Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta Tanakh and Swadaya Script...
#1
Swadaya is modern Assyrian/Neo Aramaic script correct? I just ordered the Peshitta Tanakh and I just noticed that its....gasp......not in estrangelo and includes vowels. Shouldn't be too hard to pick up but I was hoping for vowel-less estrangelo cause thats what I'm used to.

That being as it is, does it mean that it is a modern vowel edited translation or is it true to the original estrangelo text? (And thusly can be used for research.)
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Aside from the vowels (which are actually a help!) - the matter is one akin to "fonts" on your computer. All the English computer "fonts" are the same alphabet, just slightly different shapes and accents.

In the case of Swadaya, there are only 5 letters that are slightly modified (Aleph, Daleth, Heh, Resh and Tau.) The other 17 are identical.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Thanks. Textually speaking, how much does it differ from say, the estrangelo pot manuscript?

I had originally wanted to type out the entire takakh (and post it online) as a "side project" going along with studying it.
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi Rob,

I'm not sure what you mean by "textually speaking."

If what you mean is "language" - the Peshitta OT is vastly different from the Peshitta NT. Number one - it reads like a translation from Hebrew (because it is) and number two - it's far older and the language changed by the time the NT came around.

If what you mean is "orthography" of the script, they are identical.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Akhi Paul, was it not that Peshitta OT translated at the time of King Izates II of Abiabene ? was it not so far older than when the NT came around ?

Shlama,

Armen
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Armen,

The language is far older than that of the N.T. There are marked differences.

One tradition has the origin of the Peshitta OT being translated at the time of Solomon at the request of Hiram. Another tradition acribes the translation to a priest named Ezra sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria. As for King Izates of Assyria (Adiabene), there is never any mention of him anywhere in relation to the Peshitta OT, except that he and his family converted to Judaism......but that doesn't mean much, since the translation was probably there for them to use already for many centuries.

As Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th c.) said:

Quote:"These Scriptures (the OT) were translated into the tongue of the Syrians by someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was has not been made known down to our day" (Nestle in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 645b).
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
A little off the point, but if any of you have read Thackstons Introduction to Syriac you will see an excellent elegant estrangelo font in use. I really wish that I could obtain the font that he used, but sadly noone on this forum knows what I am talking about!
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#8
On other thing [on the point this time] does anyone notice the absence of sizeable portions of Chronicles in the POT? Is this only in the version sent out [the one that dean sells] or is this the case for the POT generally?

Important question isnt it
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#9
Gentile Wrote:A little off the point, but if any of you have read Thackstons Introduction to Syriac you will see an excellent elegant estrangelo font in use. I really wish that I could obtain the font that he used, but sadly noone on this forum knows what I am talking about!

Akhi - for all the Aramaic fonts you could ever want, see here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="ftp://atour.com/_fonts/">ftp://atour.com/_fonts/</a><!-- m -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)