01-29-2004, 01:48 AM
Shlama all--
Here's something I find curious...
How is it the Peshitta Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 transliterates the direct object pointer ET (spelling it phonetically as yodh-taw, as opposed to alap-taw)???
I mean, it is obvious to all here that the Peshitta Tanakh is a translation from Hebrew, but why render the direct object pointer when it is not even extant to their language? As far as I am aware--correct me if I am wrong--the direct object pointer is unique to Hebrew.
I think also the Peshitta Tanakh is an incredibly underestimated biblical study tool that can, in many cases, reinforce the Masoretic Text since we know the former is about 2000 years old as opposed to the MT being standardized in the Middle Ages.
What do you all think?
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Here's something I find curious...
How is it the Peshitta Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 transliterates the direct object pointer ET (spelling it phonetically as yodh-taw, as opposed to alap-taw)???
I mean, it is obvious to all here that the Peshitta Tanakh is a translation from Hebrew, but why render the direct object pointer when it is not even extant to their language? As far as I am aware--correct me if I am wrong--the direct object pointer is unique to Hebrew.
I think also the Peshitta Tanakh is an incredibly underestimated biblical study tool that can, in many cases, reinforce the Masoretic Text since we know the former is about 2000 years old as opposed to the MT being standardized in the Middle Ages.
What do you all think?
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth