Copyright ©2011 by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
Distributed under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.
The name ‘Peshitta’ is used both for the translation of the OT, made in the 2nd cent. on the basis of the Hebrew text, and for a revision of the Old Syriac Version of the NT, which became the standard version around 400.
It is only in the 9th cent. that we find the first attestation of the name
‘Peshitta’.
Eine jakobitische Einleitung [Beihefte zur ZAW 5; 1901], 106–16).
He explains that he knew of two translations in Syriac: the Peshitta, based
on the Hebrew text, and
The Syriac word pšiṭtā is the feminine passive
participle of the verb pšaṭ ‘to stretch out, to
extend’. It presupposes the word mappaqtā
‘translation’. The precise sense of this participle is no longer clear. In
other contexts, it often means ‘simple’. As the use in
vulgata. The Syriac
Bible based on the Hebrew was indeed in common use, in contrast to the
versions made on the basis of the Greek Septuagint. Second, the usual sense
of the participle, ‘simple’, could be interpreted as ‘single’ rather than as
‘abstaining from eloquent language’. This also assumes that the name was
intended to contrast the version with the Syro-Hexapla, the word Hexapla meaning ‘six-fold’.
Already in the 5th cent. one had to guess where the OT Peshitta came from.
The Greek-speaking exegete
Modern scholars would agree with Theodore of Mopsuestia that the name of the translator (or translators) is unknown. Still, one can try to find out where, when, and in which community the Peshitta was translated. Over the past two centuries, some scholars have defended Jewish authorship, others Christian, whereas the famous linguist Theodor Nöldeke came up with the compromise that Jewish Christians were behind the work.
The most thorough and innovative discussion of the origin of the Peshitta is
that of the late Michael Weitzman. In his Introduction to this Syriac version, he first explains that the
categories of ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’ as they were used in the debate
do not take account of the diversity within both religions which research of
the last decades has revealed (see Judaism, Syriac contacts with). It would be better, he argues,
first to establish the ‘theological profile’ of the translation. Only then
can we compare the version with what we know of the Jewish and Christian
communities of the time. Weitzman’s own position is that the Peshitta was
translated in
The evidence for the presence of Jews in Edessa may lead to a modification (Romeny 2005). As far as we can tell on the basis of the funerary inscriptions found close to Edessa, it appears that Edessan Jews did use more or less the same dialect of Aramaic, but did not use the same script as the local pagans. They chose the square Jewish Aramaic script that was also used for Hebrew. On the other hand, Classical Syriac as we know it from the earliest Christian sources suggests that Edessan Christians adopted the Old Syriac dialect and script that were used by the pagans, rather than the Jewish script. This confronts us with the paradox of a translation that supposes a knowledge of Hebrew found only among very learned Jews but that was not written in the Jewish script. Was the Peshitta a gentile project, after all, or should we assume that, perhaps together with an update of the language, the translation was recast in Syriac script? The alternative is that the translators were Jewish Christians (in the sense of: Jews who had come to believe that Jesus Christ brought salvation) from the start.
It is certain that either some of the Jews of Edessa or one of its Christian groups felt the need for a version in the dialect of the town. What Weitzman calls the ‘theological profile’ of the translators is compatible with either possibility, as long as we do not think in terms of the ideal types of rabbinic Judaism and later Christianity. The use of the Syriac script, however, points solely in the direction of Christians. Whatever the case may be, it should be granted that the actual translation work was done by Jews, be they converted to Christianity before (Romeny) or after (Weitzman) the production of the Peshitta: we cannot assume that pagans who converted to Christianity commanded sufficient knowledge of Hebrew.
Weitzman connects the Peshitta with the city of Edessa. The Peshitta
introduces references to Mabbug,
Weitzman’s main argument for dating the OT Peshitta is formed by quotations
of the Peshitta in other texts. On the basis of such quotations, a latest
possible date can be established. If the Peshitta was indeed the basis for
the OT quotations in the Diatessaron, at
least the books actually cited, that is, the Pentateuch, the Latter
Prophets, and the Psalms, already existed and had attained some status by
around 170. On the other hand, the fact that
The history of the translation of the Greek NT into Syriac begins with
The Peshitta did not abruptly replace the Old Syriac. M. Black (1953) argued for the existence of an early Peshitta text, which he labelled ‘Pre-Peshitta’, that was closer to the Old Syriac than the later, definitive text of the Peshitta. ‘Genetic variants’ in the Syriac textual tradition, namely, readings that lie between the Old Syriac and the Peshitta, trace the gradual process of revision toward the Greek (Juckel 2009). Still, the Diatessaronic readings that appear in the Peshitta convinced Joosten (1996) that the Peshitta was based on a revised form of the Diatessaron. A precise description of the relationship between the Peshitta and the Old Syriac and Diatessaron will continue to elude scholars until a critical edition of the Peshitta Gospels is published.
There has been an extensive debate among specialists of the OT Peshitta on
the question of whether those text forms that are closer to the Hebrew text
are representatives of an older stage of the Peshitta tradition or products
of a revision. Studies on the books of Genesis and Exodus in the
The relative uniformity of mss. in later stages of the textual history, that
is, after the 6th cent., suggests some kind of standardization: one text was
chosen from a broader spectrum of texts which must have existed in the first
stage. Koster’s research made it clear that after this second stage,
represented by most mss. from the 6th until the 8th cent., further textual
convergence can be observed. We can speak of a third stage, which he termed
that of the Textus Receptus (others also speak of
Standard Text). On the basis of
Textus Receptus was already available in the
East at the end of the 8th cent. On the other hand, the biblical text of the
commentary of the monk Severos shows us that in the
West, variation was still possible up to the end of the 9th cent., and that
the western biblical ms. 9a1, which still represents the first stage of the
development of the text, was not an isolated case.
Another issue that has been debated widely is the influence of other versions on the Peshitta. Some scholars have even suggested that the Peshitta was not a direct translation of the Hebrew, but based on an earlier Targum. It is, however, natural that two translations of the same text have something in common and could combine together against the source text because of the demands of the language or a similarity in interpretation — all the more so if the two translations are written in dialects of the same language (see Aramaic). There are no external data that prove contact between the Peshitta and the existing Targumim, and all parallels between the Targumim and the Peshitta can be explained as being the result of polygenesis or dependence on a common exegetical tradition. However, for the Septuagint, which is a translation into a completely different language, these explanations do not always suffice. In some books, notably Ezekiel and the Twelve Prophets, we have to assume some literary dependence of the Peshitta on the Septuagint. However, this dependence is not of a systematical nature, and may be the result of changes made in the later tradition.
The NT Peshitta contains twenty-two books; it lacks 2–3 John, 2 Peter, Jude,
and Revelation. It also omits John 7:53–8:11 (along with the Old Syriac and
Ḥarqlean versions) and a few isolated verses,
such as Luke 22:17–18. The history of the Syriac versions of the NT is
characterized by gravitation toward the Greek text. Though, on occasion, the
Peshitta preserves a Diatessaronic reading, where the Old Syriac reflects
the Byzantine Textus Receptus (both the Sinaiticus
and Curetonian mss. show signs of revision toward the Greek text), in
general the Peshitta is closer than the Old Syriac to the Textus Receptus. It preserves readings that agree with the Western
text type (Codex Bezae and the Old Latin), though many of its readings
cannot be linked to any extant Greek witness. The readings unique to the
Peshitta argue for its important role in NT textual criticism (Gwilliam
1903). The meticulous presentation of the Peshitta mss. for the Catholic and
Pauline epistles by B. Aland and A. Juckel (1986–2002) reveals the
homogeneity of these mss. The minor differences among them suggest that the
Peshitta text of these epistles did not undergo a major revision during its
transmission.
The reason why the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament took the initiative to produce a new edition of the OT Peshitta (see below) is its relevance for the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The edition and the studies based on it have made it clear that the Hebrew model of the Peshitta must have been nearly identical with the so-called Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, the standard form of the text handed down to us by a tradition of Jewish scholars, the Masoretes. The Peshitta even reflects a vocalization of the Hebrew text that stands very close to the vocalization recorded many centuries later by the Masoretes. Thus, the Old Testament Peshitta is a prime witness to the strength and quality of the Jewish tradition since the 2nd cent. In the small number of instances where the Peshitta can be demonstrated to go back to a text that differs from the Masoretic Text, it can be useful to correct errors in the latter.
Another issue of scholarly interest is the language of the OT Peshitta. It is one of the largest and oldest texts written in Syriac. A number of studies into the syntax of the Peshitta have already appeared, and the Leiden Peshitta Institute is conducting major research projects in this field (Van Keulen and Van Peursen 2006).
The NT Peshitta remains an important textual witness to the Greek NT since
some of its readings are unique. NT textual critics must distinguish the
readings that witness to Greek variants from those that witness to the
Peshitta’s translation technique and/or exegesis (see, for example, Williams
2004). Continued research into the character of the NT Peshitta as a
translation remains a desideratum. In addition to its
text critical value, the NT Peshitta witnesses to the reception and
interpretation of the Greek NT by Syriac-speaking Christians in the 4th–5th
cent.
The Peshitta is, however, not only of interest to scholars. In the first place, it is the Bible of the Syriac Churches, and it has been a source of spirituality to them for ages. It is used in sermons, commentaries, poetry, and other genres of literature (see Exegesis, OT and Exegesis, NT ). Its interpretations and exegetical traditions have colored the liturgy, and the prayers and hymns of the Syriac Churches follow the choice of words of the Peshitta. Many terms specific to the spirituality of the Syriac Churches have their origins in this ancient and reliable version of the OT and NT.
The first printed edition of part of the Syriac OT was the edition of the
Psalms that was published in Quzḥayya, Lebanon, in 1610. It was followed in
1625 by two more editions of the Psalms: that of the Maronite Gabriel
Sionita (
The first printed edition of the OT Peshitta as a whole is found in the Paris Polyglot. The Syriac text, edited by Gabriel Sionita, appeared in 1645. It was based on a rather poor ms.: 17a5 (Paris, Bibl. Nat. Syr. 6). In its turn, the Paris Polyglot became the basis of the London Polyglot published by Brian Walton in 1657. This edition adds a number of variant readings from mss. present in English libraries, but otherwise just reproduces the Paris text. The text most widely available today goes back to that of Walton, and thus eventually to the Paris ms. 17a5: in 1823 Samuel Lee published his edition of the Peshitta under the auspices of the British and Foreign Bible Society, adopting the text of the London Polyglot while making some use of the so-called Buchanan Bible (Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Oo. I.1,2 = 12a1). The United Bible Societies have been publishing reprints of Lee’s edition up to this day.
Whereas Lee’s edition was printed in the W.-Syr. Serṭo script, the same
century also saw two editions in E.-Syr. type: the so-called Urmia (1852)
and Mosul (1887–92) Bibles. In parallel columns Urmia gives the text of the
Peshitta based on Lee’s edition, corrected in some instances on the basis of
mss. that were available locally, and a new translation of the Hebrew text
into neo-Aramaic. It is assumed that the text of the Mosul edition, in its
turn, made use of the Urmia edition. The Mosul edition was prepared by
Dominican
A 19th-cent. edition of a different nature was
It was not until 1959, however, that the International Organization for the
Study of the Old Testament decided to start the Peshitta project, which was
entrusted to the Leiden Peshitta Institute. In 1972 the first volume of the
new edition appeared, under the title The Old Testament in
Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. The Leiden edition does
not offer a critical text (one that tries to come as close to the original
as possible). It prints a basic text, usually 7a1, with a number of
emendations. Readings deemed impossible and readings not supported by two or
more mss. dated before the year 1000 are emended. The critical apparatus, the list of variant readings, only includes
mss. older than the 13th cent. The reason for this unorthodox approach,
which resulted in a mixed text, was economy. The main text was meant as a
point of reference: it should be common enough to guarantee a concise
apparatus. This entails that the main text as such has no status. As De Boer
writes: ‘The text printed in this edition — it must be stated expressis verbis — ought to be used in exegetical and
textual study together with the apparatuses’ (De Boer, Preface to the
Genesis-Exodus volume, p. viii). In other words, the reader cannot just
quote the text; he or she should first go over the apparatus and do the work
of the textual critic.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings that are the result of its edition method, there is no doubt that the Leiden Peshitta edition is the most important tool for the study of the Peshitta of the OT. The edition will consist of 17 volumes, 13 of which have now appeared. The Peshitta Institute intends to publish additional volumes with the variants of biblical mss. up to and including the 15th cent. as well as studies of the text of the Syriac fathers, whose witness is considered very important. The main text of the edition is also available in electronic format through the website of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/).
The first printed edition of the Syriac NT was prepared by Johann
Widmanstetter in 1555. A year later Immanuel Tremellius produced another
edition. A critical edition of the Gospels (citing forty-two mss. from the
5th–12th cent.) was prepared by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam (1901).
Pusey and Gwilliam’s provisional text for the rest of the NT was combined
with their edition of the Gospels to produce The New
Testament in Syriac (The British and Foreign Bible Society,
1905–20). The minor Catholic letters (2 Peter, 2–3 John, and Jude) and the
Book of Revelation in this edition are taken from J. Gwynn (1897 and 1909);
these are remnants of the Philoxenian version (see
The Peshitta has been translated into English by
The Bible of Edessa. Portions of the NT have been
translated into English by J. W. Etheridge (1846 and 1849) and by James
Murdock (1851).