Origins of Peshita and questions

Shalom aleichem!

I would like to know where I might obtain the most authoritive and accepted hystory of the Peshita.

Also, when will you have 1 Perer and Reverlations up for download?

I would very much like to have these two books as soon as posible for some papers I am writting.

Thanks in advance!

Shlomoh ben Michoel
https://jove.prohosting.com/~Shlomoh

In reply to message #0
 
Dear Light,

Shlama Alkhun,

The history of the Peshitta can be found on this site using the frame on the left-hand side of the web browser, it's titled "History of the Peshitta" under the "Historical Background" section.

With regards to your question about the availability of 1 Peter, this translation is an on-going project that will span for many years. I am planning to translate all the books of the Peshitta in canonical order. The book of Revelation is not included in the canon of the Peshitta, and there are no plans to have it included in this diglot. There simply are no Peshitta manuscipts of the book of Revelation....it's a Greek, not Aramaic, book.

More is explained on this topic in the "Introduction" and "History of the Peshitta" sections.

I hope this helps! Thanks for visiting the site!

Blessings and Peace,
Paul Younan

In reply to message #1
 
Are the Books of the Catholic Epistles,Revelation outside of the early peshita canonical as scripture in your opion, seeing that the Eastern Chuch of Mosoul, Iraq in 1890 issued an Addition including these left out books in Aramaic not Greek? Also do you think the Peshita Apocrapha is scripture or not?

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Samuel!

The question you ask is complex, but the answer to it is No. Those books that are not part of the 22-book Canon of the Peshitta (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation).

They are included in a text found in Mosoul, Iraq in the 19th century because by that time, a group of former members of the Church of the East had split away from their Church, and had united with Rome. This came to be called the "Chaldean" Catholic Church.

Obviously, when this happened, they had to revise their canon of the Peshitta to resemble the accepted books of the Roman Catholic Church. So, they included these disputed books which were never accepted by the Church of the East.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

In reply to message #3
 
thanks for your response. So then that means the Eastern Church does not believe in the Revelation What about theapocrapha of the Peshita like Bar Sirakh,Barukh,Yehidith, and ect. are they accepted as scripture or not, and will you be translating them if you decide to translate the Peshita? The book of Job follows the Torah directly in the Peshita, not in the Masorah or the LXX. Why is that? How come you refer to the Peshita Tenaukh when that term implies the threefold division of Torah, Neviim, Ketubim,not the four fold division of the Pentateuch, Historicl books, Hiaragrapha (poetic books), and the prophets of the LXX and the Peshita? Sam My email is: ammytico@aol.com" target="_top">Sammytico@aol.com Thank you!

In reply to message #4
 
Hi Sam,

That's right. These books are not considered to be canonical in the Church of the East.

As for the Peshitta Tenakh, I will not be translating that here. This is because the Peshitta OT is only a translation, therefore the Masoretic Text is superior, since it is in the original language - Hebrew.

Many of the books the West considers "apocryphal" in the OT, they are included in the Kthubim of the Peshitta. I don't have an exact list with me, but I do know that most of them are in there, so they are considered to be scripture.

I have not yet obtained a copy of the Peshitta Tenakh (OT), but I plan to in the near future. For the OT, I use a Hebrew Interlinear based on the Masoretic Text.

Talk to you soon....

Shlama,
Paul

In reply to message #5
 
The Ketubim of the Peshita Apocrapha are almost the same as the LXX, except for the additional writings Of Esther, Maccabees one to four. Most I read were translationgs of the Greek, which some books themselves like Sirach is in two thirds originally preserved in Hebrew ,while Tobith is in Aramaic originally demenstrated by the surriving parts in the Dead Sea Scrools. this I think the Peshita being in Aramaic may beter preserve these writing for historical purposes I do not believe they are cannonical, true most of the Western and Eastern Catholic churches accept them asdeutercanonical writing, because they were writen by Jewish authorship prior to the time of Christ.Would not Sirach translated from the Hebrew to Aramaic in the Peshita be superior to the LXX? Also the fourth book of Ezra is lost from the LXX, but preserved by the Vulgate and the Peshita, which the later is probably more accurate as the Latin suffers quite abit of difficulty in its readings. What do you think? Does'nt the Asyrian Church believe more in the Peshita Old Testament than the Hebrew Tenakh, do to their proud traditon and usage therof? We can't always trust either the West or the East as traditions of men being established therin distort the sense of truth for their own puposes, would you not agree? Thanks for your replies. It is refreshing to have an intelligent conversation now and then. Shlama Berkate!

In reply to message #6
 
Hi Sam,

Yes, the Church has always placed great emphasis on the Peshitta Tenakh because this was the version in official use in the East for so many centuries.....especially after the Royal House in Adiabene had converted to Judaism prior to Mshikha. (King Izlates and Queen Helena).

As for the people who made the Peshitta version, as you know these were Jews in the Diaspora in Mesopotamia (Assyria and Persia), and their choice in translating some, and keeping some, we do not know why they chose certain books, or whether they utilized the LXX for Sirach.

What we do know is, they were heavily dependent on the Aramaic Targums utilized in the Palestinian Synagogue.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>The Ketubim of the Peshita Apocrapha
>are almost the same as
>the LXX, except for the
>additional writings Of Esther, Maccabees
>one to four. Most I
>read were translationgs of the
>Greek, which some books themselves
>like Sirach is in two
>thirds originally preserved in Hebrew
>,while Tobith is in Aramaic
>originally demenstrated by the surriving
>parts in the Dead Sea
>Scrools. this I think the
>Peshita being in Aramaic may
>beter preserve these writing for
>historical purposes I do not
>believe they are cannonical, true
>most of the Western and
>Eastern Catholic churches accept them
>asdeutercanonical writing, because they were
>writen by Jewish authorship prior
>to the time of Christ.Would
>not Sirach translated from the
>Hebrew to Aramaic in the
>Peshita be superior to the
>LXX? Also the fourth book
>of Ezra is lost from
>the LXX, but preserved by
>the Vulgate and the Peshita,
>which the later is probably
>more accurate as the Latin
>suffers quite abit of difficulty
>in its readings. What do
>you think? Does'nt the Asyrian
>Church believe more in the
>Peshita Old Testament than the
>Hebrew Tenakh, do to their
>proud traditon and usage therof?
>We can't always trust either
>the West or the East
>as traditions of men being
>established therin distort the sense
>of truth for their own
>puposes, would you not agree?
>Thanks for your replies. It
>is refreshing to have an
>intelligent conversation now and then.
>Shlama Berkate!

In reply to message #7
 
Jews rejected the deuterocanonical works (Sirach, Tobit, the Greek parts of Esther) at the council of Jamnia around 90 A.D. They had two criteria for a canonical work that they applied:
1. Had to be in Hebrew/Aramaic.
2. Had to have been written in the 4th century BC or earlier.
At least this is what I heard.

Some Christian Churches in the East followed the Jewish canon under Jewish influence. However, we know that the criteria applied by Jamnia were quite flawed. First of all, #2 rejects all of the New Testament right away! Why a Christian would accept Jamnia's decision given that Jamnia's criterion rejects the New Testament, I don't know. (In my view, #1 rejects most of the New Testament as well, but that's a different issue.) Also, some scholars say that parts of Daniel were written after the cut-off date. So, we need to scrap criterion #2. But once we do that, then we have no reason to reject Sirach and Tobit which were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, respectively. The Book of Wisdom might also have been written in a Semitic language. It is possible that Jamnia was trying to reject the Septuagint and some apocryphal apocalypses because it didn't like the use that Christians were putting it to. Thus, Jamnia's decisions might have been deliberately made in order to facilitate the rejection of Christianity.

Given how flawed Jamnia was, it is sad that its decision should still be normative for many Protestants and, apparently, for Paul Younan's Church. There is a historical reason for this. At the time, the members of those Churches and ecclesial communities that followed Jamnia's decision did not know the reasons for Jamnia's decision. Luther, for instance, just thought that the Jamnia canon was "the" Jewish canon, and did not ask himself whether this canon wasn't formalized by Jews only after the advent of Christianity.

Alexander Pruss

In reply to message #9
 
I misunderstood--I guess Paul Younan's Church does accept the deuterocanonical OT books, so much of what I said in my last post in this thread has no point here. Alex

In reply to message #9
 
Shlama Alex,

Thank you for you very informative reply.

My post was dealing with the Peshitta translation of the OT done in Babylon, hundreds of years *before* Jamnia.

The work does indeed include many of the deutero-canonical works.

The Church of the East simply inherited this Babylonian/Adiabene Jewish version.

It was not bound by what happened at Jamnia.

The non-Messianic Jews in Babylon and Adiabene, however, were bound by the decision at Jamnia, but not the Church of the East, as we inherited this version prior to Jamnia.

Thanks again for all your informative posts.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Jews rejected the deuterocanonical works (Sirach,
>Tobit, the Greek parts of
>Esther) at the council of
>Jamnia around 90 A.D.
>They had two criteria for
>a canonical work that they
>applied:
> 1. Had to be in
>Hebrew/Aramaic.
> 2. Had to have been
>written in the 4th century
>BC or earlier.
>At least this is what I
>heard.
>
>Some Christian Churches in the East
>followed the Jewish canon under
>Jewish influence. However, we
>know that the criteria applied
>by Jamnia were quite flawed.
> First of all, #2
>rejects all of the New
>Testament right away! Why
>a Christian would accept Jamnia's
>decision given that Jamnia's criterion
>rejects the New Testament, I
>don't know. (In my
>view, #1 rejects most of
>the New Testament as well,
>but that's a different issue.)
> Also, some scholars say
>that parts of Daniel were
>written after the cut-off date.
> So, we need to
>scrap criterion #2. But
>once we do that, then
>we have no reason to
>reject Sirach and Tobit which
>were written in Hebrew and
>Aramaic, respectively. The Book
>of Wisdom might also have
>been written in a Semitic
>language. It is possible
>that Jamnia was trying to
>reject the Septuagint and some
>apocryphal apocalypses because it didn't
>like the use that Christians
>were putting it to.
>Thus, Jamnia's decisions might have
>been deliberately made in order
>to facilitate the rejection of
>Christianity.
>
>Given how flawed Jamnia was, it
>is sad that its decision
>should still be normative for
>many Protestants and, apparently, for
>Paul Younan's Church. There
>is a historical reason for
>this. At the time,
>the members of those Churches
>and ecclesial communities that followed
>Jamnia's decision did not know
>the reasons for Jamnia's decision.
> Luther, for instance, just
>thought that the Jamnia canon
>was "the" Jewish canon, and
>did not ask himself whether
>this canon wasn't formalized by
>Jews only after the advent
>of Christianity.
>
>Alexander Pruss

In reply to message #1
 
D'rishat Shalom Paul,

Although I respect your belief that Revelation is a Greek text and not of Aramaic, I must disagree.

I do not believe Revelation to be of Greek origin.
This can be found within the text itself. The language, and expressions are clearly of Semitic origins and not of Greek.

I feel that Revelation was originally written in Hebrew. As do I feel that Matti'yahu was originally written in Hebrew.

I believe that certains texts of the Ketuvim Netzerim were written in Hebrew, others in Aramaic, and all were translated into Greek.

With respect,

Shane Peace Christian

P.S. Shalom dear friend Andrew Roth.

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Shane,

I know what you are saying, I at one time also believed that Revelation may have been originally penned in Aramaic/Hebrew. But upon further study of the text itself and the history of the Church, I have come to this conclusion:

(1) If it indeed was written in a Semitic tongue, we no longer have that manuscript. We will have to wait for it to be discovered one day.

(2) The Peshitta has never contained this book, and the Aramaic translation of the Greek text was made hundreds of years later.

So, my problem is that there are too many instances of Greek grammar in Revelation *and* I have no manuscript witness to back up a claim of a Semitic original.

Also, I cannot include this book in my work here, because then I cannot call this work "Peshitta"....."Peshitta" only has 22 books. Also, my Church has never recognized or used this book in teaching or anything else. None of our patristic writings quotes from this book, nor any of the other 4 disputed books.

So I am in a very difficult situation, because many people in the West venerate Revelation as scripture.....but I cannot include it in this work, which is pure "Peshitta".....otherwise people will criticize me and say that I added books to the Peshitta which were never in this canon.

Anyway, even if Revelation was written in Hebrew originally, now we only have the Greek manuscripts to work with (and the Aramaic translation made from them in the 5th century)...so we can consult these versions if we have any questions about the book.

Thanks for your reply in the feedback section too, and please let me know if I can be of assistance to you in your work!

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>D'rishat Shalom Paul,
>
>Although I respect your belief that
>Revelation is a Greek text
>and not of Aramaic, I
>must disagree.
>
>I do not believe Revelation to
>be of Greek origin.
>This can be found within the
>text itself. The language,
>and expressions are clearly of
>Semitic origins and not of
>Greek.
>
>I feel that Revelation was originally
>written in Hebrew. As
>do I feel that Matti'yahu
>was originally written in Hebrew.
>
>
>I believe that certains texts of
>the Ketuvim Netzerim were written
>in Hebrew, others in Aramaic,
>and all were translated into
>Greek.
>
>With respect,
>
>Shane Peace Christian
>
>P.S. Shalom dear friend Andrew
>Roth.

In reply to message #14
 
Blessed Akhi Shane!!!! How have you been? It is so good to hear from you, since I have not seen you on the Nazarene forum in many weeks. Please email me privately if I can help with any other issues, or see me on nazarene or yahwist.

Let me interject a few little things here:

1) For myself, personally, it does not matter so much if a Hebrew or Aramaic primacist model is employed....the point is that the NT is SEMITIC and not Greek. There is so much inter lingual borrowing going on, such as with targums, or how many Hebrew OT words are Aramaic ones with Hebrew letters, etc, that it is hard to see where one begins and the other ends. A very good example: Check out Akhi Paul's analysis of Zacharya's Canticle and you will see how thoughts toggle seamlessly between the two languages.

2) However, what the Assyrian Church of the East DOES have is a reliable and unbroken chain of tradition regarding 22 of the NT Books. It is so deeply rooted in their culture and well attested to even in some Catholic writings that we can say this is the only SURVIVING original Semitic legacy from the apostolic age. As you know, dear Shane, Dr. Trimm even acknowledges the difficulty in recovering Matthew in Hebrew from that far back. This is not to say something is not going on with regards to Dutillet, but Dr. Trimm knows and has said so that the manuscripts we have are VERY LATE, and must be supplemented with ancient fragments and sparse testimonies. The Hebrew NT legacy appears then largely lost, but clearly did exist, but it is because of this that Dr. Trimm also uses the Aramaic Peshitta in his translation. I believe the well attested chain of tradition on the Aramaic side validates the one time existence of the Hebrew as well, but that linguistic cross pollenization from two such similar languages spoken by the same people for so many centuries is so prevalent as to make exclusivity on either side impossible. As I said, love it either way, they help each other.

3) As for Revelation, I know what you mean. I am not sure myself. Akhi Paul is right that the Greek is following classical (not koine, which had a more Semitic "twang" to it), but, on the other hand, other parts of it are clearly coming from a Semitic mindset. You know as well as I that 22:1-2 is proto-Kabblah, absolutely. It may be that the writer (who identifies himself as "John" but not directly as John the apostle, son of Zebedee, etc) was a Jew writing in Greek 20+ years after Jersualem fell and Jewish influence was at a low ebb. Or, and I think this more likely, this John wrote a Hebrew or Aramaic rough draft (as two scholarly articles that Dr. Trimm has attest to) but, as Paul says, the original was lost, and what we have now is some kind of oral Aramaic memory preserved in compositional classic Greek prose. I don't know, and I don't think we ever will find the answer.

4) It raises interesting problems for us Nazarenes who cling to the sanctity of Hebrew and Aramaic as exclusive divine vessels and yet support a canon that has 5 books whose Semitic pedigree compositionally is in question. I firmly believe that only original Hebrew/Aramaic books are God-breathed, but trasnaltions never are and can never be. Nevertheless, the more familar Greek NT trasnlations have saved the souls of more than a billion people, so clearly translations have their place. These 5 books then, while not God-breathed in their SURVIVING FORM may nevertheless descend from an original that was, and may contain in translation, core divine concepts and truths, just like how we are all probably saved by reading John 3:16 IN ENGLISH!

Hope this helps and please write back. You are always welcome.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth