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’. Mushe bar Kipho (d. 903) uses the name in his Commentary on the Hexaemeron (unedited; GT in L. Schlimme [GOF I. Syriaca 14.1; 1977], 167– 173) and his Introduction to the Psalter (ed. with GT in G. Diettrich, 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 Pawlos of Tella’s translation from the Greek text of the Septuagint (see Syro-Hexapla). Earlier references, in Syriac as well as in Greek sources, simply refer to ‘the Syrian’.

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 Bar ʿEbroyo suggests, this is most probably also the sense when the word is applied to the Syriac Bible. Some modern scholars, however, have suggested other options. First, on the basis of the sense of the verb, the participle has been interpreted as ‘widespread’, in the sense of ‘in common use’, just like the Latin word 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 Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) says that the Syriac Bible was composed by some unknown man who often made mistakes and even made up stories. Syriac authors in the following centuries mentioned various theories: it would have been commissioned by Hiram, king of Tyre and an ally of David; alternatively it would have been translated by a priest called Asya, who was sent to Samaria by the king of Assyria (cf. 2 Kings 17:27–8), by the Apostles, by Mark the Evangelist, or in the time of Abgar.

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 Edessa from 150 onwards by a non-rabbinic Jewish group that clearly identified themselves with Judaism, but neglected some elements of ritual in favour of a more personal belief, in which prayer played an important role. They emphasized faith and hope rather than observance. As they shared these values with Christians, they might have adopted Christianity. This would then explain how a Jewish translation came to be transmitted by the Eastern Churches, and why it was not received among rabbinic Jews.

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, Ḥarran, and Nisibis as additions to the text or substitutions for other names. These names suggest an origin in Osrhoene, the province around Edessa. The dialect and script of the Peshitta also accord well with that of the inscriptions found in this province.

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 Bardaiṣan, born in 154, quotes Gen. 9:6 in a form that stands closer to the Jewish Targum Onqelos could still indicate some reserve towards the Peshitta. This is a warning against adopting a much earlier date, and makes Weitzman propose the date of ca. 150. Chronicles, and perhaps also Ezra and Nehemiah, may have been translated about fifty years later.

The history of the translation of the Greek NT into Syriac begins with Tatian’s Diatessaron, a 2nd- cent. Gospel harmony. The Old Syriac Version (3rd cent.) is the oldest translation of the four separate Gospels and the Peshitta (early 5th cent.) is a revision that brought the Old Syriac closer to the Greek. Burkitt (1904) attributed the Peshitta to Rabbula, the bp. of Edessa (411–35) who had vigorously suppressed the use of the Diatessaron in the Syriac Church. While Rabbula may have enforced the dissemination of the Peshitta version, the theory that he was responsible for its creation was convincingly challenged by Vööbus (1951) who illustrated how Rabbula’s own writings contained quotations from the Old Syriac Version and the Diatessaron.

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 5th- cent. ms. 5b1 (Brit. Libr. Add. 14,425) eventually showed that a translation very close to the Hebrew model had developed into one that was easier to read and less ambiguous. Some phrases were replaced by more idiomatic Syriac ones or by expressions which better met the prevailing standards of literary Syriac. What is implicit in the Hebrew text and in the original translation was made explicit, for example, by adding the subject. Complicated sentences were clarified by slight additions or omissions, or by changes in word order. Finally, certain passages were harmonized in the process of transmission. All this happened during the first stages of the history of the Peshitta. For other books, it appears that we can discern a comparable first stage. The importance of ms. 9a1 (Florence, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Or. 58) has been pointed out in this respect. Even though this is a much later ms., for some books it still preserves a text comparable to the Genesis and Exodus text of ms. 5b1.

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 Theodoros bar Koni’s biblical quotations, we can say that the later Standard Text or 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 (al-Ṣahyūnī, Jibrāʾīl), published in Paris, and that of Thomas van Erpe (Erpenius), a professor of Arabic, printed in Leiden, the Netherlands.

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 Clemens Joseph David, Syr. Cath. Archbishop of Damascus, and George ʿAbdishoʿ Khayyāṭ, Chaldean Archbishop of Diyarbakır; it was published by the Dominican Fathers. This edition also contains the text of the apocryphal or deutero-canonical books.

A 19th-cent. edition of a different nature was A. M. Ceriani’s facsimile publication of ms. 7a1, the oldest codex containing the complete text of the OT Peshitta, from the Ambrosian Library in Milan (ms. B 21 inf.). It was published in the years 1876–83. This publication was a landmark in Peshitta studies. For the first time, a text became available to a scholarly public that differed markedly from that of the Paris Polyglot. The first scientific edition, containing only the Psalms, was published by W. E. Barnes in 1904. He used 7a1 as his base text, but corrected it on the basis of a number of other mss. With the help of C. W. Mitchell and J. Pinkerton, the same author also published a new edition of the Pentateuch in 1914. This edition gives a corrected version of Lee’s text.

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 Polykarpos). More recently, G.  Kiraz produced a comparative edition of the Syriac Gospels (Kiraz 1996) that aligns the Siniaticus and Curetonian mss. with the Peshitta and Ḥarqlean versions. A new critical edition of the Peshitta Gospels is needed, though the quantity of Peshitta mss. renders this a formidable task. The Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung at Münster has produced an edition of the Catholic and Pauline letters (B. Aland and A. Juckel 1986–2002) that aligns Peshitta mss. with the Ḥarqlean text and quotations from Syriac authors.

The Peshitta has been translated into English by George M. Lamsa. Unfortunately, this translation has been assimilated to the Hebrew text in quite a few places, and is not based on a reliable text of the Peshitta. The latter point also applies to Andrew Oliver’s lesser known translation of the Peshitta Psalter. A new English annotated translation of the OT Peshitta is now being prepared by a group of scholars as one of the Leiden Peshitta Institute’s projects. It will appear under the title 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).