The Peshi Ta and Textual Criticism of The Old Testament

The Peshiṭta and Textual Criticism of the Old Testament
Author(s): P. B. Dirksen
Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 376-390
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518727
Accessed: 26-04-2016 11:48 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518727?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum
This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:48:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PEHITTA INSTITUTE COMMUNICATION XXII
THE PESHITTA AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT1
The Peshitta may be the subject of research for other reasons

than that of textual criticism of the O.T. To mention two obvious
ones: this version is of prime importance as a monument of the

Syriac language, and it is an important witness for early exegesis.
But the fact remains that for the O.T. scholar, and in particular the
O.T. textual critic, the P is primarily an ancient witness to the text
of the Bible, in importance second only to the LXX. The question
that the O.T. scholar will usually ask, with respect to the P, is
whether a deviation from the MT may reflect another and perhaps
older and better text than the MT, or at least help him in tracing
the early history of the biblical text. This text-critical interest in the
P is a valid one, but it certainly is not easy to put it into practice.
For the O.T. scholar to use the P for textual purposes two needs
must be met. The first need is to have the oldest possible text of the
P available. This need is being fulfilled to a large extent by the
Leiden Peshitta. It has become clear that in general the important
variant readings occur in the ancient manuscripts, i.e. the manu-
scripts of up to and including the 9th century. With only a few
exceptions of minor importance, the text and apparatus of the
Leiden edition together allow us to reconstruct the text which
underlies these ancient manuscripts,2 i.e. the text of the 6th, some-
times of the 5th century. Admittedly, this is still at least four cen-
turies after the P came into being. What happened to the text in
This article was read as a paper at the Joint Meeting of the British Society
for Old Testament Study and the Dutch/Flemish Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap (OTW) at Durham, 16-19 July 1991. "P", "Trg" and "Sam"
are used as abbreviations for "Peshitta", "Targum", and "Samaritan Pen-
tateuch", respectively. The Peshitta text of Genesis in the Leiden Peshitta I, 1
(Leiden, 1977) has been prepared by M.D. Koster.
2 Cf. P.B. Dirksen, "Thi Ancient Peshitta MSS of Judges and their Variant
Readings", in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (ed.), The Peshitta: Its Early Text and
History. Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium held at Leiden 30-31 August 1985,
Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 5 (Leiden, 1988), pp. 127-46.
PESHITTA INSTITUTE COMMUNICATION XXII 377
that period? We can do little more than guess. But this is as close
as we can get.
The other need is guidance with respect to the question how to
evaluate the P's deviations from the Hebrew. It will be agreed that
the mention of isolated readings of the P-and for that matter of
the other ancient versions-in the critical apparatus of the Hebrew
Bible is of little use, and may in some cases even be more
misleading than helpful. We cannot bypass the question of the text-
critical weight of a reading of the P which deviates from the
Hebrew.
There will be cases when the P by itself may reflect a Hebrew

variant, and indeed such cases have been suggested by various
scholars.3 In general, however, we shall be hesitant to base text-
critical conclusions on a deviation of the P alone. At any rate, no
general rules can be drawn up for such cases. Each case has to be
treated on its own merits, within the framework of all the textual
data.
But what is to be done if the P agrees with the LXX, any or all
of the targums, or with both? This has been a much debated ques-
tion in scholarly literature. In this literature we find a large quan-
tity of material consisting of extra-masoretic agreements between
the P and any or all of the other ancient versions for various books
of the O.T. And if we now disagree with some conclusions, we have
certainly gained from this previous work a better insight into the
issue and also into the pitfalls in dealing with it. We are now better
aware of the variety of possible explanations of the agreements
between the P and one or more of the other versions. I have
counted the following eight possibilities, between which admittedly

one cannot always draw a sharp line.
1. The same translation technique: two or more versions may
follow the same method in going about the work of translation,
which may result in agreements over against the MT. An example
is the explanatory rendering of metaphors as "shield" and "rock"
referring to God. In the LXX, the P, and the Trg we find transla-
tions as "Helper" and "the Strong One".4
3 A recent notable example is the article by J. Joosten, "1 Samuel xvi 6, 7 in

the Peshitta version", VT 41 (1991), pp. 226-33, in which it is plausibly argued
that the P reflects here a better text than that presented by the MT.
4 See e.g. J.A. Lund's study, mentioned below, pp. 227-34.
378 P. B. DIRKSEN
2. The same translation tradition: the versions use a certain tradi-

tion as to the translation of a certain Hebrew word or expression.
The best known example is perhaps the translation of gan in Gen.
ii-iii as "Paradise" in the LXX and in the P. A more prosaic exam-
ple is the translation of the name "Kadesh-barnea", which is
rendered in the P reqem degayyda, and in the Trg reqam ge"a.
3. The use of Jewish exegetical traditions, which concern the mean-
ing of the text. An example quoted by several authors is the transla-
tion of ii 8: "And God planted a garden in Eden to the east". The
Hebrew miqqedem, "to the east", is rendered in the P as men qedim
and in the Trg as milleqadmin, "from of old", reflecting a Jewish
tradition that Paradise was created before the world.5
4. The agreements between the P and one or more targums refer

to the P's targumic origins. The hypothesis that the P is rooted in
the targumic tradition is connected with the name of P. Kahle and
A. Baumstark, who defended it in the 1930s.
5. The P is a translation from the Hebrew, but has been influenced
by the LXX or Trg Onkelos.
6. A sixth possibility concerns only the LXX: if one assumes influ-
ence from this version, the possibility remains that this influence
does not go back to the translator himself, but to a later glossator.
7. An extra-masoretic agreement may reflect a Hebrew variant
reading.
8. The agreement may be purely accidental: a translation problem
may have been solved independently in two versions in the same
way. An exemple may be Gen. vi 3: "my spirit will not remain (?)
in a human being for ever". The Hebrew verbyddon is uncertain.
Both the P and the LXX, as many translators after them, translate
with "remain" (tecmar/xoaaCote.Cv), apparently guessing on the basis
of the context.
Given this range of possibilities it will surprise no one that

scholars often give different explanations for extra-masoretic
agreements between the P and the LXX/Trg. These differences
make clear that to use extra-masoretic agreements in which the P
is involved for textual criticism, we are in need of criteria. I am not
thinking of criteria which should cover the whole O.T. and deal
with the relation between the P and all other versions, but of
5 See e.g. Y. Maori, The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch in its Relation to the Sources
of Jewish Exegesis (diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 69-70.
criteria which are valid in a given portion of text and with respect
to the P's relation to a specific different version. These criteria
result from a study of the actual material. I venture to state that,
for Peshitta research, here lies the most important task for the time
being.
How do we know which possibility obtains in a certain case?
Often the choice will depend on an overall pattern which is sup-
posed to exist. But this overall pattern can be assumed only on the
basis of single cases. There is a measure of circular reasoning which
perhaps is unavoidable to a certain extent. If one assumes on the
basis of some cases that in a certain book there is a specific relation
of the P to the LXX or the Trg, one will be tempted to explain other
cases on that basis as well. If, on the other hand, one is not con-
vinced of any such relation, one will be inclined to account for
agreements by assuming them to be the result of the same transla-
tion technique or otherwise.
Many examples could be mentioned. I shall, however, limit
myself to one study, viz. that of Jerome A. Lund, The Influence of
the Septuagint on the Peshitta. A Re-Evaluation of Criteria in Light of Com-
parative Study of the Versions in Genesis and the Psalms; it is a doctoral
dissertation (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988) which certainly
deserves to be made available in print. As is indicated in the title,
the book consists of two halves, one dealing with Genesis and one
with the Psalter. The work deals with the relation between the P
and the LXX, with explicit emphasis on matters of method. In the
introduction Lund states: "The purpose of this study is to re-
examine the question of the direct influence of G on S by re-
examining the criteria upon which the theory is based. The study
aims at determining valid criteria by which to judge the question"
(pp. 11-12).
My aim is not to enter into a detailed discussion with Lund, let
alone to quarrel with him, but to use his work as a starting-point
in asking the question which criteria present themselves when we
deal with the agreements between the P and the LXX in Genesis.
Lund was not the first to deal with the relation between the P and
the LXX in Genesis. In his dissertation of 19116 J. Hinel argues
that the translator of the P consulted the LXX in a number of
6 Die aussermasorethischen Ubereinstimmungen zwischen der Septuaginta und der Peschit-

tha in der Genesis, BZA W 20 (Giessen, 1911).
380 P. B. DIRKSEN
places, for which he adduces ten specific cases as proof. These cases
were reviewed by S.R. Isenberg in an article of 19717 and found
invalid. Lund again reviews the ten cases. He agrees with Isenberg
that these cases do not prove dependence of the P on the LXX, but
faults his reasoning. He thinks that Isenberg one-sidedly compares
the P with the Targum tradition and hardly pays any attention to
the character of the P as a translation (the "inner-S [= the P]-
Perspective"; p. 13).
The aspect of translation technique is rightly stressed by Lund
over against Isenberg's strong tendency to explain the Peshitta
readings as targumic. This priority of translation technique does
not, however, overrule Lund's own priority, which is to assume a
Hebrew variant. He prefaces his treatment with an "argument"
which runs as follows:
What appear to be shared variants between S [the P] and G [the

LXX] must be considered to be so if the science of textual criticism
is to have any meaning. When S and G share the same plus, minus,
transposition, or difference in words, one must assume that that is
what they both read, and not that S depended on G, while having H
[Hebrew text] = MT before it.
Lund excludes from consideration agreements between the P and

the LXX which concern details such as connective waw, number,
and suffixes. Yet, in the four categories just mentioned, there
remain 118 valid agreements for the book of Genesis, which means
that we should assume as many Hebrew variants.
Only after these 118 cases have been taken care of does Lund
apply the criterion of translation technique. This second "argu-
ment" runs as follows:
When translation technique adequately accounts for the difference

between MT and S, the extra-massoretic agreement between S and
G must be considered coincidental.
I fully endorse this "argument", taken as an independent state-

ment. My difference with Lund is that I would let this "argument"
come before the previous one instead of after it. Being relegated to
7 "On the Jewish-Palestinian Origins of the Peshitta to the Pentateuch", JBL

90 (1970), pp. 74-80; cf. his dissertation Studies in the Jewish Aramaic 'ranslations of
the Pentateuch (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1968).
the second place, this "argument" is now effective only with regard
to what is left after the first "argument" has been applied.
The reason for giving priority to translation technique over all
other explanations of the agreements is that, through the whole
O.T., the P gives a translation which aims at good Syriac idiom
and at clarity. There are a good number of studies in which the
Syriac is compared with the Hebrew and which give many
examples of various types of deviation from the Hebrew that find
their obvious explanation in translation technique, the latest
notable example being the study of the Peshitta of the Twelve Pro-
phets by A. Gelston.8 The explanation on the basis of translation
technique, therefore, has a strong a priori probability.
Admittedly, this does not give foolproof certainty in each case,
and the possibility remains that an extra-masoretic agreement may
be explained by assuming translation technique but actually reflects
a Hebrew variant. To posit such a variant, however, other evidence
has to be adduced.
This leaves open the question how far the term "translation
technique" can be stretched. The criterion is not so much what we
think a translator could have done as what can be shown as having
actually been done by the translator involved. As a partial answer
to this question I suggest the following "argument", to use Lund's
terminology:
We should check whether the type of deviation in which the P and
the LXX agree also occurs in the P without a corresponding transla-
tion in the LXX. If this is indeed the case, then there is no reason
to assume a Hebrew variant.
This "argument" will now be applied to the extra-masoretic

agreements between the P and the LXX which, according to Lund,
reflect a Hebrew variant. For this I have compared P-Gen. i-xxv
with the MT, to find out where it deviates from the Hebrew text
and whether it does or does not agree in these cases with the LXX.
To confine ourselves to these twenty-five chapters is, of course, for
purely practical reasons. A conclusive analysis of the extra-
masoretic agreements should cover at least the whole book of
Genesis, if not the whole Pentateuch.9
8 The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), pp. 131-59.

9 For a study of P's translation technique in Genesis and Exodus cf. J. Cook,
'n Onderzoek na die Komposisie van die Peshitta (Pentateug), Navorsingsverslag vir die
Raad vir Geesteswetenskaplike Navorsing (Stellenbosch, 1985).
382 P. B. DIRKSEN
Of the 118 extra-masoretic agreements quoted by Lund, forty-

seven concern the first twenty-five chapters. With regard to four of
them Lund states that translation technique may account for the
deviating rendering rather than a Hebrew variant.10
Demands of syntax seem to account for six instances. In four of
these the demonstrative pronoun has been added, or rather, has
been made explicit." These are the following:
xviii:10, 14: "I will return kdaet hayyal, the same time next year".
The P and the LXX both have problems with the expression as a
whole, but both render kdCet as: "this time". There is, however, no
reason to assume a Hebrew variant; the expression occurs also in
2 Kings iv 16, where again both versions use the demonstrative
pronoun.
xix 12: "Take [them] out of the (P/LXX: this) place [hammdqom]".
xix 34: "Let us give him wine to drink also tonight [hallayld]".
The translation "this evening" in the P and the LXX, and for that
matter in modern translations, is a correct and adequate rendering
of the Hebrew.
The other two places are vii 2 and xiv 12. In vii 2 the MT twice
uses '^s weis'to, "man and wife", with respect to animals, instead
of zdkdr uneqeba; both the P and the LXX give the usual and
natural rendering "male(s) and female(s)". In xiv 12 the MT
reads: "And they took Lot and his possessions, the son of
Abraham's brother". Both the P and the LXX give the natural
order, "Lot, Abraham's brother, and his possessions".
In twenty-five cases the P and the LXX share a reading of a type
that also occurs in the P alone and which therefore should be con-
sidered the result of translation technique.
In thirteen of these there is a plus which makes explicit in the two
versions what is implicit in the Hebrew.
Five times the subject is involved:
iii 1: "And he (P/LXX: the serpent) said to the woman..."
xv 6: "and he (P/LXX: Abraham) believed in the Lord"
xvii 17: "Will (P/LXX: a son) be born to a man a hundred years
old?"
10 viz.: ii 4 (p. 61), vii 2 (pp. 63-4), viii 18 (p. 61), xii 12 (p. 64).
1 See W. Gesenius-E. Kautzsch, Hebraische Grammatik (Leipzig, 189626), ? 126,
for the demonstrative force of the article. Another example is happacam, rendered
zeba(n)ta haded; e.g. Gen. xviii 32.
xxi 30: "And he (P/LXX: Abraham12) said..."

xxi 33. "And he (P/LXX: Abraham) planted a tamarisk tree"
This type of deviation by itself can easily be explained as the
result of translation technique and certainly should be treated as
such in view of the fact that this type of deviation also occurs in the
P in a number of places without a corresponding rendering in the
LXX. I have noted the following places:
iii 1: "And he (P: the Lord) said: 'Who has told you...?'"
iii 24: "And he (P: the Lord God) drove him out"
v 2: "...and he (P: God) blessed them"
xiv 8: "...and they (P: all these [kings]) engaged them in battle"
xv 8: "...and he (P: Abraham) said..."
xviii 29: "...and he (P: Abraham) spoke again..."
xix 3: "And he (P-minus 5bl: Lot) urged them"13
xix 16: "And he (P: Lot) hesitated"
xx 1: "And he (P: Abraham) sojourned in Gerar"
xx 4: "...and he (P: Abimelek) said..."
xxiv 40: "And he (P-minus 5bl: my master) said to me..."
Once, the direct object is made explicit:
xxiv 43: "When a young woman comes out to draw (P/LXX:
water)..." Lund assumes that "water" has dropped out in the
Hebrew. However, in vs. 11 the P does exactly the same without
the LXX.14 Two other places may be noted where also the direct
object is added in the P:
xix 1: "...and he saw (P: them)"
xix 9: "...and will he judge (P: over us [lan])?"
Three times the indirect object is involved:
12 Only in two Peshitta manuscripts, 7al and 7k4; apparently, a copyist has
introduced the adaptation.
13 In a number of cases Peshitta manuscript 5bl (London, British Library Add.
14,425) differs from the other manuscripts while agreeing with the MT. M.D.
Koster has made plausible that in general 5bl represents an older stage in the
development of the Peshitta text (The Peshitta of Exodus. The Development of its Text
in the Course of Fifteen Centuries [Assen/Maastricht, 1977]). This would mean that
the majority reading in the P is the result of an inner-Syriac development and that
its agreement with the LXX cannot be adduced as pointing to a Hebrew variant.
This inner-Syriac development does point, however, to the tendencies outlined in
this article. Peshitta readings not supported by 5bl are indicated as "P-minus
5bl".
14 This verse is mentioned by Lund, who, however, thinks it is more telling that
in the other verses the MT, the P, and the LXX run parallel in having or omitting
"water".
384 P. B. DIRKSEN
ix 12. "And God said (P/LXX: to Noah)..."

xvii 19. "And God said (P-minus 5bl/LXX: to Abraham)..."
xx 15. "And Abimelek said (P-minus 5bl/LXX: to Abraham)..."
Again, this type of addition is found in other places in the P with-
out a corresponding translation in the LXX. I have noted eleven
cases where this happens after the verb "to say", as is also the case
in Lund's three examples, although in all these cases the indirect
object is not a proper name but a personal pronoun.'5 Apparently,
the verb "to say" in both the P and the LXX (or: in Syriac and
Greek) attracts an indirect object. Sometimes the P and the LXX
both supply it, but in a different way. In xxv 31 the MT has:
"Jacob said...", the P-minus 5bl: "Jacob said to him...", and the
LXX: "Jacob said to Esau..." Two other cases of a supplied
indirect object are the following:
xvi 15: "...his son whom Hagar bore (P: to him)"
xix 3: "...he baked cakes (P: for them)"
A verb is made explicit in xii 6. "and the Canaanites [were] then
in the land". Both the P and the LXX render: "and the Canaanites
were then living (P: yatbin) in the land" (cf. xiii 7). Even if this were
the only example of the addition of a verb, one would rather see
here just an adequate translation in both the P and the LXX.16
Other examples only confirm this. I have noticed the following
three for the P without parallel in the LXX:
xvi 6: "your maid is (P: is delivered [masleema]) in(to) your hands"
xvii 4 MT: "I-my covenant (is) with you"
P: "I am establishing [meqim] my covenant with you". The
Hebrew syntax is unusual, and the Syriac is clearly a stylistic
smoothing out of the text.
xviii 6: "...and Abraham hurried (P-minus 5bl: + and ran) into the
tent"
xxiv 2 MT: "Abraham said to the senior servant..."
15 The places involved are the following: i 22 ( + to them); ii 16 (+ to him);

iii 17 (+ to you); xvii 3 (+ to him); xix 14 (+ to them); xxii 2 (+ to him); xxiii
3 (+ to them); xxiv 14(+ to me), 17 (+ to her), 18 (+ to him), 23 (+ to her).
Lund considers cases like these "variants/non variants" because they involve only
suffixes. However, whether only the personal pronoun or a name is involved, in
both cases one and the same type of translation technique is involved, which is
ignored when only formal criteria are used to decide what should be considered
significant deviations.
16 Apart from demands of syntax, adaptation may have played a role; cf. xiii 7.
P-minus 5bl: "Abraham called the senior servant...and said to

him..."
In the following three cases an appellative is added:

xviii 17. "Shall I hide from (P/LXX: my servant) Abraham...?"
xxiv 60. "And they blessed (P-minus 5bl/LXX: their sister)
Rebekah"
xxv 5. "He left everything to (P/LXX: his son) Isaac"

Again, the same deviation occurs in the P without parallel in the
LXX:
xvi 6: "...and Abraham said to (P-minus 5bl: his wife) Sarai..."

xvi 6: "So (P-minus 5bl: her mistress) Sarai ill-treated her"
xviii 14: "...and (P: your wife) Sarah will have a son"
At this point it may be noted that till now only those examples
from the P have been mentioned which are parallelled in the LXX
with regard to their syntactical function. Besides these quite a few
other cases could be mentioned which have no exact parallel in the
LXX in the portion under consideration, but which confirm that
making explicit what is implicit in the Hebrew is a prominent
feature of the P as a translation.17
A second group which comes under the heading of translation
technique consists of twelve cases which concern adaptation to the
context: 18
i 11. "plants that bear seed (P/LXX: + according to their

kind)..."; cf. vs. 12.
ii 4. MT: "...earth and heaven"; (P/LXX: + Sam, Trg: "heaven
and earth". The latter order occurs in the second half of the same
verse, and, moreover, is the usual one in the O.T.19
ii 24: "...and they (P/LXX: the two of them) will become one
flesh"; cf. vs. 25.
iv 25 "...she (P/LXX: became pregnant and) bore a son"; cf. vss
1 and 17
17 To mention just a few examples: ix 15 ( + decammekon), xii 17 ( + "the sons

of) his house", xix 9 "came here to stay (+ with us)".
18 Lund mentions that the deviation in i 11 and xxi 29 probably resulted from
adaptation, but this adaptation was made in the Hebrew text, not in the
translations.
19 The order "heaven and earth" is the usual one (e.g. Jer. xxxiii 25; Joel iv
16; Ps. lxix 35). The order "earth and heaven" occurs only in Ps. cxlviii 13. In
BHS the LXX is not mentioned in the apparatus at ii 4.
386 P. B. DIRKSEN
xviii 29: "I shall not do [it] (P/LXX: + Sam20: not destroy) for the
sake of the forty"; cf. vss 28, 31, 32.
xviii 30. "If I find thirty there, I shall not do [it] (P/LXX: + Sam:
not destroy)"
xix 16: "So the men (P-minus 5bl/LXX: the angels) seized his
hands"
The men who visited Lot are referred to as "angels" in vs. 1 and
in the previous verse, vs. 15, and "angels" in vs. 16 can easily be
accounted for as an adaptation.
xxi 13: "....and I will make of him also a (P-minus 5bl/LXX: great)
nation"; cf. vs. 18.
xxi 29: "...seven ewes (P/LXX: + of the flock)"; cf. vs. 28.
xxii 16: "...you did not withhold your beloved son (P/LXX: +
from me)"'; cf. vs. 12.
xxiv 38: "Go to my father's family and get a wife for my son (P-
minus 5bl/LXX: + from there)"; cf. vs. 7.
xxv 8: "Abraham died at a good old age, an old man and full
[sdbeac] (P/LXX: + of years)". It is quite possible that the word
ydmim has dropped out from the MT, and the LXX/the P may
actually reflect such a variant reading. However, the addition in the
P/the LXX (and the Sam) is natural and might be expected in any
case, so that this extra-masoretic agreement can hardly validly be
used to posit such a variant reading.
Of course, adaptations may well have happened in the Hebrew
text, but can we posit such variants on the basis of extra-masoretic
agreements between the LXX and the P? We might perhaps, if in
all cases the LXX and the P agreed, but this is not the case. There
are a number of cases in which the P's rendering apparently is the
result of adaptation, with the LXX following the MT. This should
preclude us from using the agreements as reflecting Hebrew
variants.
The following are some examples:

xii 3: "...and by you (P: and by your seed) all the families of the
earth will bless themselves"; cf. xxii 18, xxvi 4, xxviii 14.
xiv 14, 16: "...(P: the son of) his brother [viz. Lot]"; cf. vs. 12.
xxi 20: "...he [Ishmael] lived in the wilderness (P: + of Paran)";
cf. vs. 21.
20 In the apparatus of BHS P is not mentioned as a witness to this reading.
xxiv 27: "The Lord has led me...to my master's kinsmen (P-minus
5bl: + to take the daughter of his brother for his son)"; cf. vss 7,
40.
xxiv 39: "perhaps the woman will not (P: be willing to) follow me";
cf. vs. 5.
xxiv 45: "Please give me (P-minus 5bl: + a little water from your
jar) to drink"; cf. vs. 43.
xxiv 48: "...the God of my master Abraham who has led me on the
straight way (P-minus 5bl + to the house of the brother of my
master)"; cf. vs. 27.
xxv 10: "...the field which Abraham had bought from the Hittites
(P-minus 5bl: + as a burial-plot)"; cf. xxiii 9, 20.
In the last place which comes under the heading translation
technique the tetragrammaton has been replaced by "God".
xv 6: "...and Abraham believed in the Lord (P/LXX: in God)".
If P-Pentateuch is of (Jewish-) Christian origin this reading may
have been influenced here by the three N.T. quotations of this
verse (Rom. iv 3; Gal. iii 6: James ii 23) in which also "God" is
used. The same happens in the P without parallel in the LXX in
vii 1: "The Lord (P: God) said to Noah..."
Among the extra-masoretic agreements as listed by Lund there
are three more cases in which both the P and the LXX have an
addition which can be explained as an adaptation to another
passage. The P and the LXX, however, only partially agree
together. Yet, to the extent of their agreements, Lund posits a
Hebrew variant. I suggest that in such cases the partial agreement
a priori does not reflect a Hebrew variant, but rather that the dif-
ference between the two versions underlines that each of the two
versions has dealt with the text independently of the other. The
three places are the following:
i 28: MT: "...have dominion over the fish in the sea and the birds
of the air..."; the P adds "and over the cattle", the LXX "and
over all the cattle and all the earth". The P is a literal adaptation
to vs. 26, while the LXX is more free. The difference means that
each of the two versions has independently dealt with the text. It
may be added that even if the P and the LXX had had the same
addition, there would be no reason to assume a Hebrew variant
since adaptation to vs. 26 would be the obvious explanation for
both renderings.
iv 10: MT: "And he (P: the Lord; LXX: God) said (P: + to him)
388 P. B. DIRKSEN
..." The difference between the P and the LXX makes clear that
each of the two versions has independently supplied the subject.
The independent pursuit of a good, idiomatic translation is also
apparent from the addition of "to him" in the P.
viii 1. MT: "God thought of Noah and all the wild beasts and all
the cattle (P-minus 5bl: + and all the birds; LXX: + and all the
birds and everything that creeps)". Both additions can be con-
sidered an adaptation to vi 20, vii 8, 14, but again, the difference
between the two versions makes clear that the adaptation has occur-
red in the translations and not in a Hebrew text.
The extra-masoretic agreements between the P and the LXX

which have been mentioned above are paralleled by similar render-
ings in the P alone. Besides these there are a number of extra-
masoretic agreements in which this is not the case, at least not for
the limited portion of text under consideration. These cases raise
the question how far "translation technique" can be stretched. It
will be hard to give a formal delimitation. For three of the cases
involved, however, translation technique seems to be the likely
explanation, rather than a Hebrew variant. Two of these concern
the addition of a proper name:
iii 9. "Where are you (P/LXX: + Adam)?"
iv 25. "And Adam had intercourse with his wife (P/LXX: + Eve)"
These two cases may be considered as coming under the heading
of making explicit what is implicit in the Hebrew.
The third case concerns the transposition of a few words:
viii 18. "Noah came out with his sons, his wife (P-minus 5bl/LXX:
his wife, his sons), and his sons' wives"
From the total of forty-seven extra-masoretic agreements
between the P and the LXX, we have now assigned thirty-eight
cases to stylistic changes and translation technique. It appeared that
two aspects of this translation technique are prominent: the
tendency to make explicit what in the Hebrew was implicit, and the
tendency to adapt the translation to the context. If, in this aspect,
the P agrees with the LXX in some passages, there is, therefore,
no reason to assume a shared Hebrew variant reading. This leaves
us with nine cases (counting xiv 1, 9 for one) which have to be con-
sidered on their own merits.
For these cases each of the possible explanations mentioned

before remains a possibility. This is not the occasion to deal with
each of these cases in detail. To do that, we should collect all textual
data, and also check whether there may have been Jewish
theological/exegetical traditions. I will only suggest a division into
those cases in which the difference is purely stylistic, those in which
theology/exegesis may have been at work, and those in which the
Hebrew itself supports the possibility of a variant reading.
Two cases concern only stylistic differences, and there seems to
be no reason to assume a Hebrew variant:
xii 13 MT: "Say that you are my sister"

P/LXX: "Say: 'I am his sister' "
xiv 22 MT: "I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High"; P/LXX
omit "the Lord".
Theology accounts for the following case:

ii 2. "On the seventh (P/LXX: sixth) day God brought to a close
the work he had been doing". It is clear that here theology is at
work, but it is difficult to decide whether this change was made in
the Hebrew text, or whether it happened independently in the two
versions, and also in the Sam, under the influence of Jewish
exegetical tradition.
The following six extra-masoretic agreements, finally, may
reflect a Hebrew variant reading.
iv 15. after Cain has said that anyone might kill him, God says to
him: "Therefore (laken), whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance.
P/LXX + Sym and Theod have: "Not at all..." (reflecting o1' ken).
In this case the difference lies clearly on the level of the Hebrew.
xiv 1, 9. tidadl; P: tarcll; LXX: OapyaX,. This is a case of the well-
known confusion between d and r, either in Hebrew or in Syriac.
The P and the LXX may reflect a variant Hebrew reading. But the
possibility remains that this is true only for the LXX and that the
P's reading is an inner-Syriac development. The lesser-known
proper names, whose form is not protected by meaning, are
unstable in textual tradition. Many names in the P show-among
other differences-a confusion between resh and dalath. For the por-
tion in Genesis under consideration, I have noticed thirteen cases.21
xiv 6. "(They defeated)...the Horites in their hill country, Seir
[beharerdm siCr]"; P/LXX + Sam: "in the hill country of Seir
[behaerer seir]"
21 The names involved are Riphath (x 3), Rodanim (x 4), Dedan (x 7, xxv 3),
Accad (x 10), Caphtorim (x 14), Gerar (x 19), Arpachshad (x 22, 24, xi 10-13),
Chedorlaomer (xiv 1, 4, 5, 17), Chesed (xxii 22), Pildash (xxii 22), Jidlaph (xxii
22), Dumah (xxv 14), Hadad (xxv 15).
390 P. B. DIRKSEN
xiv 7: "...and they subdued the territory [Sedeh] (P/LXX: the heads
[sdre') of the Amalekites"
It is difficult to say whether both translators made a reading
mistake, or whether they actually had a Hebrew variant reading
before their eyes.
xvii 16 MT: "I will give you a son by her, and I will bless her and
she will be [a mother of] nations".
P/LXX: "...and I will bless him and he will be [a father of]
nations". The P/LXX may well reflect a Hebrew variant reading.
xxii 13.' "Abraham...saw a ram behind him ['ahar] (P/LXX: saw a
['ehad] ram) caught in the thicket"
A Hebrew variant reading is a distinct possibility.
Let us take stock. We started with forty-seven extra-masoretic
agreements. Do they reflect Hebrew variants? The answer is that
in thirty-eight cases the agreement concerns a type of deviation
which for the P can be shown to occur often as translation techni-
que. These agreements, therefore, cannot be used to posit a

Hebrew variant reading. Of the remaining nine agreements, six
may, but not in all cases do they necessarily, reflect a variant
reading.
Is this a meagre harvest? Maybe so; if we had hoped for a good
number of readings which might help us to reconstruct lost Hebrew
readings. In a few cases this may indeed be possible, but in general
the P rather strengthens the MT's credentials. The most important
result, however, may be that, looking for possible variant readings
in the P, we are rather reminded of the fact that the P is a work in
its own right, testifying to the faithfulness of the translator to the
Hebrew Bible and at the same time to his pursuit of idiomatic
Syriac and clarity.
Leiden P.B. Dirksen

The Peshi Ta and Textual Criticism of The Old Testament

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Peshi Ta and Textual Criticism of The Old Testament

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Peshiṭta and Textual Criticism of the Old Testament

THE PESHITTA AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE

The Peshitta may be the subject of research for other reasons

ones: this version is of prime importance as a monument of the

There will be cases when the P by itself may reflect a Hebrew

counted the following eight possibilities, between which admittedly

3 A recent notable example is the article by J. Joosten, "1 Samuel xvi 6, 7 in

2. The same translation tradition: the versions use a certain tradi-

4. The agreements between the P and one or more targums refer

Given this range of possibilities it will surprise no one that

6 Die aussermasorethischen Ubereinstimmungen zwischen der Septuaginta und der Peschit-

What appear to be shared variants between S [the P] and G [the

Lund excludes from consideration agreements between the P and

When translation technique adequately accounts for the difference

I fully endorse this "argument", taken as an independent state-

7 "On the Jewish-Palestinian Origins of the Peshitta to the Pentateuch", JBL

This "argument" will now be applied to the extra-masoretic

8 The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), pp. 131-59.

Of the 118 extra-masoretic agreements quoted by Lund, forty-

xxi 30: "And he (P/LXX: Abraham12) said..."

ix 12. "And God said (P/LXX: to Noah)..."

15 The places involved are the following: i 22 ( + to them); ii 16 (+ to him);

P-minus 5bl: "Abraham called the senior servant...and said to

In the following three cases an appellative is added:

xxv 5. "He left everything to (P/LXX: his son) Isaac"

xvi 6: "...and Abraham said to (P-minus 5bl: his wife) Sarai..."

i 11. "plants that bear seed (P/LXX: + according to their

17 To mention just a few examples: ix 15 ( + decammekon), xii 17 ( + "the sons

The following are some examples:

20 In the apparatus of BHS P is not mentioned as a witness to this reading.

The extra-masoretic agreements between the P and the LXX

For these cases each of the possible explanations mentioned

xii 13 MT: "Say that you are my sister"

Theology accounts for the following case:

que. These agreements, therefore, cannot be used to posit a

Leiden P.B. Dirksen

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen