Donate

The Judeo-Persian Bibles of the British Library

Feb. 14 2017

Much as the Jews of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East used the Hebrew alphabet to write in French, German (or Yiddish), and Arabic, Iranian Jews for centuries have produced religious literature in their vernacular but using Hebrew script. The British library contains one of the world’s largest collections of books in this language, some of which are described here by Ilana Tahan. (Photographs included at the link.)

Judeo-Persian manuscripts and imprints are . . . composed in a Persian dialect that closely resembles “classical” or “literary” Persian, combined with Hebrew words. The practice of writing the Persian language in Hebrew letters has been in use by Jews in Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia for over a millennium. . . .

The 1319 handwritten copy of Torat Mosheh . . . had been unknown in scholarly circles until its acquisition [by the library] in 1898. It has since been acknowledged as the earliest dated Judeo-Persian text of the Pentateuch. The manuscript has been copied on paper and has 124 folios; it is imperfect at the beginning and has many lacunae. For example, the first two chapters of Genesis and the whole of Exodus are missing. So are chapters from Leviticus and Numbers. . . .

Jacob Tavusi’s rendition, [first published in Constantinople in 1546], was long regarded as the oldest surviving Judeo-Persian translation of the Bible. The same text transcribed into Arabic script by Thomas Hyde was reprinted in the famed Bishop Brian Walton’s Polyglot, issued in London 1655-1657. The realization that earlier Judeo-Persian translations of the Scriptures pre-dating Tavusi’s had existed already and may have been used by Tavusi as models came only in the 19th century after the discovery of early Judeo-Persian biblical manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah.

Read more at British Library

More about: Hebrew Bible, History & Ideas, Iran, Language, Persian Jewry, Translation

In Dealing with Iran, the U.S. Can Learn from Ronald Reagan

When Ronald Reagan arrived at the White House in 1981, the consensus was that, with regard to the Soviet Union, two responsible policy choices presented themselves: détente, or a return to the Truman-era policy of containment. Reagan, however, insisted that the USSR’s influence could not just be checked but rolled back, and without massive bloodshed. A decade later, the Soviet empire collapsed entirely. In crafting a policy toward the Islamic Republic today, David Ignatius urges the current president to draw on Reagan’s success:

A serious strategy to roll back Iran would begin with Syria. The U.S. would maintain the strong military position it has established east of the Euphrates and enhance its garrison at Tanf and other points in southern Syria. Trump’s public comments suggest, however, that he wants to pull these troops out, the sooner the better. This would all but assure continued Iranian power in Syria.

Iraq is another key pressure point. The victory of militant Iraqi nationalist Moqtada al-Sadr in [last week’s] elections should worry Tehran as much as Washington. Sadr has quietly developed good relations with Saudi Arabia, and his movement may offer the best chance of maintaining an Arab Iraq as opposed to a Persian-dominated one. But again, that’s assuming that Washington is serious about backing the Saudis in checking Iran’s regional ambitions. . . .

The Arabs, [however], want the U.S. (or Israel) to do the fighting this time. That’s a bad idea for America, for many reasons, but the biggest is that there’s no U.S. political support for a war against Iran. . . .

Rolling back an aggressive rival seems impossible, until someone dares to try it.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Cold War, Iran, Politics & Current Affairs, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Foreign policy