Posts: 102
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
0
The "official" consensus seems to be that there are a couple of hundred years between OT and NT Peshitta. If that were indeed the case, then the language of the 2 must have some pretty distintive differences.
For example, in the case of English, one can easily spot significant language differences between KJV and NIV.
Is the language of OT much different than that of NT? What makes them think that the 2 are hundreds of years apart?
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
Shlama Borota.
The Aramaic of the OT is more Hebraic than that of the NT. By that I mean you can tell it was translated from Hebrew. Much in the same way the Greek NT is very Aramaic like.
You can tell from the very beginning in Genesis. You'll notice the subtle, yet obvious tendency to mimic the Hebrew sentence structure. In the peshitta verse, it reads:
Brasheeth bara Alaha yeth shmaya w'yeth araa
The yeth in the verse is not the type of Aramaic you find in the new testament. It is used there in emulation of the Hebrew eth:
Brasheeth bara Elohim eth shmayim w'eth aaratz
See the translation is very faithful to the word order of the Hebrew. In the Aramaic of the NT this would have been written this way in a more natural aramaic:
Brasheeth bara Alaha l'shmaya w'al'araa
Using the lamed proclitic to mark the object of the perfect verb.
What I mean to say is that the aramaic of the OT isn't necessarily older. Its just translational Aramaic. This is very obvious in many places.
Shamasha Paul.
