??????
Notice how the PLX starts with the odd spelling (they're trying to mimic the Greek), and finish with the appropriate Syriac spelling for the name.

The PLX was supposed to be an attempt at creating a new translation from the Greek into Syriac, but the people rejected it. As you can see, the author wasn't really creating a new translating, but rather they were modifying the Peshitta to conform it to the Greek. His misspelling of words probably didn't help, and that is why the people rejected it in favour of the Peshitta.

They say that the HRK was suppose to modify the PLX and create an even more literal version of the Greek, but as we can see all they did was try to correct the mistakes in the PLX. (Their corrections seem to restore the Peshitta spelling in most cases.)
The people also rejected this exercise in spelling corrections.

The OSS was unknown to the Syriac world, as it never seems to have made it out of the editing room. And the date of the manuscript would have made it impossible for it to be the source of the Peshitta, unless the Syriac world didn???t have a Text for more than 300 years; even though their language was the same as that spoken by yeshu' msheeHo -- the apostle keefa really didn't like the Semitic people, and went Greek instead it would seem. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
The above example shows that the OSS authors were trying to modify the Peshitta to get a more Greek reading; see Genealogy/Generations example above.
Since it never made it out of that monastery, then the authors must not have trusted it too much. Probably the spelling mistakes didn???t help.

So all previously known attempts at creating a Syriac version that is closer to the Greek have failed to be accepted by the Syriac people.
Now the important question is, if the Peshitta was a translation of the Greek, then why are they wasting their time trying to create a new one? And why is their every attempt met with utter disaster?

PSH: Peshitta
OSS: Old Syriac -- Sinaitic Palimpsest
OSC: Old Syriac -- Curetonian Gospels
PLX: Philoxenian Version
HRK: Harklean Version

push bashlomo,
Excellent analysis Akhan Keefa,

I concur that the Philoxenian and Harklean versions were attempts to conform the Peshitta to the official version of the Byzantine empire. We know this because the authors themselves, and their biographers, stated as much.

Now the real mystery is the so-called "Old-Syriac", which we of course refer to as "Old Scratch."

My personal opinion?

I was the result of a student at the monastery in Egypt. He was practicing copying or perhaps more likely he was conforming the Peshitta to the current Alexandrian family of Greek texts.

Otherwise, why would someone have scratched off the text (of Holy Scripture!) only to write the story of the life of a saint over it? What? They ran out of paper? The story of the saint was THAT important?

Does that make sense to anybody? Why would someone do that to the Holy Bible?

Have you ever seen anyone erase the text of the Torah or the Quran and write the life stories of Alan Greenspan or Osama bin Laden over the top of the scratched-off text? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Yeah, Old Scratch.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)