Peter J. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, Gorgias Press, Piscataway NJ, 2004, xvi + 339 pages (Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, Third Series, Volume 2), ISBN 1-59333-096-0. $65.00
Jan
Joosten
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2005
Vol. 8, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv8n2prjoosten
Jan Joosten
Peter J. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, Gorgias Press, Piscataway NJ, 2004, xvi + 339 pages (Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, Third Series, Volume 2), ISBN 1-59333-096-0. $65.00
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol8/HV8N2PRJoosten.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 8
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Textual Criticism
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] Using a
translated text in textual criticism creates many
complications: before any collation can be made, the translated
text needs to be ‘retroverted’ into the original
language; only then can questions of relative priority and
textual history be addressed. Retroversion is hard to
accomplish and always leaves a margin of doubt. The problem is
particularly palpable in textual criticism of the Old
Testament, where chance has it that some of the main textual
witnesses—notably the Septuagint—are translations.
In OT research, the need to establish the ‘translation
technique’ characterizing a given textual unit is well
recognized (although perhaps not universally applied). A large
body of research on the translation technique of the Septuagint
exists, comprehending both theoretical considerations and
extensive studies of detail.
[2] Textual
criticism of the New Testament is relatively less dependent on
versional evidence. Thousands of Greek manuscripts are
attested, representing a wide variety of textual types and
reaching back as far as the second century. Nevertheless, the
ancient translations of the New Testament do have something to
offer. The roots of the Latin and Syriac versions go back to
the second century (although the manuscripts are not earlier
than the fourth century, and transmit much material that is
later than the second century). These two versions also attest,
often jointly, many readings that are absent from the Greek
tradition or extant only in a small group of manuscripts
(notably the famous codex D).
[3] As in
the field of OT textual criticism, so in the NT, caution should
be observed in using the versions. A reading attested in a
version is not equivalent to a reading in a Greek manuscript.
In certain cases, an apparent variant in a version may go back
to a Greek variant; but one can never entirely exclude the
possibility that the variant was created during the process of
translation. Many striking deviations in the versions have no
other source than the linguistic or stylistic requirements of
the target language. The present study by Peter Williams is
devoted to the identification of such translational deviations
in the Old Syriac and Peshitta versions of the Gospels. Where
detailed research can establish that a certain type of
variation regularly occurs in the Syriac versions, these
versions may no longer be quoted as evidence for the said
variation in Greek manuscripts.
[4] A good
example is provided by one of the first investigations offered
in the book, the addition of the name Jesus (pp. 24-37). There
is a noticeable tendency in both the Peshitta and Old Syriac to
add this name where the Greek has a mere pronoun. For instance,
in Matt 4:21, the Greek manuscripts read: “he called them
(i.e., the sons of Zebedee)”, but the Curetonian Old
Syriac reads: “Jesus called them”. Since this
tendency is very marked, it is methodologically unsound to
quote the Syriac versions in support of Greek manuscripts
having the same addition. In Matt 8:3, “he touched
him”, many Greek manuscripts read: “Jesus touched
him”. The latter reading is found also in the Peshitta
and the Old Syriac. Yet there is no way of knowing whether the
Syriac versions reflect a Greek text having the addition of the
proper noun (in which case they would count as textual
evidence), or whether the addition of the name Jesus was made
by the translators (in which case the Syriac reading lays no
weight in the scales). In Williams’ study, the addition
of the name Jesus is fully documented and extensively
discussed, leaving little room for doubt as to the
text-critical implications of the phenomenon.
[5] In six
chapters, many other phenomena are studied in the same detailed
way: addition and omission of proper nouns, common nouns and
pronouns; changes regarding articles, particles and adverbs;
grammatical variants such as alteration in number, person,
voice or tense; questions of word order; variations in words of
speech, and miscellanea. Some brief “rules for the use of
Syriac in NT textual criticism” are spelled out in
appendix 1, while a second appendix lists a large number of
suggested corrections to the apparatus of Nestle-Aland’s
27th edition of the NT text.
[6] The book
will be very useful for the small number of specialists whose
business it is to produce critical editions of the NT text. One
may expect future editions of Nestle-Aland’s editio
minor to omit a large number references to the Syriac
versions. In a few cases, the elimination of the Syriac
witnesses may change the balance of probability and lead to
some adjustment in the establishment of the critical text.
[7] For all
those who are not into the composing of critical apparatuses of
the gospel text, the usefulness of the book is less immediate.
Indeed, the kind of textual phenomena treated in this work
almost never have exegetical implications. Since the mere
pronoun ‘he’ and the proper noun
‘Jesus’ clearly have the same referent in Matt 8:3,
the interpretation of the passage will change little whichever
reading is adopted. This is not to say Williams’ work is
uninteresting. Much can be learnt on the workings of the Syriac
language, on the attitude of the Syriac translators to their
source, on the history of the text of the New Testament. But on
all these points, the reader must go, so to say, beyond the
limits the book has set itself.
[8] Nowhere
in this monograph is it stated explicitly that the
text-critical value of the Syriac versions of the gospels is
small. Nevertheless, by disqualifying so many readings attested
in the Syriac, the argument may in the end raise doubts as to
the very worth of these versions. It is only justice, then, to
point out that many striking readings occurring in the Peshitta
and, especially, in the Old Syriac gospels cannot, in fact, be
accounted for simply by their translation technique. A good
example is found in John 3:18, where the Sinaitic Old Syriac
alone reads ‘the chosen son’ against the Greek
manuscripts’ ‘the only son’. Being
either unattested in the Greek tradition, or attested only in
codex D, many of these readings are regarded with utmost
suspicion by textual critics of the NT. Yet it would be right
to restore them to our critical apparatuses, so as not to lose
sight completely of the potential contribution of the versions
to the history of the text of the New Testament.