Gillian Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 13; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2002. Pp. xiii + 242. $75, ISBN 90-04-11980-9.
Craig E.
Morrison
Pontifical Biblical Institute
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2004
Vol. 7, 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/hv7n1prmorrison
Craig E. Morrison
Gillian Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 13; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2002. Pp. xiii + 242. $75, ISBN 90-04-11980-9.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol7/HV7N1PRMorrison.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 7
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
Greenberg
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
BOOK REVIEW
[1] Among
the important developments in the transmission of the Peshitta
text through the centuries is the recent emergence of the
Leiden critical edition. The success of this edition can be
measured by the amount of research it has stimulated, research
that has focused on the transmission of the Peshitta and its
character. This theme was the subject of the Second Peshitta
Symposium, held at Leiden in 1993 (The Peshitta as a
Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at
Leiden 19-21 August 1993 [eds. P.B. Dirksen and A. van der
Kooij] [MPIL 8; Leiden 1995]). Scholars are now busy
investigating the translation techniques of the
Peshitta’s individual books since, when the
characteristics of the translation are identified, isolated
readings, unique to the Peshitta, can be properly interpreted.
Peshitta Jeremiah is among the most challenging of biblical
books, since, apart from its length, Jeremiah contains an
anthology of literary genres (narrative prose, poetic oracles,
proverbs, and so forth). Then there are its daunting text
critical questions: the Greek text is about one-eighth shorter
than the Hebrew text. To further complicate matters, a critical
edition of Peshitta Jeremiah has not yet appeared. In view of
these obstacles, the news that Greenberg has undertaken an
investigation of translation techniques in Peshitta Jeremiah
will be well received among Syriac scholars, Peshitta scholars,
text critics and biblical exegetes.
[2]
Greenberg begins her investigation examining the character of
the Urtext of the Peshitta. She notes that
“whenever the translation did in fact depart from the
literal, whether both in the Urtext and in the later
stages of copying and revising, or only during this later
period, three elements are clear: first, that it did depart,
and to a considerable extent; second, that the great majority
of the differences between the MT and the Peshitta to Jeremiah
are small, matters of style rather than of sense; and third,
that many of these small differences were the work of the
scribes, not of the translator” (p. 15). Greenberg takes
the Codex Ambrosianus (Peshitta MS. 7a1 according to the sigla
of the Leiden edition) as the text for study.
[3] In
chapter two Greenberg explains her method: “The results
presented here were obtained by word-for-word comparison of the
source document and the translation throughout the 1364 verses
of the book” (p. 26). This method must have
produced a mountain of data. So a balance had to be reached
“between two approaches: excessive amounts of detail and
numerous examples to illustrate each point have the drawback
that they take up so much space that there is not enough room
for adequate discussion; on the other hand, limiting the
quantity of detail too stringently does not allow the reader to
judge whether or not the conclusions drawn are
well-founded” (p. 27). The author decided to give
“in detail, all or nearly all the most interesting
examples of the various features of the translation technique,
together with a sufficient number of supporting examples”
along with “a structured sample in which the prevalence
of these features could be measured” (p. 27). This
structured example is comprised of the tenth verse of each
chapter of Jeremiah (except in Chapters 45 and 47 where the
fifth and the seventh verses, respectively, are selected).
[4] I must
admit that, as I read this book, I remained unsure about the
need for the “structured sample.” Since all 1364
verses of Jeremiah were studied, it would have been possible to
list all the examples of a given translation technique (just
the verse numbers) and then to select the
“interesting” ones for further discussion. Then the
“structured sample” would have become superfluous
as the reader could assess how often (and where) a given
translation technique explains a particular Peshitta reading. A
complete list of all the unique readings in Peshitta Jeremiah
would have rendered the book invaluable to text critics, who
will consult Greenberg’s work for assistance in
interpreting isolated Peshitta readings in Jeremiah.
[5] Each
chapter studies a particular translation technique from
Peshitta Jeremiah. Chapter two presents eleven examples from
Jeremiah where the Peshitta has an identifiable change in the
sense of the Hebrew. The “small size of this group”
sustains Greenberg’s premise that “on the whole,
the sense of the Vorlage is meticulously
preserved” (p. 26). Chapter three looks at various types
of “additions.” Greenberg’s first example,
from Jer 6:3, is quite interesting. The Hebrew reads:
“shepherds and their flocks will come to her”. To
this phrase, 7a1 adds “together” ('a(y)k
hda). This addition can also be
categorized as a harmonization with Jer 6:11, 12, 21 where
Hebrew yahdaw is rendered
'akhda. But what is intriguing
is that the addition in 6:3 in 7a1 is unique in terms of its
orthography ('a(y)k hda instead
of 'akhda). This could suggest
that a hand other than the translator’s added these
words.
[6] Lexical
equivalents, studied in chapter four, reveal that there is no
one-to-one correspondence between Hebrew and Syriac lexemes. In
fact, the translator varied his selection of Syriac equivalents
for the same Hebrew word “according to his own
taste” (p. 46). When two different Syriac words could
render the same Hebrew word, then subtle distinctions between
Syriac lexemes may have determined the translator’s
choice. Chapter five treats harmonizations, perhaps one
of the most common characteristics of the Peshitta
version. I have found that many readings in the Peshitta
that diverge from the MT, such as the addition in 6:3 noted
above, are harmonizations, and text critics do well to consider
harmonization as a first option for explaining individual
Peshitta readings. Greenberg illustrates how the translator was
ready to clarify “figurative language” but
anthropomorphic descriptors for God are preserved in the
Peshitta (chapter six). Grammatical inconsistencies in
the Hebrew are corrected in the Peshitta (chapter seven).
[7] Special
attention is given to passages that appear twice in the Bible
(chapter eight). In some cases a passage is repeated within the
book of Jeremiah itself (i.e., Jer 6:12-15 and Jer 8:10).
In others, the duplicate passage appears elsewhere in the
Bible. Greenberg demonstrates that such passages were
“largely translated independently of one another”
(p. 75). The translator normally did not harmonize his
translation, though there are a few examples that suggest some
degree of harmonization.
[8] Chapter
nine treats minuses in the Peshitta with respect to the MT. The
minuses are divided into three groups: (1) apparently
accidental; (2) apparently deliberate; and (3) those which
throw light on the wording of the Vorlage. Three
examples of accidental minuses and nineteen examples of
deliberate minuses are discussed. The third category receives
the most attention and the argumentation becomes quite complex.
After reviewing the literature on the textual transmission of
Jeremiah (LXX, MT, and Qumran), Greenberg argues that in cases
of “purposeless repetitions” the translator
consulted the LXX:
A translator anxious to defend the
originality of his Vorlage, and having in mind the
critical reader who might find grounds for suspicion in
apparently purposeless repetitions suggesting the possibility
of underlying deliberate conflations or scribal error, might
make omissions to avoid such controversy, particularly if he
did not regard himself as bound by the constraints of working
with a letter-perfect text. Nevertheless, when translating
double readings the translator into Syriac gave both
components, although his careful reading of the Hebrew must
often have led him to suspect the presence of secondary
expansion of the text, and a glance at the LXX would in many
cases have strengthened his suspicion that the Vorlage
showed signs of corruption”(p. 109-110).
Several examples of minuses (Peshitta and LXX agree against
the MT; the LXX and MT agree against the Peshitta) are adduced
to support her theory.
[9] In
chapter ten Greenberg develops the notion of a “Peshitta
School.” It seems that the “translators worked to
some extent as colleagues rather than as separate individuals,
feeling that they were members of a ‘Peshitta
School’” (p. 126). After the original generation of
translators died out, later scribes (Greenberg prefers this
term to “copyists”) would have “felt
responsible for the character of the text” (p. 126) and
would have “felt themselves to be part of the Peshitta
School tradition: there would surely have been a continuous
consciousness in eastern religious circles that this text,
rooted in Judaism and spanning the early centuries of
Christianity, was of the greatest importance” (p. 126).
In future research the author may want to support this
suggestive proposal with appropriate citations from Syriac
authors who could testify to this “continuous
consciousness” within the “Peshitta
School.”
[10]
Chapter eleven treats an important question in Peshitta
studies—the relationship between the Peshitta and the
LXX. In her introduction, Greenberg noted that “such
influence is not in doubt” (p. 22). In this chapter she
adduces four cases to illustrate this “sporadic”
influence (p. 147). I will take up the first one, which comes
from Jer 5:26. According to Greenberg, there are two readings
that witness to the strong influence of the LXX on the
Peshitta. The first is that the Peshitta and the LXX agree to
translate Hebrew hissibu with
waqim and estēsan, respectively. The
second one is that both omit the obscure Hebrew word
yashur. But did the Peshitta translator need to
consult the LXX to arrive at waqim for MT
hissibu? A quick glance at a
concordance reveals that the only other example of
hiphil √nsb in
Jeremiah appears in 31:21 (hassibi) where it is translated in 7a1 with
'aqim. A look through Genesis reveals that each
hiphil of √nsb
is translated with the aphel of
√qwm. Thus, the translator hardly needed
the LXX for its rendering of hissibu. The overall character of the Peshitta
translation of Jer 5:26 raises further questions about the
supposed influence from the LXX, since the Peshitta strays from
both the MT and the LXX in a few places, including the
interpretation of kshak with 'a(y)k syage.
Given this freedom one wonders if the translator had to consult
the LXX for permission to omit the difficult Hebrew word
yashur.
[11] One
could quibble with the other examples as well but the more
important question regards Greenberg’s methodology. When
Peshitta scholars seek to determine the relationship between
the Peshitta and the LXX (or any biblical version for that
matter), the first step must be to present a complete list of
the agreements between the Peshitta and the LXX for a given
biblical book or section of a book. Even though the task may be
Herculean (especially for Jeremiah), it remains, nonetheless,
necessary. Once all the agreements with the LXX have
been identified and given individual consideration, then the
Peshitta can be assessed for traces of possible influence from
the LXX. This method also permits the total number of
agreements with the LXX to be compared with the number of
instances where the Peshitta goes its own way (as in the
interpretation 'a(y)k syage Kya in Jer 5:26). Then the
degree of influence, if any, can also be measured. For
now, the question of LXX influence on Peshitta Jeremiah awaits
further study.
[12]
Chapters twelve through fourteen present various strategies
that the translator employed for handling difficult Hebrew
texts. These include guesswork, influence from elsewhere in the
Bible, mimicking the sound of the Hebrew word in Syriac, and
even resorting to an “atomistic translation.”
Examples are adduced to illustrate each translation strategy.
The book concludes with a bibliography, an index of authors, an
index of biblical citations and a general index.
[13] This
volume lays the groundwork for future research into Peshitta
Jeremiah and is a welcome addition to the field.
Greenberg’s “Peshitta School” and her
understanding of the consciousness of later scribes offer a
fascinating approach to resolving the obscure origins of the
Peshitta version. Above all, she is to be commended for
her willingness to investigate Peshitta Jeremiah, despite the
obstacles that impede a thorough study of this biblical
book.