Erbes, Johann E., The Peshitta and the Versions: A Study of the Peshitta Variants in Joshua 1-5 in Relation to Their Equivalents in the Ancient Versions (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 16; Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 1999).
Craig E.
Morrison
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2007
Vol. 10, No. 1
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/hv10n1prmorrison
Craig E. Morrison
Erbes, Johann E., The Peshitta and the Versions: A Study of the Peshitta Variants in Joshua 1-5 in Relation to Their Equivalents in the Ancient Versions (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 16; Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 1999).
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol10/HV10N1PRMorrison.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 10
issue 1
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
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] The
question of the relationship of the OT Peshitta to the other
ancient versions continues to capture the interest of Peshitta
scholars. While past research indicates that the Peshitta is,
for the most part, an independent translation of a Hebrew
Vorlage, this conclusion still needs to be refined for
each book of the Bible. The problem stems from the uncertain
origins of the OT Peshitta. It is not unreasonable to presume
that the Peshitta translator, working from a Hebrew text, also
consulted a Greek version of the Bible and perhaps a Jewish
Aramaic version as well. To further complicate matters, the
first manuscript evidence is a good three centuries after the
translation emerged. By that point, the Peshitta, which may
have been the work of Jewish translators, was firmly in the
hands of Syriac speaking Christians who knew the Greek Bible.
One line of inquiry into the Peshitta’s character
involves the study of the relationship between the Peshitta
with other versions of the Bible. It is within this arena that
Erbes' dissertation, presented to the faculty of Semitic
Languages at Uppsala University, situates itself.
[2] At the
outset, Erbes asks the question: “How does the Peshitta
sphere relate to the Jewish sphere, the Septuagint sphere, and
the Vulgate?” (p. 24). He wants to uncover evidence of
versional influence (especially the Septuagint) on the
Peshitta. The bulk of his volume presents a verse by verse
analysis of the variant readings in the Peshitta of Joshua 1-5.
Even the most minor Peshitta divergences are discussed. The
first reading he treats is the question of the waw on
wy’mr in the MT of Josh 1:1 which the
Peshitta renders ‘mr (“he
said”). He notes that the Syriac tradition uniformly
reads ‘mr (without waw). He then
provides a retroversion of the MT(wy’mr) into
Syriac (w’mr). One could quibble as to whether
this retroversion is even possible in Syriac as it produces a
rather “unsyriac” construction (the verb
‘mr in Josh 1:1 introduces the main clause after
the subordinate clause introduced with wmn btr
d). He then discusses the versional evidence for the
waw (the Targum and some Greek versions reflect the
waw). Erbes concludes that the “absence of the
waw is idiomatically the equivalent of the Masoretic
Text” (p. 60) and that the Peshitta is free from
versional influence. The study proceeds in this fashion,
considering every variation between the MT and the Peshitta in
Joshua 1-5.
[3] The
discussions at the end of each variant studied reveal that most
often the Peshitta offers an independent reading. Some variants
are so minor that they defy explanation. But Erbes tries
anyhow. He suggests that the variant word order in some
Peshitta MSS in Josh 1:4, stresses the proper name of the river
“Euphrates,” “triggered by the relative
proximity of the translator to it.” His competent study
would not have been compromised had such imaginative
explanations been left aside. Sometimes Peshitta readings are
treated in isolation, such as the translation ‘yk
dbzq’ for Hebrew nd (Josh 3:16). Erbes
suggests that the Peshitta reading “is possibly an
adapted translation of the Hebrew ‘dam’ or a
misreading with a Mishnaic background” (p. 219). Both
explanations are possible, but it should be acknowledged that
the Peshitta translation for this Hebrew term also appears in
Exod 15:8 and Pss 33:7 and 78:13.
[4] As
Peshitta scholars will be interested in the results of this
technical research, I offer a summary below:
The Peshitta normally follows the MT.
The Peshitta rarely follows the Septuagint./li>
The Targum did not influence the Peshitta.
The Peshitta-Ethiopic parallels suggest direct contact or
contact through a lost Septuagint MS.
Most unique Peshitta readings can be explained by
translation technique.
[5] More
than once the author acknowledges the quantitative limitations
of his research. But the copious data Erbes presents witnesses
to his ardent search for even the most minor trace of influence
from these versions on the Peshitta. For this reason his
conclusions are well founded.