Problem . The dilemma of the Syriac version is its mysterious provenance and the direct relationship it may have to the other versions (particularly G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan]). Thus some scholars have automatically discarded or ignored the Peshitta version as a useful tool (as a textual witness) for the study of the Hebrew text. The knowledge of textual problems, in this case the relationship of S [Peshitta Version] to the ancient versions, is of extreme importance in the analysis and study of the Hebrew Bible. The awareness of G [Septuagint], CJ [Targum Jonathan], and M [Masoretic Text] employed in the textual composition of S [Peshitta Version] will help in exegetic, semantic, and linguistic studies of the Old Testament.
Method . Critical editions of the OT with their apparatus constitute the basic database for this study. This work consists of a comparative, analytic, and evaluative study of the Peshitta version of Ezekiel in relationship to the ancient versions (G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan] and to M [Masoretic Text]. The study covers the first twelve chapters of Ezekiel, but only those readings in the S [Peshitta Version] that indicate a probable relationship to an external source are taken into consideration.
Conclusion . S [Peshitta Version] (Ezek 1-12) was based on a Hebrew text similar to that of M [Masoretic Text], and any relationship to another ancient version can be explained as a mere coincidence or by the use of a common translation technique. In this case S [Peshitta Version] is useful as a tool in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, for it is a valuable witness to a Hebrew consonantal text very similar to M [Masoretic Text].
","abstract_html":"<p><em>Problem</em> . The dilemma of the Syriac version is its mysterious provenance and the direct relationship it may have to the other versions (particularly <strong>G </strong>[Septuagint] and <strong>C</strong><sup>J </sup>[Targum Jonathan]). Thus some scholars have automatically discarded or ignored the Peshitta version as a useful tool (as a textual witness) for the study of the Hebrew text. The knowledge of textual problems, in this case the relationship of<em> </em><strong>S</strong> [Peshitta Version] to the ancient versions, is of extreme importance in the analysis and study of the Hebrew Bible. The awareness of <strong>G </strong>[Septuagint], <strong>C</strong><sup>J </sup>[Targum Jonathan], and <strong>M</strong> [Masoretic Text] employed in the textual composition of <strong>S</strong> [Peshitta Version] will help in exegetic, semantic, and linguistic studies of the Old Testament.</p> <p><em>Method</em> . Critical editions of the OT with their apparatus constitute the basic database for this study. This work consists of a comparative, analytic, and evaluative study of the Peshitta version of Ezekiel in relationship to the ancient versions (<strong>G</strong> [Septuagint] and <strong>C</strong><sup>J </sup>[Targum Jonathan] and to <strong>M </strong>[Masoretic Text]. The study covers the first twelve chapters of Ezekiel, but only those readings in the <strong>S</strong> [Peshitta Version] that indicate a probable relationship to an external source are taken into consideration.</p> <p><em>Conclusion</em> . <strong>S</strong> [Peshitta Version] (Ezek 1-12) was based on a Hebrew text similar to that of <strong>M </strong>[Masoretic Text], and any relationship to another ancient version can be explained as a mere coincidence or by the use of a common translation technique. In this case <strong>S</strong> [Peshitta Version] is useful as a tool in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, for it is a valuable witness to a Hebrew consonantal text very similar to <strong>M </strong>[Masoretic Text].</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Azevedo, Joaquim"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Religion, Old Testament Studies PhD","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Leona G. Running","Richard M. Davidson","W. Larry Richards"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1999,"date_issued":"1999-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"1999-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:34Z","subjects":["Classical Literature and Philology","Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/11","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Leona G. Running","Richard M. Davidson","W. Larry Richards"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Azevedo, Joaquim"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Religion, Old Testament Studies PhD"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Classical Literature and Philology","Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/11"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Problem . The dilemma of the Syriac version is its mysterious provenance and the direct relationship it may have to the other versions (particularly G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan]). Thus some scholars have automatically discarded or ignored the Peshitta version as a useful tool (as a textual witness) for the study of the Hebrew text. The knowledge of textual problems, in this case the relationship of S [Peshitta Version] to the ancient versions, is of extreme importance in the analysis and study of the Hebrew Bible. The awareness of G [Septuagint], CJ [Targum Jonathan], and M [Masoretic Text] employed in the textual composition of S [Peshitta Version] will help in exegetic, semantic, and linguistic studies of the Old Testament.
Method . Critical editions of the OT with their apparatus constitute the basic database for this study. This work consists of a comparative, analytic, and evaluative study of the Peshitta version of Ezekiel in relationship to the ancient versions (G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan] and to M [Masoretic Text]. The study covers the first twelve chapters of Ezekiel, but only those readings in the S [Peshitta Version] that indicate a probable relationship to an external source are taken into consideration.
Conclusion . S [Peshitta Version] (Ezek 1-12) was based on a Hebrew text similar to that of M [Masoretic Text], and any relationship to another ancient version can be explained as a mere coincidence or by the use of a common translation technique. In this case S [Peshitta Version] is useful as a tool in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, for it is a valuable witness to a Hebrew consonantal text very similar to M [Masoretic Text].
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Textual Relation of the Peshitta of Ezekiel 1-12 to MT and to the Ancient Versions (Tg-J and LXX)"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Leona G. Running","Richard M. Davidson","W. Larry Richards"],"dc:creator":["Azevedo, Joaquim"],"dc:description.abstract":["Problem . The dilemma of the Syriac version is its mysterious provenance and the direct relationship it may have to the other versions (particularly G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan]). Thus some scholars have automatically discarded or ignored the Peshitta version as a useful tool (as a textual witness) for the study of the Hebrew text. The knowledge of textual problems, in this case the relationship of S [Peshitta Version] to the ancient versions, is of extreme importance in the analysis and study of the Hebrew Bible. The awareness of G [Septuagint], CJ [Targum Jonathan], and M [Masoretic Text] employed in the textual composition of S [Peshitta Version] will help in exegetic, semantic, and linguistic studies of the Old Testament.
Method . Critical editions of the OT with their apparatus constitute the basic database for this study. This work consists of a comparative, analytic, and evaluative study of the Peshitta version of Ezekiel in relationship to the ancient versions (G [Septuagint] and CJ [Targum Jonathan] and to M [Masoretic Text]. The study covers the first twelve chapters of Ezekiel, but only those readings in the S [Peshitta Version] that indicate a probable relationship to an external source are taken into consideration.
Conclusion . S [Peshitta Version] (Ezek 1-12) was based on a Hebrew text similar to that of M [Masoretic Text], and any relationship to another ancient version can be explained as a mere coincidence or by the use of a common translation technique. In this case S [Peshitta Version] is useful as a tool in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, for it is a valuable witness to a Hebrew consonantal text very similar to M [Masoretic Text].
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/11"],"dc:subject":["Classical Literature and Philology","Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion"],"dc:title":["The Textual Relation of the Peshitta of Ezekiel 1-12 to MT and to the Ancient Versions (Tg-J and LXX)"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Religion, Old Testament Studies PhD"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:34Z"}