Peter J. Williams, Studies in the Syntax of the Peshitta of 1 Kings, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden (Leiden: Brill, 2001)
Richard A.
Taylor
Dallas Theological Seminary
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2003
Vol. 6, 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/hv6n2prtaylor
Richard A. TAYLOR
Peter J. Williams, Studies in the Syntax of the Peshitta of 1 Kings, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden (Leiden: Brill, 2001)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol6/HV6N2PRTaylor.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2003
vol 6
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
Peshitta
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] This
volume is a revised Ph.D. dissertation completed at the
University of Cambridge in 1997 under the supervision of
Geoffrey Khan. In it Williams analyzes selected features of the
syntax of the Syriac text of 1 Kings, occasionally also making
observations about the text-critical use of the Peshitta for
the study of the Hebrew Bible. This is a study that is
insightful, well organized, and carefully executed. It makes a
very useful contribution to Peshitta studies, providing a
thorough examination of the Syriac text of 1 Kings from the
standpoint of syntax. Since Williams' focus is limited to a
particular book of the Syriac Bible, his conclusions will need
to be complemented by similar work in the rest of the Old
Testament before being accepted as representative for the
Peshitta in general.
[2] Only one
detailed study of the Peshitta of 1 Kings has previously
appeared, that of J. Berlinger. Berlinger's work was
text-critical in nature, dealing with the relationship of the
Peshitta of 1 Kings to the Masoretic Hebrew text, the
Septuagint, and the Targum. Interestingly, it was published in
1897, exactly a century prior to the completion of Williams'
dissertation. The appearance of this new study of 1 Kings is
therefore welcome, since many advances have been made in Syriac
scholarship over the past century since Berlinger's work
appeared, the most obvious of which is the now nearly complete
Leiden edition of the Peshitta. This critical edition provides
a more solid footing for textual analysis than was possible in
Berlinger's day.
[3]
Williams' monograph is organized into twelve chapters. In the
first chapter the author surveys earlier work in the areas of
Peshitta studies and Syriac syntax, particularly as they affect
research in 1 Kings. He then takes up a study of the following
areas of Peshitta syntax: the genitive; the use of "all"; the
direct object; the conjunction "and"; the verb; speech
formulae; infinitives; prepositions; demonstratives; and the
word "behold." Williams explains his twofold rationale for
selecting these areas as follows: either they are areas where
his approach differs from that of other scholars, or they
happen to be areas that have not received sufficient attention
previously. A final chapter summarizes the author's
conclusions. Throughout this volume the author regularly takes
into account the syntactical contributions of the following
five scholars: Th. Nöldeke, R. Duval, I. Avinery, T.
Muraoka, and J. Joosten.
[4] In what
is perhaps a too brief introduction of only six pages Williams
touches on some general matters related to study of the
Peshitta and its syntax and translation technique. Here he
agrees with the consensus of modern scholarship that the
Peshitta is a primary version translated from a Hebrew
Vorlage that was quite close to the Masoretic text. He
makes no suggestion as to whether this translation was
originally made for a Jewish or a Christian community, and on
the question of dating he goes no further than to suggest that
the translation was made sometime in the first three centuries
A.D. His comments on the purposes and history of syntactical
research are also quite brief. To some extent this brevity is
countered by his interaction with the secondary literature
later in the book, but it would have been helpful to have a
more thorough overview at the outset of the volume.
[5] In a
number of places Williams is able to correct certain
syntactical conclusions drawn by earlier scholars. For example,
he shows that Avinery's conclusion that the three constructions
used in Syriac for the genitive relationship mark degrees of
definiteness is not actually borne out by the evidence in 1
Kings. Instead, a variety of other factors are involved in
determining which of these constructions is used. He also shows
that Nöldeke's view that degrees of determination are
reflected in the several structures in Syriac for indicating
direct objects is inadequate, at least in the case of 1 Kings.
He also questions Avinery's view, based on a preference to
express direct objects by the structure verb + object suffix
/ l + nominal, that the Syriac translator of Exodus was
different from the translator(s) of the rest of the Pentateuch.
According to Williams, this choice is due instead to the high
incidence in Exodus of descriptions of the making of cult
furniture. It should not therefore be used as evidence for a
different translator.
[6] Williams
also shows that the citation of the Peshitta in the apparatus
of BHS is at times inconsistent and even misleading,
particularly in citations related to the presence or absence of
the conjunction. Since in many such cases the use or non-use of
"and" is based entirely on the requirements of Syriac style and
has nothing to do with textual variation in the Syriac
Vorlage, textual critics should evaluate such readings
at a deeper level than that of surface only.
[7] Williams
is also able to show that variation in the use of verb tenses
in the Syriac translation as compared to those in the Hebrew
text is often due not to textual causes but to Syriac idiom. In
discussing the Peshitta verb forms in their relation to the
Hebrew verbs of its Vorlage Williams makes the
interesting suggestion that the Peshitta may be helpful for
understanding the meaning of the wayyiqtol form in
Hebrew, since this form was understood to be very different
from the Syriac waqtal form (p. 116). This is a hunch
that deserves to be followed up in future grammatical research,
even though it is possible that the translators may not have
fully grasped the significance of this form.
[8]
Williams' conclusions on word order, particularly in speech
formulae, demonstrate why caution is needed before suggesting
that variation in word order is necessarily due to textual
disturbance. The problem here is that while the Peshitta often
imitates the word order of the Hebrew text, it equally often
adjusts the word order to fit Syriac style. Likewise, the
choice of prepositions is usually determined not by slavish
imitation of the Hebrew, but by what is appropriate for Syriac
idiom (cf. 165). In two instances (i.e., 1 Kings 8:29; 8:59)
Williams finds puzzling the fact that the Peshitta reverses the
order of the Hebrew terms found in a matched pair (p. 155).
However, this reversal seems to be in keeping with a tendency
that can be observed elsewhere in the Peshitta. I have
documented numerous instances of this translation technique in
the Book of Daniel. Other scholars have noticed a similar
tendency in certain other books of the Peshitta as well.
[9]
Williams' general conclusion for the syntax of the Peshitta of
1 Kings is that it is "a remarkably consistent translation"
when consistency is defined not in terms of its Hebrew
Vorlage but in terms of the idiom of the Syriac language
itself (p. 183). Although it follows the proto-Masoretic text
closely, the Peshitta goes its own way whenever such departure
is necessary for maintaining the naturalness of the Syriac
idiom. In other words, the Peshitta "sets a higher premium on
semantic rather than formal equivalence" (p. 184). This
conclusion is consistent with what investigators have
determined for other parts of the Peshitta as well.
[10] The
attention that has been given to the Peshitta over the last
half-century or so is a welcome change to the pattern of
neglect that prevailed previously. Much of this attention in
recent decades has focused on text-critical concerns. Williams'
attention to the area of syntax for a particular Old Testament
book is a significant departure in a new direction, and the
quantity of data that he has collected to support his
conclusions makes this an important volume. What is still
needed are similar works devoted to the remaining books of the
Syriac Bible. Once that has been done in a comprehensive way,
we will be in a better position to refine and in some cases
correct the great grammatical tools created by generations of
earlier scholars who in terms of available resources worked
under less advantageous conditions.