Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What are the oldest existing manuscripts of the Peshitta?
#1
From Akhi Paul:

Quote:To answer your question - the oldest extant manuscript of the Peshitta dates from the early fifth century. There are approximately 350 manuscripts, which read identically. Several of them date from the 5-6th centuries, and the latest dates to around the 9th century. This is apart from the modern printed copies made by the Church of the East and other middle-eastern Christian communities.

In formulating your opinion of the age of the oldest extant manuscripts, please keep a couple of things in mind. In Semitic tradition, a biblical manuscript is not allowed to decay to the extent that it begins to fall apart. If a manuscript reaches that point, they are copied immediately, and then buried or burned, so that the fragments do not fall on the floor and become trampled on. It's not a "throwing away" of originals. Much like a funeral service for a deceased relative, the burning or burial is performed in a respectful manner. All of this is done out of respect for the material contained therein. The Greek-based Christian community has no such tradition, hence the multitudes of fragments which are older than the oldest extant (and complete) manuscript of the Peshitta.

I would like you to remember that before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, roughly 80 years ago, the oldest the oldest copy of an OT was in Greek. Which preceded the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, the Aleppo Codex, known also as the Leningrad Codex. The age of the Leningrad Codex was circa 1000 A.D. But prior to the discovery of the DSS, even though an the oldest text was in Greek, nobody dared to claim that there was anything but a Hebrew original to the OT. The aforementioned general tradition is why the Leningrad Codex was at one time the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the OT, but not the oldest copy in existence. As stated earlier, in general Semites do not allow their religious texts to decay and the same thing happened in the tradition of the Church of the East, who are also Semites, hence the over 1,000-year span between the discovery of the DSS and the Aleppo Codex. Have you not ever wondered why we do not have Hebrew OTs still around from the 4th or 5 centuries?

I would like to summarize by saying that as evidenced above, in general, a manuscript's age is not at all important. The material contained therein is the most important thing.
Reply
#2
See point #3 here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000121/seder.shtml">http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000121/seder.shtml</a><!-- m -->

As you can see, the tradition is still alive and well...
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Such a beautiful way to honor the words of God.

I understand, though do not necessarily agree with, the way we freely handle his words today. The printed word comes so easily today that we do not feel obligated to render his words with such reverance. Perhaps we should.

Thanks.
Reply
#4
It left us with a huge disadvantage in the long run. Something which I am sure the people who did it, didn't even think of.

If we had just let all the old manuscripts decay and fragment, we would probably have fragments as old, or older.

On the "cultural" topic - I vividly remember my first visit to one of the "Mega" evangelical churches here in our area. A friend of mine invited me and I was curious to see what the service was like. It was beautiful - but I must say, I was taken aback when I saw someone place his bible on the floor. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

It's a cultural difference, I guess. We are probably too rigid in the other extreme. And it's hurting us now.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)