Syriac (Peshito) Version, Relation Of, To The Septuagint
Syriac (Peshito) Version, Relation Of, To The Septuagint
Syriac (Peshito) Version, Relation Of, To The Septuagint And Chaldee.
One of the most mooted points which have vexed scholars is the question as to the relation of the Peshito to the Sept. and Chaldee version.
I. Relation to the Septuagint. A good deal has been written concerning this question, pro and con. To the former side belong Gesenius, Credner, Havernick, and Bleek; to the latter, Hirzel and Herbst. Without adducing the arguments used on both sides, it must be admitted that an influence of the Sept. upon the Peshito cannot be denied, and to this supposition we are led by a comparison of the one with the other. To make our assertion good, we will present the following passages from different books, and the reader can draw his own inferences. We commence with the book of Genesis:
2:2. Sept. Syr. . From the ant. Talmundic Notices on the Septuagint, s.v. SEPTUAGINT in this Cyclopaedia, it will be seen that the Sept. changed here purposely “seventh” into “sixth.” If the Peshito version were made only from the original Hebrew, there was no reason why the of the Hebrew should h be translated as if it read , like the reading of the Samuel, Samuel vers., and Syr., which all followed the Sept;.
2:4. Sept. ; Syr. .
23. -Sept. ; Syr. .
24. -Sept. ; Syr. .
3:2. -Sept. ; Syr. also has .
7. Sept. ; Syr. .
9. -Sept. ; Syr. also supplies .
11. -Sept. ; Syr. .
16. Sept. ; Syr. .
4:8. -Sept. ; Syr. .
10. -Sept. ; Syr. .
Sept. ‘/; Syr. .
15. Sept. ; Syr. .
17. -Sept. ; Syr. .
25. -Sept. ; Syr. .
-Sept. ; Syr. .
5:23. -Sept. ; Syr. (id. ver. 31).
29. -Sept. ; Syr. .
-Sept. ; Syr. .
6:20. -Sept. and Syr. .
7:2. Sept. ; Syr. .
3. Sept. and Syr. .
8. -Sept. and Syr. .
20. -Sept. ; Syr. .
8:7. -Sept. ; Syr. .
17. -Sept. and Syr. (id. ver. 19).
22. -Sept. and Syr. .
-Sept. alnd Syr. .
9:2.-Sept. ; Syr. .
5. -Sept. ; Syr. .
7. Sept. ; Syr. .
10. -Sept. Syr. .
11:27. -Sept. ; Syr. .
12:3. -Sept. ; Syr. .
7. Sept. ; Syr. .
13. Sept. and Syr. omit (id. 13:8).
13:7. Sept. ; Syr. .
14:1. -Sept. and Syr. .
-Sept. ; Syr. .
2. Sept. and Syr. .
5. , in Ham-Sept. ; Syr. .
6. -Sept. ; Syr. .
7. , the country-Sept. ; Syr. .
10. -Sept. ; Syr. .
14:20. Sept. ; Syr. .
15:5. -Sept. ; Syr. .
6. -Sept. ; Syr. .
16:2. Sept. and Syr. omit.
6. Sept. ; Syr. .
15. Sept. ; Syr. .
17:16. -Sept. ; Syr. .
19. -Sept. ; Syr. .
-Sept. ; Syr. .
18:5. Sept. ; Syr. .
17. -Sept. ; Syr. .
20. Sept. ; Syr. .
29. -Sept. ; ‘.Syr. .
19:3. -Sept. ; Syr. .
7. -Sept. ; Syr. .
12. -Sept. ; Syr. .
20:15. Sept. ; Syr. .
21:8. -Sept. ; Syr. .
10. (2.)-Sept. and Syr. omit.
13. Sept. ; Syr. .
14. -Sept. ; Syr. .
33. -Sept. ; Syr. .
22:13. Sept. ; Syr. .
16. -Sept. ; Syr. .
23:14. -Sept. and Syr. omit.
19. -Sept. ; Syr. .
24:21. -Sept. ; Syr. .
25. -Sept. ; Syr. .
31. Sept. ; Syr. .
33. -Sept. , ; Syr. .
38. -Sept. ; Syr. .
40. -Sept. ; Syr, .
54. -Sept. ; Syr. .
55. Sept. ;
Syr. . -Sept. ; Syr. .
60. -Sept. ; Syr. .
25:5. -Sept. ; Syr. .
8. – Sept. ; Syr. .
Without enlarging our collation, it must be seen at once that the agreement between the Sept. and the Syriac version cannot be merely accidental, and the most skeptic must admit that the Sept. has been made use of by the Syriac translators. Is this inference correct, we may go a step farther and say what holds good for the one must also be good for the other; or, in other words, the Syriac translator made use of the Sept. for the other books too. And, indeed, Gesenius has produced a number of examples from the book of Isaiah to show that the Sept. was followed even in free and arbitrary interpretations (comp. his Commentar iber den Jesaia, 1, 82 sq.); and, in like manner, Credner, who has minutely examined the minor prophets in his De Prophetarumn Minorum Versioanis Syriacae quam Peschito vocant Indole, thinks that the Sept. was employed there. A similar result will be achieved in comparing the book:of Jeremiah. Thus, 2:25. -Sept. Syr. : both derive it from , instead of from (comp. also 18:12).
34. -Sept. v; Syr. : both probably reading .
3:2. -Sept. ; Syr. , reading .
8. Sept. ; Syr. , deriving from .
8:21. -Sept. and Syr. omit.
15:6. -Sept. ; Syr. : both reading for 17:16. -Sept. ; Syr. : both reading .
18:14. -Sept. ; Syr. : both reading .
48:2. -Sept. ; Syr. : both regarded not as a proper noun, but as an Aramaic infinitive of .
1:21. . In the Masoretictext tlie Athnach under indicates that it belongs to . The Sept. connects with , also reading ; in like manner the Syr. connects and translates .
It would be useless to adduce more examples for our supposition, since we do not write a dissertation, but for a cyclopaedia which, so far as the point in question is concerned, has treated that subject in such a full way as neither the introductions to the Old Test. nor cyclopaedias and dictionaries of the Bible have done before, if they ever touched this point fully.
There is yet another matter which we should not pass over, and to which, as it, seems little, attention has been paid. We mean the titles of the Syriac psalms, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the editions of the Sept. The titles are partly historical, partly dogmatical; the former speak of David or the Jewish people, the latter of Christ and his Church. Now the question arises, if the Syriac translators really perused the Sept., as our supposition is, how is it that the titles found in the Syriac psalms are not to be met with in the Sept.? But the question is easily answered, when we consider the fact that these titles are not only found in the commentary of Eusebius, but also in the Codex Alexandrinus. From the latter they were reprinted in Walton’s Polyglot (vol. 6 pt. 6 p. 137 sq.), and again by Grabe, in the fourth volume of his edition of the Sept. A comparison of the titles as found in the Alex. Codex with those in the Peshito shows that the dogmatical part of these titles are a later addition, otherwise we could not account for the omission in the Greek, if really the latter had copied the Peshito. Deducting these additions, the titles otherwise agree with each other. Thus the title of Psalm 2 reads: ; Syr. Psalm 3, ; Syr. : Psalm 4 ; Syr. .
II. Relation to the Chaldee. That there is a tolerable likeness between the Syriac and Chaldee in many places cannot be denied. Gesenius has produced a number of examples from. Isaiah to show that the Targum was used there (Comment. 1, 83 sq.). Credner is of the same opinion in regard to the minor prophets (De Prophetarum, etc., p. 107). Havernick and Herbst are of an opposite opinion, and yet the original traces of a use of a Targum are too distinct to be denied, as the following examples in Genesis must show:
We could thus go on with the other books of the Pentateuch, but our examples are sufficient to show that the priority belongs to the Chaldee of Onkelos, and not to the Peshito. Our supposition being correct, the assertions of those must fall to the ground who would put Onkelos in the 2nd or 3rd century. On the contrary, we believe that the Targum of Onkelos belongs to the time of Christ provided the Syriac version of the Pentateuch belongs to the 1st century of the Christian era and thus the notices concerning Onkelos which we find in the Talmud are confirmed anew. Our examples from the book of Genesis leaving it beyond a shadow of doubt as to the dependence of the Syriac version upon the Chaldee, the Chaldee of the book of Proverbs will prove this more fully. Thus we read:
We will not increase the quotations, but let the student examine passages like 1:6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 21-23, 25, 30, 33; 2:1, 4, 10, 14, 17, 21; 3:2, 4, 6-8, 12, 15, 19, 21, 25, 29; 4:2,3,10, 11, 14, 18, 21-23, 25-27; 5:2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23; 6:1, 2, 4-6, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 28, 34; 7:2- 4,10, 16-18, 23-25; 8:4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 26, 32; 9:4, 5, 11, 14; 10:3- 5, 7, 9, 16, 22, 30, 31; 11:7, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, etc. altogether more than 300 passages where he will find a striking similarity between these two versions.
Besides this similarity, there are a great many passages in which the Chaldee and Syriac deviate from the Hebrew, and the inner connection of both versions with each other can no longer be doubted. Thus Pr 1:7, the Hebrew reads, i.e., “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom;” but the Chaldee reads, i.e. “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God;” and so also the Syr. : or 16:4, “The Lord has made all things fot himself;” the Chaldee paraphrases, i.e. “All works of God are for those who obey him;” and thus also the Syr. . Without increasing the number of such passages, we will adduce some in which both versions entirely give up the Masoretic text and follow another reading: thus Pr 1:24, for the Chaldee reads , for the translation is , and so also the Syriac, :5,9, the Chaldee reads instead of , for the translation is , and so in the Syriac, : 9,-11, for : the Chaldee reads , for the translation is , and in the Syriac . These examples, which could be increased greatly (comp. 3:27; 5:4, 9, 19, 21; 7:2,23 3; 9:11; 10:4; 11:26; 12:4, 19, 21, 28; 13:15, 19; 14:14; 15:4; 19:19, 23; 20:4, 14, 20; 21:4, 30; 22:11, 16; 24:5, 22; 25:20,27; 26:5,7, 10; 28:5, 11; 29:18, 21; 30:31; 31:6), leave no doubt that the Chaldee and Syriac stand in a relation of dependence to each other.
But in speaking of a relation of these versions, it must not be understood as if they relate to each other as the original and copy, but this relation consists in that the author of the one version, in preparing the same, followed mostly the other without giving up his independence entirely. This we can see from the eighty-two passages in which the Chaldee follows the Masoretic text, while the Syriac deviates from it, as 2:16; 3:30; 4:3,11, 22, 25, 32; 7:7, 8, 10,22; 8:7,11,35; 9:12, 18; 10:10, 12, 19, 24, 26; 11:9, 10, 16, 19, 24, 29; 12:17, 23; 13:1,10,23; 14:7,17, 22,23, 33,35; 15:10,14,16, 17, 22, 30; 16:7, 26; 17:4, 9, 15; 18:1, 3, 6, 15; 19:1, 4, 22, 29; 21:14; 22:3, 19; 23:2, 6, 30, 34; 24:10, 26, 32, 33; 25:4,11, 10, 13, 21, 22; 26:2, 11-13, 17-19, 26; 30:15, 19; or from those passages in which the Syriac agrees with, the Masoretic text against the Chaldee, as.6:35; 7:15; 8:29; 10:29; 11:4; 14:24; 15:32; 16:5, 17:5, 16; 18:17; 19:2, 13; 23:28; 24:9, 14; 25:9; 28:1; 31:3.
To these examples from the book of Proverbs we could also add a number from other books. Future investigations based upon these must show the tenability or otherwise of our assertion. See also Schohnfelder, Onkelos und Peshito (Muinchen, 1869); Maya haum, Ueber die Sprache des Taryunm zuden Sprilchen u 2nd dessen Verhdltniss zulm Syrer, inm Merx, Archiv fr wissenschftliche Erforschulg des Alten Testaments, 2, 66 sq.; Dathe, Opuscula, p. 106 sq.; Fralnkl Studien iib eri die Septuagiutat und Peschito u Jeremiah, in Frankel-Gratz, Moatsschift, 1872, p.444 sq. (B.P.)