Third Peshitta Symposium, Leiden, 12-15 August 2001
Terry C.
Falla
Whitley College, University of Melbourne
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2002
Vol. 5, 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/hv5n1crfalla
Terry C. FALLA
Third Peshitta Symposium, Leiden, 12-15 August 2001
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol5/HV5N1CRFalla.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2002
vol 5
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
Peshitta
Conferences
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
Introduction
[1] The
third Peshitta Symposium combined all the features that make a
conference worthwhile, enjoyable, and memorable, and was a
great credit to its conveners, Bas ter Haar Romeny and Konrad
Jenner. It was held at the beautifully wooded Oud-Poelgeest
Estate with its moated castle and twenty-three acred walks only
ten minutes from the centre of Leiden. The conveners seemed to
spare no effort to care for the needs of the participants and
ensure that the academic focus of the symposium would be of the
highest standard. The meeting ended with a superb dinner hosted
by E.J. Brill.
[2] The
published theme of the symposium was The Peshitta: Its Use
in Literature and Liturgy. The aim was to gain a more
detailed and comprehensive picture of the textual history of
the Peshitta of the Old Testament by discussing its
preservation in the patristic literature of the Syriac
churches. In the words of the conveners, "As much progress has
been made on the Syriac Fathers …, it is time to see
where we stand: what has been done so far in this respect, what
should be done, and how can we integrate the results of this
research into the picture that has been formed on the basis of
Bible manuscripts." This focus intentionally embraced related
issues such as the development of the Peshitta text as "an
event within the history of the Syrian Churches," and "the way
the Peshitta was received and assessed by its users, whether in
exegetical or historical literature or in liturgy." Attention
to the New Testament was also welcomed as an inseparable part
of the symposium's focused exploration.
[3] Three
excellent keynote lectures were presented by Lucas Van Rompay,
Between the School and the Monk's Cell: The Syriac
Commentary Tradition; Sebastian Brock, The Use of the
Syriac Versions in the Liturgy; and Bill Petersen,
Problems in the Syriac New Testament and How Syrian Exegetes
Solved Them. The first evening ended with a slide
presentation by Mat Immerzeel on The Cross on the Banner:
Christian wall Paintings in Lebanon and Syria.
[4] The
abstracts of all thirty papers are presented in full and
arranged alphabetically according to author. In this way, the
reader will gain the author's own pre-publication perspective
of her or his paper. Authors were invited to submit
post-symposium revisions, and in consequence, some abstracts
differ from those published in the symposium handbook.
[5] The
symposium also included a Peshitta Institute report on the
progress of the Peshitta Programme, and a general discussion of
the New Annotated Translation of the Syriac Bible (NEATS). The
former, prepared by Konrad Jenner, is presented at the very end
of this report.
Paper Abstracts
The Use of the Syriac Versions in the Liturgy
Sebastian
Brock, University of Oxford
[6] The
paper was divided into two parts, the first concerning direct
use (in biblical readings), and the second on indirect use
(technical terms of biblical origin, allusions etc.).
The first part concentrated on the developments over the
centuries in how texts intended for liturgical reading were
presented. Five main stages in this development were identified
in the manuscript tradition.
The second part looked at three different aspects: (1) some
liturgical terms specific to the Syriac tradition which had
their origins in the Syriac biblical text. Here the following
terms were covered: rushma (< Ezek 9:4), rahhep (< Gen
1:2), aggen (< Luke 1:35, John 1:14), shra (with possible
links with the Palestinian Targum tradition) and the biblical
sources for lbesh pagra and similar phraseology. (2) The
textual basis for certain terms and phrases. Here the following
were discussed: Christ as the "Ancient of Days"; the title
"King Messiah"; various phraseological links with the
Palestinian Targum tradition; "the bars of Sheol" (replacing
"the gates" in Matt 16:18); and "the bridal chamber" (replacing
"the wedding feast" in Matt 25:10). (3) Some exegetical
aspects. Here a few examples were given of the deliberate
linking of different passages by means of the transfer of
distinctive vocabulary - with a warning to the textual critic
in search of variants in the biblical texts. Finally, brief
attention was drawn to the existence, above all in the East and
West Syriac Festal Hymnaries, of some fine poetry (albeit in
truncated form, especially in the printed editions): for the
full, or fuller forms, reference to the earliest manuscripts
available is essential. The paper ended with a quotation from
an otherwise unknown poem on Genesis 22, to be found in an East
Syriac Burial Service for Children.
Aspects of the Commentary on Numbers by Išo'dad of
Merv
Johann Cook,
Universiteit Stellenbosch
[7] Most of
the biblical commentaries of IŠO`DAD of Merv have been
researched to some extent. The work by C van den Eynde (le
commentaire d´ IŠO`DAD de Merv sur l´Ancient
testament) is the most prominent in this regard. He has
translated many of this ancient author's commentaries and in
the process offered many useful remarks. Clarke, Van Rompay,
Molenberg, Ter Haar Romeny and others have also dealt with
aspects of this prominent Syriac author. However, these
scholars mostly addressed the relationship between different
ancient authors. Clarke, for example, compared IŠO`bar
Nun with IŠO`DAD of Merv and Theodore bar Koni.
These comparisons were moreover primarily executed in
regards to the book of Genesis. As a matter of fact not much
has been done in connection with the 4th book of the
pentateuch, Numbers, which is the subject of this contribution.
This paper, which is limited in intent and extent, will deal
with aspects of the exegetical method of the mentioned Syriac
commentary. Others have defined the exegetical approach of
IŠO`DAD as belonging to the genre of questiones. This
certainly applies to the book of Genesis. However, in Numbers
the author applies a seemingly additional exegetical stylistic
feature. He quotes words from Scripture like qry' in
II,2 and then offers an explanation. Or in III, 26: glg'
[plural]: "According to John they are the branches of the
wood......". This seems to be related to the Pesher exegetical
method found at Qumran. IŠO`DAD also makes frequent
references to scripture, interpreting scripture by means of
scripture. Cf. for example: I, 50: "Concerning the tent of
tabernacle, scripture says: Like one who......". The particle
lm is used as well as the verbal form 'mr. In
trying to define its genre Molenberg talks of scholia
and aporiai in this regard.
This paper will at the same time act as a pilot study for a
planned monograph on the Peshitta version of Numbers.
The Greek vs. the Peshitta in a West Syrian Exegetical
Collection (BL Add. 12168)
[8] The
exegetical collection preserved in the manuscript London BL
Add. 12168, from the eighth or ninth century, discusses the
greater part of the Old and New Testaments (Wright,
Catalogue, 2:904-908). The work, which may be called the
London Collection, consists of extracts from various,
mostly Greek authors. The choice of authors quoted gives a good
impression of its profile. For the Pentateuch we find the names
of Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Gregory of
Nazianzus, and Ephrem; for the Prophets, Athanasius, Cyril,
Severus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom,
and Ephrem. In other words: some of the more moderate
Alexandrians, the moderate Antiochene Chrysostom, the
Miaphysite leader Severus, the Cappadocians, and finally Ephrem
as the only Syrian authority.
The London Collection quotes the biblical text in a
number of instances from the Syro-Hexapla; at other places it
seems to give a direct translation from the Greek biblical text
of the commentaries quoted; and in yet other instances it
quotes the Peshitta. The compiler also added an appendix on the
various Greek versions, comparable but not identical with Moses
bar Kepa's discussion of this subject. This paper will discuss
the position of the London Collection in the
contemporary debate on the right version of the biblical
text.
The Biblical Text in the Disputation of Sergius the Stylite
against a Jew
[9] The
Disputation of Sergius the Stylite is an eighth century text
which purports to record a written-up version of a dialogue
between a Jewish rabbi and a Christian stylite. The discussion
is located in Gousit, a place about which little is known, but
which was somewhere near Homs (Emesa) in southern Syria. The
text is preserved in a single manuscript (BM Add.17,199) which
William Wright dated to the eighth century on the basis of its
"rather inelegant Estrangela". The colophon is damaged and
preserves only the name of the scribe (Romanus the abbot) and
not the date of his work. The date of the actual Disputation is
not in doubt since three times it refers to the seven hundred
years which have passed since the Jews lost everything -
prophets, priests, temple, etc.
As in most Jewish-Christian dialogues from the ancient
period the bulk of the Disputation is taken up with arguments
about the relevance of biblical texts to the situations of the
Christian Church and the Jewish people. It contains over 340
biblical quotations, the bulk of them (300) from the Old
Testament. Some of these are quite extensive in scope. It also
contains a number of quotations from an otherwise unattested
Syriac version of books 1-5 of Josephus' War of the
Jews; book 6 of this version is preserved in 7a1 as the
fifth Book of the Maccabees.
The Old Testament biblical quotations in the Disputation
fall naturally into four groups:
Direct, exact quotations from the Peshitta (c. 130).
OT quotations whose text is influenced by the form in
which they are cited in the New Testament (14).
Quotations (from memory?) in which text and
interpretation are intermingled, or contaminated by other
biblical texts.
A striking series of agrapha based on a now lost book of
testimony texts which consisted of a biography of Jesus in
Old Testament texts.
This paper deals with the implications for the history of
the Peshitta OT of the form of the text cited in the
Disputation but also with the way in which the results of the
Peshitta Project can, in their turn, be used to help with the
dating of patristic texts and manuscripts. It attempts to show
that:
The Disputation contains some valuable readings which are
also attested in manuscripts like 5b1, 6b1, and 9a1 which, in
turn, probably preserve the original form of the Peshitta
version;
it is unlikely that it preserves original Peshitta
readings that have been lost from the biblical
manuscripts;
patristic texts like the Disputation can throw light on
the factors generating many variants in the Peshitta version,
particularly the need for a Christian understanding of the
text versus the Jewish.
and, finally, that what we now know about the history of
the Peshitta version can be used as a valuable tool for
confirming or establishing the dates of Syriac patristic
texts which contain lots of biblical citations.
Reworking The Biblical Text in the Dramatic Dialogue Poems
on the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph
Kristian Heal,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
[10] In
addition to the materials traditionally employed for the study
of Old Testament interpretation in the Syriac tradition, there
is another category of texts which deserves more attention than
has previously been given, namely the dramatic dialogue poems
on biblical themes.This paper focuses on three exegetical
motifs that appear in the dramatic dialogue poems on the Old
Testament patriarch Joseph. The motifs are studied with respect
to the biblical text and Jewish sources in an attempt to answer
why and how the retellings of the Joseph narrative were
developed in a particular way.
The Service Books as a Source for Text Criticism, Textual
History and Applied Science of Religion
Konrad Jenner,
Universiteit Leiden
[11] Part
2 of Wright's Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in The British
Museum contains for the greater part the description of Service
Books. The large number and diversity in content gives the
impression that ferial, Sunday and high feast services were the
foundation of Syriac Christianity and identified Christian
community life. It seems that liturgy was the backbone of these
services and the heartbeat of Syriac religious life. Thus, at
the one hand, liturgy is the reflection of regional and
national culture and society, at the other hand an effective
instrument to implement and uphold prescriptions as to
religious standards and values. Many a service book contains or
refers to biblical passages, see e.g., the lectionaries from
the ninth century and later that provide us with a substantial
amount of variants as may be clear from the critical apparatus
in the volumes of The Old Testament in Syriac. One may expect
that service books present a connection between religious life,
Christian perceptions on culture and society, and the reception
(i.e. actual use and transmission as well as the interpretation
or actualization) of the biblical text. Thus, service books may
give an impression of the motives for the selection of texts
and an indication for the authority and the degree of
fluctuation (i.e. plasticity) of the biblical text.
The Old Testament in the New: The Syriac Versions of the
New Testament as a Witness to the Text of the Old Testament
Peshitta
[12] The
earliest attestation of the reading and use of the Old
Testament Peshitta is not to be found in the fourth century
writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem, nor in the references to ho
Suros in Eusebius of Emesa, but in the Old Testament
quotations contained the early Syriac versions of the New
Testament. As has been known for a long time, these quotations
often conform to the OT Peshitta, a tendency leading at times
to marked divergence from the Greek NT text. Recent research
has shown that this phenomenon is due to the habit of the first
Syriac translators of the NT-Tatian for the gospels, anonymous
translators for the other books-who followed the local OT text
in OT quotations.
The use of the Syriac OT in the Syriac NT sheds light on the
date and milieu of the OT Peshitta and on the origins of Syriac
speaking Christianity. Another implication is that the text of
OT quotations in the Syriac NT must be considered an important
witness to the text of the OT Peshitta. This last point, which
has been almost entirely neglected by textual critics of the OT
Peshitta, will be illustrated with a couple of examples showing
that the Syriac NT may at times have preserved primitive OT
Peshitta readings no longer transmitted by the manuscripts of
the OT Peshitta.
The Syriac Massora and the New Testament Peshitta
Andreas Juckel,
Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung,
Münster
[13] The
recently (2000) installed NT Peshitta project (St. Paul's
Letters) at Münster University is based on ca. 50
manuscripts of the first millennium. The editorial policy of
the project is to print the 'majority text' of the 5th/6th
century drawn from the ca. 15 earliest manuscripts (5th-7th
century). To present the development of the text from its
origin (ca. 400/450) to James of Edessa (died 708) and its
transmission in the period from the 7th to the 12th century
(from James to Dionysius bar Salibi) is the scope of the
project. But did the conformity of the NT Peshitta really
develop, is there a 'history' of the text which can offer
guidelines for an editorial policy? It is the topic of the
present paper to argue for two specific periods within the
transmission of the Peshitta text, for a 'pre-' and
'post-Massoretic' period.
The first period of the Peshitta is a period of 'revision',
dominated by the development towards the Greek text,
culminating in the 'Philoxenian' (507/08) and the 'Harklean'
(615/16) versions which both update the Peshitta according to
an increasing 'Greek' standard. Variants of the Peshitta might
be due either to Greek influence (in the proper sense) or to
the influence of the two fellow versions. For editorial policy
this background offers the general guideline to follow the
non-grecizing reading of the 'majority text' (and to allow for
the possibility of non-grecizing variants to be more original
than the 'majority text'). The second period of the Peshitta is
a 'philological' one and corresponds with the new political and
cultural situation under Islamic rule. Now the Peshitta is the
'Syriac' bible (the Harklean the 'Greek') contributing to
'Aramaic' identity. It is subjected to 'scientific' care, the
orthographical features are regularlized, the pronunciation is
fixed by the invention of vowel signs. The 'spiritus rector' of
this period is James of Edessa, its philological handbook is
the 'Massora' (extant in 15 manuscripts) which relies on
principles introduced by James.
By paying attention to 'massoretic' features in Peshitta
manuscripts (orthography, variants recorded by the 'Massora',
etc.) editorial policy will be able to distinguish
'pre-massoretic' manuscripts from those of obvious 'massoretic'
imprint. This does not constitute a 'history' of the Peshitta
text but will improve the judgement upon an 'early' and a
'later' stage of the Peshitta (F.J.A. Hort: 'Knowledge of
documents should precede final judgement upon readings').
Remarks on the OT quotations in the NT, on the 'Massora' and on
James of Edessa quoting the NT will reflect the implications of
an editorial policy based on a 'qualified minority of
pre-massoretic manuscripts'.
eBeth Arké: The Syriac Digital Library and the
Reception of the Peshitta in Literature and Liturgy
George Kiraz,
Beth Mardutho
[14]
eBeth Arké is a collection of out-of-copyright
publications (books and articles) digitized in eBook form. The
collection will be made available on the Internet as an
eLibrary. A great deal of the material deals with the Peshitta
and its usage in literature and liturgy. This presentation will
give a general description of the project with emphasis on the
literary and liturgical material that pertain to the Peshitta.
A proposal will be given to add tools that facilitate searching
Peshitta quotations in the eLibrary with the use of metadata
and markup languages. The speaker will solicit feedback from
scholars to make the project useful for the study of Peshitta
texts in literature and liturgy.
The Four Kingdoms in Peshitta Daniel 7 in the Light of the
Early History of Interpretation
Arie van der
Kooij, Universiteit Leiden
[15] The
Peshitta text of Daniel 7:1-8, as published in the Leiden
edition (vol. III/iv, Leiden 1980), contains inscriptions which
represent a specific interpretation of 'the four kingdoms': the
k. of the Babylonians, the k. of the Medes, the k. of the
Persians, the k. of the Greeks. The question arises whether
this interpretation goes back to the original translator of the
book, or not. To answer this question, the interpretation as
attested in the Pesh Dan. 7 will be discussed in the light of
the early history of interpretation regarding the motif of the
four kingdoms. Attention will be given to Jewish (Josephus; 4
Ezra; Targum to the Prophets), Christian (Syrian Baruch Apoc.,
Aphrahat, Chrysostomus, Jerome, Ishodad of Merv) and pagan
sources (Porphyry). It is argued that the glosses in Pesh
Daniel 7:1-8 are of a later date (5th century) than the time
when the Syriac version of Daniel was produced (presumably the
second century CE). The identification of the fourth beast in
Pesh Daniel 7 as 'the kingdom of the Greeks' (instead of 'the
kingdom of the Romans' according to the dominant tradition)
seems to go back to Porphyry's Daniel interpretation.
Aphrahat's Use of His Old Testament
Marinus Koster,
Bathmen, The Netherlands
[16]
Since their first publication (Wright, 1869), Aphrahat's
twenty-three homilies (I-X AD 336/7; XI-XXII AD 343/4; XXIII
345) never ceased to impress their readers by the astonishing
scriptural knowledge of their author. Not only did he use his
OT according to the traditional pattern of prophecy and
fulfilment (e.g. Daniel 8, 4, 2, and 7 in Hom. V, and Dan. 9 in
Hom. XIX), but he prefers to give long lists of examples and
examplary persons from the Old Testament (sometimes continued
right into the NT), after the example of Hebrews 11.
In this paper I should like to call attention to Aphrahat's
frequent use of typology as a method of exegesis. In
that case persons and happenings from the Old Testament are
conceived as a prototype (typos; cf. Rom. 5:14 [Adam], 1
Cor. 10:6 [the following rock; it happened tepikw, v.
11]) of their New Testament counterpart (antitypos/n;
cf. 1 Peter 3:21 [baptism]). In contrast with the allegorizing
method, here the concrete persons, things and happenings are
considered as hidden prefigurations of what is revealed in the
gospels around the person of Jesus Christ. In the eyes of the
author, this is guaranteed by the intrinsic connection which
exists between the two covenants, those of Moses and Jesus.
E.g. the 'tree' (piece of wood) thrown by Moses into the water
of Marah in order to sweeten it (Exod. 15:25) is seen as a
prefiguration (Syriac
twps' or rz') of the cross of
Christ.
This exegetical device, employed already by Justin, Irenaeus
and others, was made his trade-mark by Aphrahat, who used it in
several homilies (IV [Jacob], XII, XXIIf. [Moses], VI [Eliah],
XI [Joshua]), but in particular in hom. XXI, which for the
greater part consists of a long list of OT exemplary persons
(as indicated above), all of them interpreted typologically. I
will concentrate on some of these: Moses, Joshua, Eliah and
Eliza. Regularly, the characteristic Steigerung
(Goppelt) between the OT exemplar and its NT counterpart will
come to the fore.
'There is No Need of Turtle Doves or Young
Pigeons…', Jacob of Saroug Quotations and Non-Quotations
of Leviticus in Selected Syriac Writers
David Lane, New
Galloway, United Kingdom
[17]
Quotations in Syriac writers have been considered a fruitful
source for detecting Peshitta phrases and passages to shed
light on the history of the text's transmission. Words or
phrases are seen as evidence of the text familiar to the
writer, his circle and his place.
However the evidence does not support this argument. As in
the case of Shubhalmaran's general use of Scripture, and
Aphraat's use of Leviticus, quotations are shaped not by their
original source but by the author's manipulation of quotations
to support his argument. The genre of scripture quoted is an
element of the argument which uses it. Some short quotations
are careful and close to the Peshitta, but longer ones are
often summaries or selections, with the order changed if felt
necessary. The appeal is less to the exact words than to the
general sense, or even inferences drawn from them.
Quotations from Leviticus are found in:
lectionaries: Eastern ones choosing moralistically,
Western ones for analogy;
controversies with Jews e.g. Sergius the Stylite: exact
phrases are less important than inference;
hexaemeron e.g. Jacob of Edessa: passages are used for
analogy and inference;
ascetic e.g. John of Dalyatha: the quotations are
allusive and referential.
Hence the literature quoted, and (even more) the
argumentative context, are the determining factors in shaping
quotation. "Citation très libre" is a consequence of
rhetoric rather than failure of memory; exactness is required
only when a specific word or short phrase is needed in close
exegesis.
Ephraem and the 'Greek Bible'
Christian
Lange, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg
[18] On
various occasions the author of the Syriac Commentary on the
Diatessaron-which tradition identifies with Ephraem the
Syrian-refers to a Biblical text different from that of the
Diatessaron. This reference to a Biblical text different from
that version upon which the author of the Commentary comments
has raised the question whether this text is identical with the
Vetus Syra-and whether 'Ephraem', consequently, is aware
of the Syriac version of the separate Gospels. It is the aim of
this paper to analyse the quotations in the Syriac Commentary
on the Diatessaron and to attempt an answer to the question of
the identity of that Biblical version. Although the chronology
of the Syriac versions of the New Testament makes it obvious
that the Syriac version of the New Testament referred to in the
Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron cannot be identified as
the Peshitta, the wider theme of the Symposium-the use of the
Fathers for the reconstruction of the text of the Syriac
Bible-might justify the main question of this paper.
Ishodad of Merv's Exegesis of the Psalms 119 and 139-147: A
Study of His Interpretation in the Light of the Syriac
Translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary
Clemens
Leonhard, Universität Wien
[19]
Exegetes of the Apostolic Church of the East sometimes
emphasize that their understanding of the biblical text
corresponds to this Church's great theological authority,
Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428), who was called 'the
interpreter' in exegetical works. Unfortunately, such claims
cannot be examined in the sources, as his posthumous
anathematization lead to the destruction of most of his
original texts. However, the Syriac translation of Theodore's
commentary to the Psalms 119 and 139-147 is still extant and
allows us to compare it with Ishodad of Merv's (mentioned ca.
850) short comments to these Psalms. The first objective of
this paper is the evaluation of Ishodad's use of Theodore's
commentary and the assessment of his exegetical approach in
those cases, where he does not use Theodore's commentary. An
additional look into the Ms. Mingana 58 adds to the
understanding of Ishodad's way of interpretation.
Timothy I, the great Catholicos of the Church of the East
(died 823) tells in one of his letters about his efforts to
provide a copy of the Syrohexapla for the school of Bet Lapat.
Thus, he introduced an important tool for textual criticism
into the academies of the Church of the East. In his
commentary, Ishodad sometimes quotes the Syriac translations of
other biblical versions ('the Greek', 'the Hebrew') part of
which he probably copied from the Syrohexapla. Even the Syriac
translation of Theodore's commentary may add 'the Greek'
version after the lemma from the Peshitta at the beginning of a
paragraph of interpretation. Ishodad also used these
attestations of the 'Greek' text. The second objective of this
paper is to provide a description of Ishodad's use of such
variant readings and suggestions to their provenance.
Ishodad's Knowledge of Hebrew as Evidenced from His
Treatment of Peshitta Ezekiel
Jerry Lund,
Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion,
Cincinnati
[20]
Ishodad of Merv's knowledge of Hebrew is evidenced both in his
use and his non-use of Hebrew in his commentary on the Peshitta
of Ezekiel. In his commentary on Ezekiel, Ishodad refers to
'the Hebrew' (
cibraya) 7 times. The 7 cases
of 'the Hebrew' can be divided into 3 typological categories: a
reference to 'the Hebrew' as the source of the Syriac version
which we call the Peshitta (28:10); references to Hebrew words
(1:1; 20:29; 43:15); and references to Hebrew versional
readings which differ from the Syriac (1:18; 9:2; 25:9). These
case will be presented and analyzed with an attempt made to
identify the source of Ishodad's Hebrew knowledge. In addition,
a key case where Ishodad should have evoked the Hebrew, but did
not, will be examined. From this study, an answer to the
question about the extent of Ishodad's knowledge of Hebrew-what
he knew and what he did not know-will be suggested.
Furthermore, implications about the modern critical approach to
the Peshitta will be drawn.
The Syriac New Testament in the Acts of Judas Thomas
Craig Morrison,
Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome
[21] The
Syriac text of The Acts of Judas Thomas offers Peshitta
scholars a window into the Syriac Bible and its interpretation
in the third century. Where this symposium focuses on the text
of the Peshitta in what might be called the 'proto-Peshitta'
period, the source text for the biblical citations and
allusions in this early Syriac narrative becomes of interest.
A.F.J. Klijn's assessment of these citations provides a point
of departure: 'we may suppose that originally a Diatessaron was
used in quoting the New Testament. At a later stage the text
was adapted to the separate gospels' (The Acts of
Thomas, [NT.S 5; Leiden 1962] 17). This conclusion was
repeated by W. Petersen who noted: 'to date, no comprehensive
study of the gospel citations in the Acts has been
conducted' (Tatian's Diatessaron, [VC.S 25; Leiden 1994]
215). The Acts explicitly cites the New Testament seven
times in addition to its version of the 'Our Father'. Two
citations that depart significantly from the Greek and Latin
canonical traditions and from the Peshitta are examined with a
view to establishing whether they derive from the Diatessaron
or from the Vetus Syra. The first example is taken from
§28: 'Therefore how much will he care for you, you of
little faith' (kma haki claykun netbtel leh hsiray haymanuta) and is a citation of
Matt 6,30 and Luke 12,28. The second example is taken from
§144 and involves the plus 'and our sins'
(wahtahayn) in the
Acts version of the 'Our Father'.
Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac
Fathers
Shinichi Muto,
Shiga, Japan
[22] When
we attempt to situate Syriac exegeses in the broader history of
exegesis in Christianity, one of the most important issues is
the relationship between exegeses of the Greek Antiochenes and
those of the Syriac Fathers. In order to elucidate their
characteristics, it is the best to investigate them in the time
before the former started influencing the latter. In this
study, the representatives of the Antiochene exegetical school
and those of the fairly contemporary Syriac exegesis are
elaborated. Before we set out to study their concrete exegeses,
it is a prerequisite to have a clear picture of what they think
interpretation is, i.e., the central issue of modern
hermeneutics. It has been indicated that the Syriac
hermeneutics is an Antiochene type, although it has been
scarcely compared in detail with the Antiochene.
Among Greek Antiochenes, this study focuses on Diodore of
Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and, above all, John Chrysostom,
because his related texts are numerous and extant in original
Greek. According to Chrysostom, the Bible is not difficult or
ambiguous. In the case of seemingly unclear passages, the
author himself explains them on condition that readers
attentively follow the intention of the text. Even if a
biblical writer does not explain them, other biblical writers
instead can do so. So it is not Chrysostom who interprets
Scripture, but Scripture which interprets itself. His audience
cannot easily oppose such an interpretation.
With regard to Syriac Fathers, this study treats Aphrahat and,
especially, Ephrem of Nisibis in whose works many related
passages can be found. According to Ephrem, since God bestowed
many images of the biblical words in proportion to preferences
of interpreters, they understand only a tiny portion of the
whole. Benefits for everyone are hidden for his meditation; he
learns step by step. Interpretations are made according to the
interpreters' capacity. So there is no particular
interpretation valid for anyone at any time.
This study concludes with a comparison between the Greek
Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers. As the former tend to teach
their hearers the one true interpretation of a certain passage
in the Bible, the latter are more open to learn many other
possibilities of interpretations. Between these lie fundamental
dissimilarities so that one should not regard the Syriac
hermeneutics as an Antiochene type.
The Book of Proverbs in Aphrahat's Demonstrations and in
the Liber Graduum
Robert J.
Owens, The General Theological Seminary, New York
[23]
After brief review of current questions in the study of the
early history of Peshitta Proverbs, this paper undertakes
text-critical analysis of a corpus of citations from two
fourth-century Syriac patristic sources. The original Syriac of
Aphrahat's Demonstrations (337-345 CE) and the Liber
Graduum (ca. 400) both pre-date the earliest extant Ms of
Peshitta Proverbs (6h16). The primary surviving Mss of the
Demonstrations also pre-date 6h16, although those of the Liber
Graduum do not.
Within Aphrahat's work, twelve different passages contain
quotations of portions of the following Proverbs passages: 9:9;
10:10, 27; 11:5, 31; 16:19, 32; 18:19; 20:6, 9; 25:21; 28:2,
13, 16; 29:23. Within the Liber Graduum, six different passages
contain portions of Proverbs 10:12; 17:5; 18:10; and 24:17.
Though not set apart as distinct lemmata, all of the Aphrahat
quotations are formal, being introduced by one of his standard
formulas of Scripture citation, such as 'as it says,' 'as it is
written,' etc. Three of the Liber Graduum quotations are so
introduced.
As is typical of the biblical quotations throughout both
works, these Proverbs texts are imbedded within the author's
own extended prose, calling into question their literalness.
None of these citations reproduces an entire verse. In earlier
publications, R. Owens has discussed the difficulty that
confronts the scholar who seeks text-critical witness in
Aphrahat's biblical. On the one hand, Aphrahat obviously quotes
casually or from memory much of the time, calling up only a
clause or phrase, sometimes adapting the wording slightly to
fit the vocabulary, or conflating similar passages. On the
other hand, his quotes are full of apparently exact
reproductions of substantial portions of the Peshitta text-so
full that one cannot be content simply to ignore this early
corpus of biblical quotation. Much of this paper is given over
to detailed discussion of the methodological problems involved
in trying to use such patristic quotations as textual
witnesses.
Leaven of Purity and Holiness: The Peshitta of 1Corinthians
5:8 and Christian Self-Definition
Emmanuel
Papoutsakis, Princeton University
[24] At 1
Corinthians 5:8, the Peshitta differs from the Greek original
in that it does not contrast 'leaven (of malice and evil)' with
'unleavened bread (of sincerity and truth)', but rather 'leaven
of evil and bitterness' with 'leaven of purity and holiness'. I
would like to argue that this rendering of the Greek original
reflects an implicit polemic that becomes explicit in the
subsequent period. Among the Christian (Syriac, Greek,
Armenian) and Jewish (Hebrew, Aramaic) sources that will be
discussed are Aphrahat, Ephrem, Cyrillona, Narsai, Jacob of
Serugh, Isaac of Antioch; Ignatius of Antioch, Justin, John
Chrysostom, Pseudo-Macarius, Gregory of Nyssa; the Targumim and
Bereshit Rabbah.
Problems in the Syriac New Testament and How Syrian
Exegetes Solved Them
William L.
Petersen, PennState University
[25] The
methods and techniques Syrian Christian exegetes brought to
bear on the Syriac testaments are exceptionally creative,
suggestive, and often unique. However, when compared with the
Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible), the New Testament confronts
an exegete with special challenges. At least three can be
readily identified. First, while the Hebrew Bible has some
parallel passages and/or multiple accounts, the New Testament
has many more such accounts (viz., the gospels), and they
concern the very center of the Christian religion (the life,
sayings, and acts of Jesus), not peripheral matters. However,
as is well known, the gospels are often inconsistent and/or
contradictory. Therefore, despite the fact that one is working
at the very heart of the Christian belief-system, an exegete
must somehow either choose among the various accounts, or
reconcile them by means of some explanation. Second, while the
Hebrew Bible was the touchstone for Jewish theology, the New
Testament became the touchstone for Christian theology; its
writings (e.g., the Pauline epistles) formed the basis for (and
became incorporated into) 'normative' Christian theology. But
theology is always changing. Therefore, what had been
'normative' in an earlier time might later be deemed
unacceptable. In such a case the options are either to change
the text itself (by removing or modifying the unacceptable
item), or to offer a new interpretation, consonant with the
'new' theology. Third and finally, when compared with the Greek
New Testament at a textual level, the Syriac New Testament
contains a significant number of important variant readings.
How one evaluates them (as relics from a 'primitive' strata of
the NT, or as late, singular, 'local' changes, produced in
Syria, for the Syrian 'market') is often unclear, and remains
the subject of research and debate.
This paper will examine how some of the great Syrian
exegetes (Aphrahat, Ephrem, and Isho'dad, for example)
perceived these problems, grappled with them, and eventually
solved them. As byproducts of this examination, we will gain
insight into their attitudes towards the text, their theology,
and their exegetical techniques.
Sirach Quotations in the Discourses of Philoxenus of
Mabbug: Text and Context
Wido van
Peursen, Universiteit Leiden
[26] The
Discourses on Christian Life and Character of the West
Syrian bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug (450-523 AD) contain four
quotations from the book of Sirach. These quotations show some
remarkable differences from the text in the extant Peshitta
manuscripts and some agreements with the Greek text of Sirach.
In this respect the Sirach quotations differ from citations
from Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, and Psalms in the
Discourses, investigated by R.G. Jenkins in his The
Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenus of Mabbug (Leuven
1989). Some proposals have been advanced to account for the
differences between the text of Philoxenus' quotations and the
Peshitta text. W.D. McHardy claimed that Philoxenus used the
Peshitta text as it is known to us, but quotes in a loose, free
manner, while M.M. Winter argued that Philoxenus possessed a
Philoxenian version of Sirach when he wrote the
Discourses. These proposals will be evaluated in the
light of Jenkins' study. Also other explanations will be
reviewed.
The present paper will further discuss the context of the
quotations and address the question how the Sirach quotations
function in the context of Philoxenus' argument and whether the
context in which Philoxenus uses his quotations agrees with the
context from which they are taken.
Some observations will be made about the quotation of Sir.
27:20 in Philoxenus' Letter to the Monks of Senoun and
about the absence of Sirach citations in other products of
Philoxenus' literary creativity, including his commentaries,
his theological and dogmatic treatises, and his numerous
letters.
The Reception of Peshitta Chronicles: Some Elements for
Investigation
David Phillips,
Université Catholique de Louvain
[27] The
object of this study is to investigate the substantive elements
which can elucidate the way in which the Peshitta to Chronicles
was received and used in Syriac tradition. There is evidence to
suggest that Chronicle's reception had a chequered history
within the totality of the Syriac Churches, but it is necessary
to be prudent before drawing hasty conclusions. There are at
least three areas of investigation which can shed light on the
book's canonicity: a) The Biblical manuscript tradition-that is
to say, in which manuscripts and in what order are Chronicles
to be found. We will mention complete Bibles, the so-called
Massoretic MSS, lectionaries and the group of 'Nestorian
Apocryphal Books'. b) Quotations of, or allusions to,
Chronicles in Syriac patristic writings in contexts which show
or suggest that the Peshitta to Chronicles is being used as
Scripture-Aphrahat and Ephrem, among others, provide some
interesting examples. c) The 'theoreticians' of canonicity: the
presence or absence of Chronicles in the lists of books
received as Scripture; seven examples will be mentioned. The
intersection between these three areas could also be a fruitful
field to be examined.
The Peshitta and Biblical Quotations in the Longer Syriac
Version of the Commentary of Athanasius on the Psalms (BM
Additional Manuscript 14568) with Special Attention to Psalm 23
(24) and 102 (103)
Herrie van
Rooy, Potchefstroomse Universiteit
[28]
Thomson (1977) published two Syriac versions of the commentary
of Athanasius on the Psalms, a shorter, abridged version and a
longer version. This version is taken from the manuscript BM
Additional Manuscript 14568. This manuscript dates from 597
C.E. This text is a translation of a Greek original. It
predates the Syro-Hexaplaric translation of the Old Testament.
In the Greek original references to the Bible are according to
the LXX. The question is what text did the translator use for
his Biblical references. Did he translate the references from
the Greek manuscript of the commentary, did he use the
Peshitta, or can one discern a combination of these two
possibilities?
In this study four versions of the references to the Psalms
need to taken into consideration: the quotations in Athanasius,
the reading of the Septuagint, the Peshitta and the Syriac
version of the commentary. With regard to the references in the
Greek version of the commentary, one must keep in mind that the
whole Psalm is not quoted in the commentary, only a selection
of references necessary for the comments made on the Psalm. It
is clear that Athanasius used the LXX, but his text may contain
unique variants, such as the plus at the beginning of the
heading of Psalm 24(25). In this instance the heading in the
Syriac commentary does not contain the plus. The Syriac
commentary may add some of the portions omitted in the Greek
commentary, such as the last part of Psalm 24(25):1. The Syriac
may also agree with the Peshitta in instances where the
Peshitta differs from the Greek, such as at the end of the
first line of Psalm 24(25):2.
It is clear that the references in the Syriac commentary
display a variety of possibilities and each reference must be
considered on its own. It is possible that the version of the
Psalms reflects the translation of Philoxenus, or at least a
related translation by the translator of the commentary.
The Reception of the Peshitta Psalter in Bar Salibi's
Commentary on the Psalms
Stephen Ryan,
Harvard University
[29] One
of the notable and innovative features of Bar Salibi's
Commentary on the Old Testament is its bifurcation: the first
column he labels 'factual' and the second either 'factual and
spiritual' or 'mixed.' The presentation of these separate
commentaries in parallel synoptic columns is without precise
precedent in the history of biblical interpretation. In
addition to the basic division between factual and spiritual,
Bar Salibi appears to have added another division, that between
commentaries based on the Peshitta and those based on the
Septuagint. Scholars have usually understood these two
structuring principles to be related, that is, they have
understood the factual commentaries to be based on the Peshitta
and several of the spiritual commentaries, as Bar Salibi
himself states, to be based on the Septuagint. J. C. J. Sanders
argued that Bar Salibi selected the Septuagint as the basis for
his spiritual commentaries because he considered the Peshitta
to be a Jewish book. Werner Strothmann was more cautious,
suggesting that Bar Salibi's choice of biblical versions for
his factual and spiritual commentaries is a riddle that we are
unable to solve.
This paper studies several related aspects of the reception
of the Peshitta Psalter in Bar Salibi's 'Commentary on the
Psalms.' I will first review the evidence for the traditional
scholarly position that Bar Salibi used the Peshitta for the
factual commentary and the Syro-Hexapla for the mixed
commentary on the Psalms. I will demonstrate that Bar Salibi
made use of the Syro-Hexapla in a limited and partial way and
that he did so not because of an ideological conviction but
because of the use of this version in one of his sources.
Although Bar Salibi did not explain his use of the biblical
versions, he did include Moshe bar Kepha's 'Introduction to the
Psalms' as a preface to his own commentary. In the final part
of the paper I compare the theoretical discussion found in Bar
Kepha's preface with the actual practice of Bar Salibi in his
commentary.
Obscure Words in the Peshitta of Samuel, According to
Theodore bar Koni
Alison
Salvesen, University of Oxford
[30] One
of the problems that translators in the NEATSB project will
come across sooner or later are obscure words for which the
entries in the standard lexicons seem to be either
approximations based on the context, or on the original Hebrew
or Greek. It is comforting to realize that even Syriac writers
who lived several centuries after the Peshitta was translated
found certain words problematic. At the end of each question
and answer section of the Liber Scholiorum of Theodore
bar Koni (end eighth century) is appended a list of the
difficult words in that section of the Peshitta, with
explanations. This paper seeks to assess their value, and to
compare them with the approach of Jacob of Edessa, the earlier
West Syriac writer.
Gospel Quotations in the Breviary (amyj) of the Syrian
Orthodox Church
Aho
Shemunkasho, Mor Jakob von Sarug Theologisches Seminar,
Warburg
[31] The
Breviary (shhimo) of the
Syrian Orthodox Church found its form, as we know it today,
certainly after the last Syriac translation of the Bible
undertaken by Thomas of Harqel in AD 616. This means that the
prayers and songs of the Breviary were finally collected and/or
composed at a time when all six versions of the New Testament
were in existence; namely the Diatessaron, the Old Syriac
Gospels, the Peshitta, the Philoxenian, the Harklean, and the
Syro Palestinian. One can see from the text and themes that the
Breviary is clearly rooted in the Bible. The themes are related
to the classical structure of the Breviary; namely seven
prayers a day, dominated by prayers related to Mary, the
Apostles and Saints, penitents and to the deceased. Each of
these subjects refers to many biblical passages. While most of
the biblical references allude to the Bible, only a small
number are direct quotations.
The question rises as to which biblical versions have been
used in the composition of these prayers and chants, and in
particular, how much the Peshitta has influenced the Breviary.
This paper will try to throw some light on the question.
Furthermore, it will deal with the development of the
Peshitta's terminology in the Breviary. It will, however, only
consider Gospel citations and allusions. Biblical references to
the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament are not
taken into consideration. Also the work is based on the printed
versions of the Breviary and does not consider the various
number of manuscripts.
The Psalm Headings in the West Syrian Tradition and the
Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Salah
David G.K.
Taylor, University of Birmingham
[32] A
renewed emphasis on the importance of the contextual study of
the Peshitta text has inevitably led to a welcome
re-examination of the text traditions preserved in the writings
of the Syriac Church Fathers, but the headings prefixed to the
Peshitta Psalms provide us with a rare opportunity to examine
the influence of the Fathers on the transmission of the
biblical manuscripts themselves. The Peshitta Psalm headings
are quite independent of the original Hebrew and later
Septuagint Greek headings, and characteristically identify the
specific circumstances of composition, or link the texts to
events in Christ's life. The headings were not included in the
Leiden edition of the Peshitta Psalter (1980), and
Bloemendaal's important monograph (1960), which built upon the
earlier studies of Vosté (1944) and Baethgen (1878),
restricted itself to the East Syrian tradition (which proved to
be dependent upon the exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia). The
independent West Syrian tradition has remained relatively
neglected, and it is this which this paper seeks to rectify. On
the basis of a collation of the headings in all of the West
Syrian Psalm manuscripts utilised in the Leiden edition, plus
certain other manuscripts and printed editions, and a survey of
the West Syrian exegetical tradition and in particular the
exegesis of Daniel of Salah (fl. 541), the author hopes to
outline the origins, development, and characteristic features
of the West Syrian Psalm headings.
Melchizedek, Who Contains the Image of Christ
Jan Van Reeth,
Mortsel, Belgium
[33]
Starting with Psalm 110 and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 7),
the puzzling figure of Melchizedek has always struck the
imagination: from unknown parentage, God-fearing even before
Revelation, he seems to have descended from heaven, being a
kind of divine manifestation or hypostasis. In the Syriac
tradition and through typological exegesis, he gave rise to the
formation of heretic movements. This was especially the case
with John of Apamea, who developed a hierarchic cosmology,
based on a plurality of consecutive emanations. Our paper is to
show that this was based on a specific interpretation of
Genesis 14. In the first place, it elucidated the name which
Melchizedek attributes to God: El 'Elyôn, derived
from the epithet of God, 'ly, which was widely spread in
the south-western Semitic area (Syriac and Arab desert). This
was further combined with the definition of his creative
function: He who is 'the possessor of heaven and earth'.
Between the School and the Monk's Cell: The Syriac
Commentary Tradition
Lucas Van
Rompay, Duke University
[34]
Although Syriac literature in its entirety reflects the various
ways in which the Syriac Bible was read, understood, and used
as a source of inspiration in the Syrian Christian communities,
there is reason to single out the specific genre of biblical
commentaries.
Biblical commentaries span the whole period of Syriac
literature. Unlike most other compositions, they were created
and used in close contact with contemporary biblical
manuscripts, which both the redactor and reader must have had
on their desk. Biblical commentaries, therefore, are the first
field to which the student should turn to complement his or her
study of biblical manuscripts.
After a brief survey of the existing commentaries, their
distinctive features, and the state of the research, we will
ask ourselves how the commentary tradition can be integrated
into the field of Peshitta studies. Three avenues will be
explored.
First and foremost, the biblical quotations deserve to be
studied. The data culled from the commentaries and critically
arranged may in the future develop into a valuable
apparatus to the existing Peshitta edition.
Despite the dominant position of the Peshitta, Syriac
commentators throughout the ages were well aware of the
existence of biblical versions different from the Peshitta.
This awareness of the plurality of the biblical text not only
led them to incorporate into their commentaries readings from
versions of Jewish and Greek Christian origin, but also
provided them with an intellectual framework for their views
on the origin and development of the Bible in various
cultural traditions.
The commentaries reflect the cultural and ecclesiastical
diversity of Syrian Christianity. However, in the course of
the centuries, the East and West Syrian traditions gradually
came closer to each other and to a certain extent adopted
each other's interpretations and approaches.
In addition to these observations, a few more general
questions related to the Syriac commentary tradition will be
touched upon, e.g. the definition of the genre, the
relationship to non-Syriac biblical commentaries, and the
Sitz im Leben of the commentaries, with special
attention to the schools and monasteries.
Peshitta New Testament Quotations in the West Syrian
Anaphoras
Baby Varghese,
Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam, Kerala
[35]
Researches on the Syriac Bible have rarely made use of the
liturgical texts, with the exception of the Lectionaries. West
Syrian anaphoras (more than 70), baptismal ordo (about a
dozen), as well as other liturgical texts contain a large
number of quotations from the Bible. Several of these texts or
at least part of them belong to the first millennium
(c.350-1000 AD).
The Bible quotations in the West Syrian Anaphoras can be
classified into three groups:
Quotations translated/adapted from the Anaphoras of Greek
origin, especially Anaphora of Saint James.
Direct quotations or paraphrases from the Syriac Versions
of the Bible.
Quotations or paraphrases borrowed from patristic texts,
either composed in Syriac or translated into Syriac.
The central part of the anaphora
(Sanctus-Institution-Anamnesis-Epiklesis) needs particular
attention, as it is the oldest stratum, which remained rather
less modified.
Several Bible quotations reached Syriac Anaphoras through
the Syriac version of Saint James. Greek Saint James quotes
from LXX and the Greek NT, often without much alteration. Some
of the quotations of Greek St James seem to have been borrowed
from the so-called 'Clementine Liturgy' of the Apostolic
Constitutions.
The West Syrians have made a literal translation of Greek St
James with its Bible quotations. They have rarely made attempts
to correct the quotations to make them conform to the Peshitta
or the Harklean Versions. Thus in a few pre-tenth century
anaphoras, the prayers of Saint James (with the Bible
quotations) were often quoted directly or were simply
paraphrased.
The anaphoras that were originally composed in Syriac gives
more or less accurate quotations from the Peshitta, Harklean,
Old Syriac and other unidentified versions. However, Saint
James served as the model for quoting the Bible. Thus we can
find a tendency to conflate different Bible passages. The
Institution narrative is an example of mixing elements from
different NT passages.[Eg. 1 Cor.11; Institution Narratives in
the Synoptic Gospels, and the accounts of the multiplication of
the bread]. Later anaphoras borrowed phrases from anaphoras
translated from Greek. This makes the text-critical assessment
of the quotations a rather difficult task.
Progress Report on the Peshitta Programme Presented
at the Conclusion of the Conference
[36] By:
Dr. K.D. JENNER
Director of the Peshitta Programme
Head of the Peshitta Institute Leiden
E mail: Jenner@let.LeidenUniv.NL
13 August 2001
Dear Colleagues,
It is a distinctive honour to the Peshitta Institute to
inform you about the progress of the Peshitta Programme.
Looking back at the past three years of the Peshitta
programme, the following remarks are to be made about parts III
and IV. In 1998 Vol. IV/2, the books of Chronicles, has been
published. The publishing of Volume IV/4, containing Ezra
Nehemia and I+II Maccabees, has first priority now. The
schedule for this volume is that preparations for printing will
be finished in the end of this year, and that it will appear in
Spring 2002. A substantial portion of the text of volume III/2
(containing Jeremiah, Lamentations, the epistles of Jeremiah
and Baruch, and the book of Baruch) is almost ready for
printing. The same holds true for Vol. IV/1, containing Ruth,
Susanna, Esther, Judith and Ben Sirah, though we cannot keep
secret that portions of the collations still need verification.
Moreover, the copy for one of the smaller books of this volume
is still wanting. For the moment the publishing of volume IV/5,
containing 3+4 Maccabees and the Odes of Solomon, has low
priority. Anyway, the editor for this volume has not yet
finished his work.
Some years ago, after consultation of Dr. S. Brock, it was
decided to add an extra volume to the Editio Major. This volume
will contain collations of the MSS from the 13th - 15th century
(perhaps some 16th century MSS will also be included), addenda
and corrigenda. In the near future the Peshitta Institute will
invite participants in the project of the Editio Major to
deliver their collations for this period, as far as they have
not yet done this. If necessary for the preparation of this
volume as well as for the revision of the Preliminary List and
its subsequent official edition, we will request to return the
films that were given in loan.
In the meantime much work has been done for the fifth part
of the edition, that is the Concordance. We hope to publish the
second volume next year. On their request Dr. W. Th. van
Peursen has joined the present General Editors, Professor P.G.
Borbone and Dr. K.D. Jenner. Dr. Van Peursen had been
recommended for his expertise and qualifications in linguistic
and computer assisted studies in the field of Semitic
languages.
As preparations for the scholarly Edition of the Peshitta
commenced under the aegis of IOSOT, it had already become an
accepted presumption that Syriac commentatory and liturgical
literature might provide additional and text-critically
relevant data for the establishment of the text. Time was not
yet ripe then, however, to commence a broad, thourough and
systematic study of the reception of the Syriac Bible. In the
meantime a number of scholars have undeniably proved the
importance of this material. The studies in question, however,
were still concerned with isolated details and remained
restricted to smaller portions of the text. Recently, Dr. R.B.
ter Haar Romeny has made an extensive pilot study of the
commentatory literature and has irrefutably affirmed the
previous presumptions. Thus, on mature deliberation, the
Peshitta Institute has come to the conclusion that time is ripe
now to make concrete the intention of the late Professor P.A.H.
de Boer and Dr.W. Baars. In line with this conclusion the
present General Editors, Dr. K.D. Jenner and Professor A. van
der Kooij, have planned to add a sixth part to the text
edition, containing the data from the sources in question. They
have invited Dr. R.B. ter Haar Romeny to share in the
responsibility for this part of the text edition, since he is
an internationally acknowledged expert in this field, and last
but not least knows the ins and outs of the edition and
programme in progress.
Text Edition, Concordance, and Concise Survey of the
Reception will be of great help for two other projects: the New
English Annotated Translation of the Syriac Bible, and the
Editio Critica. In line with the ackowledgement of the first
project by IOSOT at the Business Meeting in Oslo (1998) the
Peshitta Institute started inviting scholars recommended by the
General Editors of this project. The invitation is done on the
basis of a sample that has been prepared by Dr. A. Salvesen.
Inviting participants is still in progress. Meanwhile Dr. ter
Haar Romeny has joined the present General Editors, Dr. K.D.
Jenner, Professor J. Joosten and Dr. A. Salvesen; he will
assist them with regard to the Syriac commentatory and related
literature. Dr. G. Greenberg has been invited to take care for
the uniformity of the English translation and has thus joined
the Editorial Board.
After due consideration the Peshitta Institute came to the
conclusion that the planned Editio Minor should not present the
BTR type of text as in the Editio Major. There are strong
arguments now to establish a critical text and to make the
Editio Minor an Editio Critica. Consultation of Dr. A. Juckel
from Münster made clear that it is to be preferred to
combine the critical minor editions of OT and NT. Activities
regarding the OT will be co-ordinated by Leiden and those
related to the NT by Münster. For the present the doctors
Ter Haar Romeny, Jenner, Juckel and Van Peursen are acting as
General Editors for the intended edition.
In the meantime the Peshitta Institute made preparations for
a project on linguistic and syntactical study of the Peshitta.
This project, the Computer Assisted Linguistic Analysis of
the Peshitta (CALAP), has started in cooperation with the
Free University of Amsterdam. The participants in this project
are Drs. J.W. Dyk, P.S.F. van Keulen, and W.Th. van Peursen and
Mr. C.J. Sikkel. Dr. K.D. Jenner and Prof. E. Talstra supervise
this project which is financially supported by the Netherlands
Organization for Research.
As you may have noticed, the past period four volumes of the
Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden have appeared.
Recently Dr. R.B. ter Haar Romeny has been appointed Executive
Editor, and the scope of the series has been broadened as may
be clear from the added sub-title: Studies in the Syriac
Versions of the Bible and their Cultural Contexts. To be
clear: the series will thus be open for studies on the Syriac
NT as well. Last but not least we may draw your attention to it
that this series will also include the edition of the text and
annotated translation of Jacob of Edessa's Revised Bible.
Anybody who intends to publish a similar work in the Monographs
of the Peshitta Institute is invited to consult Dr. Ter Haar
Romeny.
Last but not least I may draw your attention to the
activities regarding the collection of xeroxes of publications
on the Syriac Bible and the large collection of films of Syriac
biblical and related manuscripts in the Peshitta Institute. We
try to get digitized not only the xeroxed publications but also
the films. Together with bibliographical data, surveys of
biblical references in studies o the Syriac bible and Syriac
liturgy these digitized collections will form the so-called
Peshitta Database. Yesterday Mr. Keath Healy and I have
discussed the possibilities with regard to digitize the
manuscripts and in the near future Dr. Kiraz and I will consult
each other as to digitalizing the xeroxed publications. In the
meantime you may have noticed that the Peshitta Institute
presents the bibliographical references to recent publications
on the Syriac bible and its cultural and liturgical context to
the Executive Editor of the Journal of the Aramaic Bible.
With all good wishes,
yours sincerely,
Konrad D. Jenner