Considerations in Rendering ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ in a Church Bible

0. Introduction

In preparing a translation of the Syriac Bible to English for the modern church, translation issues arise.1 One such issue is how to render the expression ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the sea of Suph,” found in both the Old and New Testaments.2 In this essay, I will examine the problem historically and then offer a solution. The essay will move from the original translations through the native commentators to the lexicographers. Roughly speaking, the Peshitta Old Testament was made in the second century from the Hebrew.3 By contrast, the Peshitta New Testament came into being about the fifth century.4 While there was undoubtedly an older Syriac translation of the New Testament, it is not extant for the relevant books, namely Acts and Hebrews.5 So, how did native Syriac speakers understand the term at the translation stage and did this understanding change over time?

1. The Original Translations

The second century translators of the Old Testament did not fully understand the meaning of יַם־סוּף, the Hebrew construction consisting of a noun in construct state followed by another noun in the absolute state. In keeping with other such constructions, they rendered it as ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the sea of Suph,” understanding סוּף to be a proper noun. This is in agreement with the rendering of other geographic terms like גַּן־עֵדֶן “the garden of Eden” rendered as ܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܕܥܕܢ “the paradise of Eden” (Gen 3:23), אֶרֶץ־מִדְיָן “the land of Midian” translated as ܐܪܥܐ ܕܡܕܝܢ “the land of Midian” (Exod 2:15), מִדְבַּר־סִין “the wilderness of Sin” expressed as ܡܕܒܪܐ ܕܣܝܢ “the wilderness of Sin” (Exod 17:1), הַר סִינַי “the mountain of Sinai” put as ܛܘܪܐ ܕܣܝܢܝ “the mountain of Sinai” (Exod 24:16), נְהַר מִצְרַיִם “the river of Egypt” expressed by ܢܗܪܐ ܕܡܨܪܝܢ “the river of Egypt” (Gen 15:18), and מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם “the vicinity of Shechem” phrased as ܐܬܪܐ ܕܫܟܝܡ “the vicinity of Shechem” (Gen 12:6).

Furthermore, this is in harmony with the renderings of יָם־כִּנֶּרֶת “the Sea of Kinnereth” and יָם כִּנְרוֹת “the Sea of Kinneroth” as ܝܡܐ ܕܟܢܪܬ “the Sea of Kinnereth” (Num 34:11 and Josh 12:3 respectively), and יָם יַעְזֵר “the Sea of Jazer” as ܝܡܐ ܕܝܥܙܝܪ “the Sea of Jazer” (Jer 48:32). Although in these cases the noun יָם is vocalized in Hebrew with qametz, allowing for the interpretation of the collocation as an apposition, the grammarians Takamitsu Muraoka and Paul Joüon consider the form יָם as being in the construct state, noting that the only time that the form יַם is used in Hebrew is in the collocation יַם־סוּף.6 Moreover, the Syriac translator had no problem with the directional he intervening between יָם and its nomen rectum in וַיִּתְקָעֵהוּ יָםָּה סּוּף taken over as ܘܐܪܡܝܬܗ ܒܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “and (the wind) cast it (the locust) into the sea of Suph” (Exod 10:19). Again, when the nomen rectum is a common noun, it comes in the status emphaticus as in יָם הַמֶּלַח “the sea of salt” rendered as ܝܡܐ ܕܡܠܚܐ “the sea of salt” (Gen 14:3).

As well, compare: לְשׁוֹן יָם־מִצְרַיִם “the tongue of the sea of Egypt” encoded as ܠܫܢ ܝܡܐ ܕܒܡܨܪܝܢ “the tongue of the sea that is in Egypt” (Isa 11:15) and אֶל־יָם יָפוֹא “to the sea of Joppa” realized as ܠܝܡܐ ܠܝܘܦܐ “to the sea, to Joppa” (Ezra 3:7). Here, the translators demonstrate flexibility in conveying the meaning to the target audience.

Apart from the collocation יַם־סוּף, the word סוּף appears by itself as a geographic designation once (Deut 1:1). There, the Old Greek offers πλησίον τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς “near the red” for the Hebrew מוֹל סוּף, apparently understanding this סוּף to be a reference to the Red Sea. Thus, NETS translates the phrase as “near the Red Sea.” Some Greek text witnesses in fact explicitly read πλησίον τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης “near the Red Sea.” Targum Onqelos agrees with this interpretation of סוּף, rendering it as יַם סוּף “the Sea of Suph.” Targum Neofiti, Cairo Geniza manuscript Br, and the Fragment Targums concur with Targum Onqelos in identifying this סוּף as the sea through which the children of Israel passed.7

Knowledge of the Greek rendering ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα “the Red Sea” was not widely known among the Syrians8 until the translation of the Greek Old Testament, known to us as the Syrohexpla. In that translation, made in 616-17 at the Enaton monastery near Alexandria, Egypt, Paul of Tella used ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea” as the reflex of θάλασσα ἐρυθρὰ “the Red Sea.” In Deut 1:1, Paul renders ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea,”9 supporting the Greek variant τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης “(near) the Red Sea.”

Now, there are three or possible four places in the Old Testament where Hebrew סוּף indicates a water plant. Richard D. Patterson has called attention to these passages, stating that סוּף is “a general term for marshplants.”10 In Exod 2:3 and 5, Patterson glosses it as “marsh reeds,” in Isa 19:6 as “rushes,” and in Jonah 2:6 as “seaweed.” He also renders the Hebrew collocation יַם סוּף as “sea of reeds.” What is interesting for this study is that the Peshitta finds appropriate words to translate these passages, never using the word ܣܘܦ. In Exodus, the Peshitta uses the word ܪܩܩܐ “a shallow,” in Isaiah the word ܦܦܝܪܘܢ “papyrus,” and in Jonah the phrase ܒܐܫܬܗ ܕܝܡܐ “at the bottom of the sea.” There is, therefore, no indication that the translator of Peshitta Exodus understood the סוּף of יַם־סוּף as a water plant. One could say the same for Onqelos and its twin Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. In Exodus, Onqelos translates the סוּף of Exodus 2 as יַעְרָא “rushes.” Jonathan renders it as גוֹמַא “papyrus reed” in Isaiah, but understands the סוּף of Jonah 2:6 to be a reference to the Sea of Suph (יַמָא דְסוּף ). Similarly, the Palestinian targums Neofiti and the Fragment Targums rendered סוּף of Exodus 2 as אפרה “grassy area.”11

The early fifth century translators of the Peshitta New Testament at Acts 7:36 and Heb 11:29 substituted the Old Testament expression ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the sea of Suph” for the Greek ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα “the Red Sea,” rather than translate it as ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea.” The reference to the Exodus in both of these verses is patently clear. Their translation strategy of substitution, that is, using the expression that appears in their Old Testament, removed any apparent discrepancy with the Peshitta Old Testament. It was not until the translation of Thomas of Harkl, made at the same time and in the same place as the Old Testament translation of Paul of Tella, that the reading ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea” entered the Syriac New Testament. Thomas rendered ποιήσας τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ “doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and at the Red Sea” as ܟܕ ܥܒ̣ܕ ܐܬܘ̈ܬܐ ܘܬܕܡܪ̈ܬܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܕܡܨܪܝܢ ܘܒܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “doing signs and wonders in the land of Egypt and at the Red Sea” (Acts 7:36). From his translation, Thomas could have had σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα “signs and wonders” in his Vorlage rather than τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα “wonders and signs.” His rendering ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܥܒܪܘ ܒܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܐܝܣܪܐܝܠ ܠܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “By faith the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea” (Heb 11:29) apparently goes back to the Greek πίστει διέβησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν “By faith the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea.”12 In his edition of the Greek New Testament, Hermann Freiherr von Soden records this plus of the expressed subject οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ as appearing in one thirteenth century miniscule.13

2. The Commentators

The ninth century Ishodad of Merv dealt with the understanding of the term ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ in his commentary on Exod 15:4. It is clear that he had no straightforward answer to what the word ܣܘܦ meant. He states that the sea in question had two names, one ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea” ala the Greek and the other ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the sea of Suph” as found in the Peshitta. Some, he says, do not give any special meaning to the terms — the place was just called that. Others explain that the sea was called ܕܣܘܦ because Pharaoh and his forces came to an end (ܣܦܘ) there, similar to ‏ܢܬܩܪܐ ܢܚܠܐ ܕܣܘܦܢܗ ܕܓܘܓ “It will be called the valley of the destruction of Gog” (Ezek 39:11). And these same exegetes would say that the sea was called ܣܘܡܩܐ “red” because of the blood of those of the house of Pharaoh who perished in it. Their interpretation of ܣܘܦ is rooted in etymology, deriving the term from ܣܘܦ “come to an end”; their interpretation of ܣܘܡܩܐ “red” stems from association with blood. Still others had another interpretation of ܣܘܦ, also rooted in etymology via the root ܣܘܦ “come to an end.” At that place, they say, the tongue of the sea of the Indians comes to an end (ܫܿܠܡ ܘܣܿܐܦ). Yet others, using the same etymology, assert that nothing moves in it, but when they come to that tongue they turn back, whether fish or anything else. In his comments, Ishodad does not mention any connection with flora that grows in wetlands.

In his commentary on Deut 1:1, Ishodad brings the view of a certain Michael on the meaning of ܠܘܩܒܠ ܣܘܦ “opposite Suph.” Michael explains that ܣܘܦ means ܝܡܐ ܕܡܠܚܐ “the Salt Sea.” In the margin of Ishodad’s commentary, someone added the following: ܝܘܢܝܐ ... ܚܠܦ ܟܠ ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ. ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ ܐܿܡܪ “The Greek reads ‘the Red Sea’ in every instance of ‘the Sea of Suph’.” In her translation of this verse, Carmel McCarthy renders ܠܘܩܒܠ ܣܘܦ as “opposite Suph.”14

The thirteenth century polymath Barhebraeus discusses the term ܣܘܦ in his commentary on Exod 15:4.15 He comments as follows: ܒܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ ܝܘ̄ ܒܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ ܗ̄ ܕܣܘܦ ܐܬܩܼܪܝ. ܒܕܣܘܦܐ ܗܘ ܕܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ ܕܒܬܝܡܢ ܥܡܪܬܐ. ܘܐܝܟ ܠܫܢܐ ܡܿܬܚ ܠܐܦ̈ܝ ܡܨܪܝܢ ܘܡܣܬܝܟ ܟܪ ܕܥܒܪܘ ܥܒܪ̈ܝܐ. ܐܝܟܐ ܕܡ̈ܐܬܝܢ ܡ̈ܝܠܐ ܗܘ ܦܬܝܗ “In the sea of Suph. The Greek: In the Red Sea. It was called Suph because it was the end of the Red Sea that is in the south of the inhabited area, and like a tongue it stretches towards Egypt and ends where the Hebrews crossed, where its breadth is two hundred miles.” So, for Barhebraeus, ܣܘܦ was a geographic term derived etymologically from the root “to end,” due to the fact that it was the end of the sea as it jutted into Egypt. It coincided with what the Greeks termed “the Red Sea.”

3. Lexicography

4. Antioch Bible Contributors’ Renderings of ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ

Translators of different books of the Bible handled the expression ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ in different ways. For Exodus, Mark R. Meyer consistently renders the expression as “the Sea of Suph” (Exod 10:19; 13:18; 15:4, 22; 23:31).24 By contrast, for Numbers, Edward M. Cook translates ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ as “the Reed Sea” (Num 14:25) and “the Sea of Reeds” (Num 21:4; 33:10-11).25 Similarly in Deuteronomy, Carmel McCarthy phrases it as “the Sea of Reeds” (Deut 1:40; 2:1; 11:4).26 Gillian Greenberg and Donald M. Walter consistently render ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ as “the Sea of Suph” in Joshua (Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6),27 as “the sea of Suph” in Judges (Jud 11:16)28, and again as “the Sea of Suph” in 1 Kings.29 For Psalms, Richard A. Taylor uses “the Sea of Reeds” as his slot translation (Ps 106:7, 9, 22; 135[MT 136]:13, 15). In Jdt 5:13, Walter, Greenberg, and Eric Tully use “the Sea of Suph” as their translation.30 In sum, the most prominent translations in the Old Testament are “the Sea of Suph” and “the Sea of Reeds.”

While an early error entered the Syriac text tradition at 2 Chron 2:16 (MT 15) as ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the Sea of Suph” as attested by the only reading found in the Leiden edition,31 the Antioch Bible correctly reads ܝܡܐ ܕܝܘܦܐ “the sea of Joppa,” a reading confirmed by the Hebrew יָם יָפוֹ “the sea of Joppa.”32 The translations of Neh 9:9 and 1 Macc 4:9 have yet to appear in print.

Turning to the New Testament, Robert Kitchen offers the rendition “the Red Sea” for ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ in the text, but adds a footnote stating that it literally means “sea of reeds.”33 In Heb 11:29, Daniel King and J. Edward Walters render ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ as “the Red Sea” without any footnote.34 These renderings ignore the Syriac and slot in a contemporary traditional translation based on the Greek.

5. Conclusion

Historically speaking, the translators of the Peshitta Bible understood the word ܣܘܦ in the collocation ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ to be a proper noun, that is, “The Sea of Suph.” The translators of the New Testament borrowed the Old Testament term ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ “the Sea of Suph” to bring harmony to the text of Scripture, rather than translating the Greek ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα “the Red Sea,” as ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea.” It was not until the translations of Paul of Tella and Thomas of Harkl that the term ܝܡܐ ܣܘܡܩܐ “the Red Sea” entered Syriac literature. Later interpreters tried to add meaning to the text by explaining the term ܣܘܦ etymologically, connecting it to the root ܣܘܦ “come to an end.” For some, it was where the Egyptian hordes came to an end. For others, it was where the sea came to an end as its tongue extended into Egypt. No one connected it to river fauna. Only in modern times have native speakers of Syriac followed the view that ܣܘܦ is equivalent to an Egyptian word meaning “papyus,” a water plant. While British scholars quickly embraced the suggestion, Carl Brockelmann did not. But since both Toma Audo and Jacques-Eugene Manna accept the view that ܣܘܦ means “papyrus,” it is permissible to translate ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ as “the Reed Sea” or the like in a modern church Bible, even though the ancient translators and interpreters of the Bible did not recognize it as such. My personal preference would be to render ܝܡܐ ܕܣܘܦ as “the Sea of Suph” in the Antioch Bible, adding the modern understanding in a footnote. For the New Testament, the note should read that the New Testament translators substituted the Old Testament expression “the Sea of Suph” rather than translated the Greek “the Red Sea.”