Converse Translation in Peshitta Ezekiel1
Jerome A. Lund
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon
Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati
Introduction
1. In his influential monograph on the versions of Ezekiel, C. H. Cornill
characterized the Peshitta as a very free translation, by which he meant
that it took great liberties with its Hebrew source text (Cornill 1886:
151-153).2 The most egregious example of the liberty the Peshitta took with
its Hebrew source text, according to Cornill, was to change the meaning of a
verse into its opposite meaning by the addition or omission of the
negation.3 In the opinion of Cornill, these changes were made consciously by
the translator; they were not in his Hebrew source text. Largely on this
basis, he profiled the translator of the Peshitta of Ezekiel as loose, free
and even capricious in his translation technique.4
2. In a significant article, M. L. Klein has identified and exemplified the
technique of converse translation found in the Aramaic targums to the Torah
(Klein 1976: 515-537).5 He succeeded in his goal of demonstrating that
"contradictive rendition is not uncommon in the various targumim to the
Pentateuch" (Klein 1976: 516). Klein described four subtypes of converse
translation: (1) the addition or deletion of the negative particle; (2)
replacement of the verb; (3) resolution of the rhetorical question by a
declarative statement; and (4) the addition of the negative particle
dl) meaning "lest." The following selected cases will serve as
examples and are relevant to our discussion of Peshitta Ezekiel.
3. Example 1. In the Song of Lamech (Gen 4:23), Lamech declares according to
the MT: k.iy )iy$ hfrag:t.iy l:pic(iy w:yeled l:xab.urftiy
(NRSV: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me).
Tg. Onqelos renders the Hebrew conversely by the addition of the negation:
l) gbr) q+ylyt dbdylyh )n) sbyl xwbyn w)p l) (wlym) xbylyt dbdylyh
y#tycy zr(y, "I have not killed a man on whose account I bear sin nor
have I destroyed a youth on whose account my seed will be annihilated." How
can this be? Tg. Onqelos interprets the Hebrew k.iy as a
rhetorical interrogative, that is, it interprets the MT as a question: "have
I killed ... ?" with the expectation of a negative reply.6 In order to
clarify matters for the reader/hearer, Onqelos converts the perceived
question into a declarative statement by the addition of the negative
particle. So, what appears to be contrary to the meaning of the peshat on
first blush is in reality a serious attempt at exegesis in the context, to
wit the Aramaic translator attempts to harmonize this verse with the
following verse in view of his perceived meaning of the Hebrew. If Cain was
granted sevenfold protection (cf. Gen 4:15), then Lamech deserves
seventy-sevenfold protection, since Lamech's offense was far less than
Cain's. According to Tg. Onqelos, Lamech does not confess to murder. Rather,
he seems to deny committing such a dastardly deed. The addition of the
negation, then, is the result of serious contextual exegesis of the Hebrew
and is not an arbitrary insertion by the translator.
4. Example 2. As the angels go on their way to destroy Sodom, Abraham argues
with the Lord about whether He should destroy Sodom or spare it. In his
plea, Abraham asks the question (Gen 18:25) hA$op"+ k.fl-hf)frec lo)
ya(A&eh mi$p.f+ (NRSV: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is
just?). It is a rhetorical question presuming a positive answer: of course
the Judge of all the earth will do right. Tg. Onqelos transforms this
rhetorical question anticipating a positive reply into a positive statement:
dyyn kl )r() brm y(byd dyn) "The Judge of all the earth will only
execute justice." Tg. Onqelos eliminates the interrogative he and replaces
the Hebrew negation lo) by the affirmative particle
brm, so as to retain a one-to-one correspondence of words. Tg.
Onqelos resolves the rhetorical question with negation in the MT by a
positive statement. The meaning is not altered; only the form by which that
meaning is expressed is altered.
5. Example 3. In the song celebrating the destruction of the Egyptian
enemies in the Reed Sea (Exod 15:11), the singers laud their God:
miy-kfmokfh b.f)"lim y:hwfh miy k.fmokfh ne):d.fr b.aq.ode$ ...
(NRSV: Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in
holiness ...?). Tg. Onqelos converts this rhetorical question anticipating a
negative answer into a negative statement: lyt br mynk )t hw) )lh) ywy
lyt )yl) )t )dyr bqwd$) ... "There is none apart from you; you are
God, the Lord. There is none but you, majestic in holiness ...." Tg. Onqelos
freely renders the Hebrew by converting the rhetorical question anticipating
a negative reply into a negative statement and by eliminating the reference
to other gods. The addition of the negation lyt does not
contradict the underlying meaning of the Hebrew; it only alters the surface
mode of expression.
6. R. P. Gordon has identified a number of cases of converse translation
involving the addition or omission of the negation in the Old Testament
Peshitta (Gordon 1999: 3-21, esp. 7-11; cf. Weitzman 1999: 34). A convincing
case appears in Deut 29:11, where the Peshitta stands alone7 among the other
ancient versions in its addition of negation:
MT: l:(fb:r:kf b.ib:riyt y:hwfh )Eloheykf ...
P: dl) t(brwn (l qymh dmry) )lhkwn...
The translator of Peshitta Deuteronomy was unaware of the unique use8 of the
Hebrew verb (br meaning "enter (into a covenant)." He understood
it to mean "transgress" and so added the negation to make proper contextual
sense.
7. What is important for the present study is that converse translation
motivated by a perceived exegetical problem is known elsewhere in the Old
Testament Peshitta, in a book probably translated prior to Ezekiel. The
translator of Peshitta Deuteronomy attempted to render what he understood to
be the true meaning of the Hebrew in light of the context.
8. Now what about Cornill's examples of converse translation and how do they
shape our view of the translator of Peshitta Ezekiel? Cornill offers four
cases of converse translation in Peshitta Ezekiel as evidence for a
capricious, whimsical translator, apparently unconcerned about his Hebrew
source text. It is our purpose here to reexamine the evidence put forth by
Cornill and reevaluate his conclusion regarding the translator of Peshitta
Ezekiel. The four cases he cites are as follows:
Case 1: Ezek 1:14
9.
MT: w:haxay.owt rfcow) wf$owb k.:mar)"h hab.fzfq
P: wxy^wt) r^h+n h^wy wl) mt^pnyn h^wy )yk xzw) dzyqt)
(And the living creatures were running but were not returning like
the appearance of a lightning bolt)
G: omit the verse
V: et animalia ibant et revertebantur in similitudinem fulguris
coruscantis
10. The Hebrew infinitive absolutes rfcow) and $owb
form the predicate of the subject haxay.owt along with their
adjuncts and function like participles. The Hebrew words rfcow)
and b.fzfq are hapax legomena. The Peshitta renders the
infinitive absolutes by periphrastic constructions indicating progressivity
and understands rfcow) as a form of the verb rwc "run"
and b.fzfq as zyqt) "lightning bolt." By contrast,
Jerome emended rfcow) to yfcow) "go out." Furthermore,
he does not add the negation.
11. The reading of the Peshitta wl) mt^pnyn h^wy for Hebrew
wf$owb, because of its formal addition of negation, was regarded
by Cornill as a free translation of the Hebrew. There are, however, two very
different possible explanations for the reading of the Peshitta, either that
its addition of the negation is the result of textual corruption or that it
is the product of exegesis on the part of the translator.
12. As a first possible explanation, contextual harmonization could have
produced the reading with the negation either in the Hebrew source text of
the Peshitta or as an inner-Peshitta development. Verses 9, 12 and 17 state
that the creatures went straight ahead and did not turn (lo) yis.ab.U
b.:lek:t.fn / wl) mth^pkn h^wy). Someone studying the text
noticed this seeming discrepancy, despite the difference of verbs, and
glossed the negation l) / wl) in the margin or between
the lines of verse 14. A later copyist added the reading l) /
wl) to the main text. It is here that Jerome's disparaging remark
on the LXX, which omits verse 14, bears consideration. In his commentary on
Ezekiel, Jerome accuses the LXX of omitting verse 14 deliberately because
verse 14 appears contradictory to what has previously been stated about the
living creatures in verses 9 and 12 (Hieronymus 1964: 17). The point is that
ancient students of the text were aware of the context and aware of a
seeming discrepancy in the Hebrew text which could have led to its
"correction" as postulated above. It is less likely that the addition of the
negation arose as an inner-Peshitta corruption, in my opinion, since no
variant appears in any extant MS of the Peshitta.
13. As a second possible explanation, the addition of the negation could
have been due to the translator, as assumed by Cornill. It could be that the
translator, who understood the Hebrew hapax legomenon b.fzfq as a
"lightning bolt," allowed his visual image of a lightning bolt to shape his
translation. As a lightning bolt travels rapidly in one direction, so the
living creatures did the same: "they ran and did not return." If this be so,
it must be that the translator took this from an existing exegetical
tradition known to him, perhaps from a Jewish midrash. J. Heinemann regarded
converse translation as reflective of pre-Tannaitic exegesis in Jewish texts
(Klein 1976: 516, n. 6). In light of the Mishnaic dictum )yn dwr$yn
bmrkbh (mHag 11), we may have such exegesis preserved here.
Alternatively, M. P. Weitzman argues that the Jewish community responsible
for the Peshitta was one estranged from the Rabbinic movement (Weitzman
1999: 246; 258-262) and so the Mishnaic dictum would be meaningless to them.
Contextual harmonization as in the first possible explanation could have
motivated the translator too. But, unless one can detect a pattern of such
activity throughout the given translation--in this case Peshitta Ezekiel--it
is less likely that a translator of a sacred text would deliberately alter
the text without precedent.
14. Personally, I am inclined to regard this as a case of a variant Hebrew
source text created by textual harmonization with verses 9, 12 and 17. If
this be so, this piece of evidence offered by Cornill is invalid and should
be ignored in shaping one's view of the translator of Peshitta Ezekiel.
Case 2: Ezek 7:13
15.
MT: k.iy ham.owk"r )el-hm.im:k.fr lo) yf$Ub w:(owd b.axay.iym
xay.ftfm k.iy-xfzown )el-k.fl-hAmownfh. lo) yf$Ub w:)iy$
b.a(Aownow xay.ftow lo) yit:xaz.fqU
P: wzbwn) l) hp[k (l mzbnn) wtwb lyt x^y) bxy^yhwn m+l dxzw)
l) nhpwk (l klh qnynhwn wgbr) b(wlh l) nxmsn xy^why (And the
buyer does/will not return to the seller, while there is not still
life in their life, because the vision will not return upon all
their substance9 and a man in his iniquity will not retain his
life)
G: dio/ti o( ktw/menos pro\s to\n pwlou=nta ou)ke/ti mh\
e)pistreyh|10 kai\ a)/nqrwpos e)n o)fqalmw=|11 zwh=s au)tou= ou)
krath/sei
Tg12: )ry mzwbnn) lzbnyh l) ytwb w(d d)ynwn xyyn yddnwn
gbwythwn )ry nbyy) mtnbn (l kl )trgw#thwn wl) tybyn wgbr bxwby
np#yh mtr(n w(d d)nwn qyymyn btywb) l) mtqpyn
16. The Hebrew of this verse is difficult for any translator ancient or
modern. The translator of Peshitta Ezekiel apparently did not understand a
Jubilee year background of the seller (ham.owk"r) returning to
the thing sold (ham.im:k.fr) (cf. Lev 25:13). In view of the
following "their life" (xay.ftfm), the translator may have
substituted the sequence mzbnn) ... zbwn) "buyer ...
seller" for the sequenceaham.im:k.fr ... ham.owk"r
"seller ... thing sold." The "buyer" and "seller" are mentioned in the
previous verse, howbeit with different lexemes, namely the sequence
mzbn ... qn) (Ezek 7:12): m+y zbn) wqrb ywm)
dqn[) l) nxd) wdmzbn l) tkr) lh m+l drwgz) (l klh qnynhwn "The time
has arrived and the day has approached that the buyer will not rejoice and
the seller will not suffer ill, because of the wrath upon all their
substance." The only other place the sequence mzbnn) ...
zbwn) is attested in the Old Testament Peshitta is in Zech 11:5.
In the considered opinion of M. P. Weitzman, the same Syriac translator was
responsible for both the Peshitta of Ezekiel and the Peshitta of The Twelve
(Weitzman 1999: 186).
17. Did, then, the translator add the negation in the phrase wtwb lyt
x^y) bxy^yhwn? If so, was this a mere arbitrary decision, a whim of
the moment, or was he constrained by what he considered was the true meaning
of the passage? Cornill may be right in alleging that the Peshitta
translator here added the negation without textual support from the Hebrew.
But, if so, one would expect that the decision to add the negation came from
a desire to make sense out the verse. Or, alternatively, did the translator
read a different Hebrew text?
18. The last half of the verse is a straightforward translation in the
Peshitta. The Peshitta translator understood the Hebrew hAmown in
its meaning "wealth, abundance" as in verse 12 and in Ps 37:15
+owb-m:(a+ lac.ad.iyq m"hAmown r:$f(iym rab.iym (P: pqx qlyl
lzdyq) mn qnyn) sgy)) dr^$y()). In addition, the attached pronoun in
the form hAmownfh. was altered to the masculine plural either in
the Hebrew source text or by the translator. Peshitta Ezekiel shares this
reading with the targum which may point to the translator rather than to a
variant Hebrew text as its source. What is remarkable is that the translator
of Peshitta Ezekiel, if he were capricious as alleged by Cornill, did not
substantially alter the phrase k.iy-xfzown )el-k.fl-hAmownfh. lo)
y$Ub but represented it as is, even though it is confusing and cries
out to be corrected. Modern scholars readily emend xfzown to
xfrown as in the preceding verse and a number regard lo)
yf$Ub as dittography. To give the phrase credible meaning, the targum
explains it by expansive paraphrase: w(d d)ynwn xyyn yddnwn
gbwythwn. It is difficult to understand why a free spirited translator
concerned about clarity would leave such a confusing phrase stand while
altering the previous phrase w:(owd b.axay.iym xay.ftfm, if that
is indeed what he read. Then, too, Peshitta Ezekiel probably read a Hebrew
variant, either the hiphil plural yaxAziyqU or the hiphil
singular yaxAziyq for the hithpael plural yit:xazfqU
of the MT, a reading which makes better sense than that of the MT.
19. While the translator may have added the negation for some reason unknown
to us, it may be that it stood already in his Hebrew source text. This is a
strained case upon which to build a profile of the translator of Peshitta
Ezekiel.
Case 3: Ezek 16:43
20.
MT: ya(an )A$er lo)-zfkar:t.iy [Q:
zfkar:t.:] )et-y:m"y n:(Urayik: wat.irg.:ziy-liy
b.:kfl-)"l.eh w:gam-)Aniy h") d.ar:k."k: b.:ro)$ nftat.iy n:)um
)Adonfy y:hwih w:lo) (f&iytiy [Q: (f&iyt]
)et-haz.im.fh (al k.fl-t.ow(Abotfyik:
P: (l dl) )tdkrty ywm^t) d+lywtky w)rgztyny bhlyn klhyn )p
)n) h) pr([t )wr^xtky bry$ky )m[r mr) mr^wt) (l d(bdty +npwt)
wznywt)
(Because you have not remembered the days of your youth and have
angered me with all these things, as for me, here I have
recompensed your ways on your head, says the Lord of Lords,
because you committed abomination and prostitution)
G: a)nq' w(=n ou)k e)mnh/sqhs th/n h(me/ran th=s nhpio/thto/s
sou kai\ e)lu/peis me e)n pa=si tou/tois kai\ e)gw\ i)dou\ ta\s
o(dou/s sou ei)s kefalh/n sou de/dwka le/yei ku/rios kai\
ou(/tws13 e)poi/hsas th\n a)se/beian e)pi\ pa/sais tai=s
a)nomi/ais sou
21. The problematic phrase for Cornill is the alleged free rendering of
Hebrew w:lo) (f&iytiy [Q: (f&iyt] )et-haz.im.fh
(al k.fl-t.ow(Abotfyik: by Syriac (l d(bdty +npwt) wznywt),
particularly the omission of the negation. However, this appears to be a
case of the conversion of a rhetorical question of the Hebrew source text
into a declarative statement in the Syriac translation, along with its
subordination to the preceding main clause. The translator of the Peshitta
regarded the Hebrew as a rhetorical question anticipating a positive answer
and, so, omitted the negation in his translation. Thus, the question "have
you not ...?" anticipating the answer "yes" becomes the declarative
statement "because you have ...."
22. The resolution of morphologically marked Hebrew rhetorical questions by
declarative statements is known in Peshitta Ezekiel. The following examples
demonstrate this point:
a. Peshitta Ezekiel resolves a rhetorical question expecting a negative
reply by a negative statement (Ezek 17:15):
MT: hAyic:lfx hAyim.fl"+ hf(o&"h )"l.eh
NRSV: Will he succeed? [expected answer: No, he will not.]
Can one escape who does such things? [expected answer: No, he
cannot.]
P: l) nk$r wl) ntpc) m[n dhkn) (bd
(He will not succeed and the one who does thus will not be
delivered.)
Here Peshitta Ezekiel adds the negation due to the conversion from a
rhetorical question into a declarative statement.
b. Peshitta Ezekiel resolves a rhetorical question expecting a negative
reply by a negative statement (Ezek 17:10):
MT: w:h.n."h $:tUlfh hAtic:lfx
NRSV: When it is transplanted, will it thrive? [expected
answer: No, it will not.]
P: h) ncyb) )l) l) tk$r
(Here it is transplanted, but it will not thrive.)
Here Peshitta Ezekiel adds the negation due to the conversion from a
rhetorical question into a declarative statement.
c. Peshitta Ezekiel resolves a rhetorical question expecting a positive
reply by a positive statement (Ezek 17:10):
MT: hAlow) k:ga(at b.fh. rUxa haq.fdiym t.iyba$ yfbo$
(al-(Arugot cimxfh. t.iybf$
NRSV: When the east wind strikes it, will it not utterly
wither, wither on the bed where it grew? [expected answer:
Yes, it will.]
P: wm) dyb$t bh[ rwx) d$wb) y[b$) bmdr) dmw(yth[
(And when the sultry wind blows on it, it will dry up on the
soil of its sprouting.)
Here Peshitta Ezekiel omits the negation because of the conversion from
a rhetorical question into a declarative statement.
Resolution of rhetorical questions by declarative statements is a common
technique of translation not only in targumim to the Torah, but also in
Peshitta Ezekiel. This does not indicate a whimsicalness on the part of the
translator but rather a desire to express the perceived meaning of the text
clearly to his readers. This case demonstrates a thoughtful, careful
translator, not a whimsical one as Cornill alleges.
Case 4: Ezek 32:27
23.
MT: w:lo) yi$:k.:bU )et-g.ib.owrim nopliym m"(Ar"liym
P - Leiden: l) n$kbwn (m gybr^) dnplyn mn (wr^l) (They
will not lie down with the warriors who fall of the uncircumcised)
P - Mosul14 [influence of the Vulgate?]: l) n$kbwn (m gybr^)
dnplyn mn (wr^l)
P - Lee15: n$kbwn (m gybr^) dnplyn mn (wr^l)
G16: kai\ e)koimh/qhsan meta\ tw=n giga/ntw=n17 to=n
peptwko/twn a)po\ ai)w=nos18
V: et non dormient cum fortibus cadentibusque et incircumcisis
NRSV: And they do not lie with the fallen warriors of long ago
NIV: Do they not lie with the other uncircumcised warriors who
have fallen ...? [rhetorical question anticipating a positive
reply]
24. Cornill's fourth piece of evidence has to do with the supposed omission
of the negation lo) in the Peshitta. Cornill was mislead by
basing his knowledge of the Peshitta on the poor quality text of the printed
editions available in his day instead of on the better quality text of MS
7a1 and other early MSS which serve as the basis of the new Leiden edition.
In a recent article, M. J. Mulder, the editor of Leiden Ezekiel, has
criticized Cornill on this point with reference to this specific case
(Mulder 1986a: 463-470, esp. 467).19 Mulder's criticism bears repeating here
because W. E. Barnes had offered the same criticism on the very same case
some 89 years earlier (Barnes 1897: xxv) and his sound rebuttal of Cornill's
approach went unheeded for generations! The omission of lo)
apparently came about in the Peshitta text by the relatively late influence
of the LXX via the Syrohexapla on late Peshitta MSS. None of the extant MSS
of the Peshitta from the 6th-12th centuries AD omit the negation.
25. What is especially alarming is the fact that Karl Elliger, editor of BHS
Ezekiel, and J. A. Bewer, editor BHK Ezekiel, before him, followed by
Walther Zimmerli, author of the Ezekiel commentary in the Biblischer
Kommentar Altes Testament series = the Hermeneia series, and G. A. Cooke,
author of the Ezekiel volume for the International Critical Commentary
series, before him, blindly follow Cornill in accepting the text of prints
as the text of the Old Testament Peshitta, despite Barnes' penetrating
criticism of Cornill's views at the end of the 19th century. Apparently,
Cornill himself repudiated his negative view of MS 7a1 in private
communication with Barnes but never revised his monograph accordingly
(Barnes 1897: x). The scholars who produced our modern critical tools have
blindly followed the erroneous views which Cornill published.
[Image]
26. It is in place to briefly sketch the history of the printed editions of
Peshitta Ezekiel prior to the watershed publication of 1985, to wit the
Leiden edition by M. J. Mulder. This rehearsing of the history will
underscore how one poor quality 17th century MS became nearly the sole basis
of all prints before 1985. The first edition of the Peshitta Old Testament
in Europe was made by a Maronite named Gabriel Sionita who edited the Paris
Polyglot of 1645, using MS 17a5 (=BN Syr. 6) as the base text. Gabriel
Sionita often "corrected" the text himself without any MS basis.
Goshen-Gottstein describes the Peshitta text of the Paris Polyglot as "an
unreliable reproduction of one of the worst possible manuscripts"
(Goshen-Gottstein 1960: 2). Subsequently, Brian Walton based the London
Polyglot of 1657 on the Paris Polyglot. Then, Samuel Lee based his 1823
edition for the British Foreign Bible Society largely on the London
Polyglot. In 1852, the American Protestant missionary the Rev. Justin
Perkins produced the Urmia edition,20 based primarily on the edition of Lee.
In the opinion of Goshen-Gottstein, the Urmia text is "the most reliable
printed edition available" (Goshen-Gottstein 1960: 5, n. 21). In 1887-91,
the Dominicans of Mosul produced a Peshitta edition for Catholics, based on
Lee and Urmia, but corrected by the Hebrew, Latin and Greek according to one
of the collaborators, Mgr. Rahmani (Bloch 1920-1921: 142). These five
printed editions are "practically reducible to one edition" (Ibid.). So, for
some 340 years, Western scholars used a text of the Old Testament Peshitta
built on a poor foundation. It's time that this house built upon the sand be
swept away.
[Image]
[Image]
27. To return to our specific case, the Leiden edition of the Peshitta reads
l) n$kbwn, omitting only the connective waw of the MT. This case,
then, is a case where the later editions of the Peshitta, based on an
inferior MS, formed the basis of Cornill's work and where twentieth century
scholars followed his lead without even questioning the evidence, with the
exceptions of Barnes and subsequently Mulder.
Conclusion
28. The four pieces of evidence offered by Cornill, from which he
extrapolated that the translator of Peshitta Ezekiel took great liberties
with his Hebrew source text, fail to convince.
29. One piece of evidence is bogus, being based on a false text of Peshitta
Ezekiel (32:27). Having entered the 21st century, we need to progress beyond
the ill-based research of Cornill and base our critical texts and critical
commentaries on the Leiden edition of the Peshitta. The current critical
tools of BHS and BKAT = Hermeneia misrepresent Peshitta Ezekiel, being
guided by Cornill. Let's hope that BHQ and subsequent tools will do far
better.21
30. Two other pieces of evidence are of dubious value because they may be
products of a variant Hebrew source text or explained by serious contextual
exegesis (1:14; 7:13). It is ill-advised to profile the translator on the
basis of problematic cases such as these.
31. The fourth piece of evidence has to do with legitimate translation
technique, namely the transforming of a Hebrew rhetorical question into a
declarative statement (Ezek 16:43). This is not a free rendering of the
Hebrew source text, but rather a faithful rendering of its intent - at least
in the view of the translator. Rather than pointing to a loose, free
spirited, capricious translator, this piece of evidence points to a
thoughtful, careful one.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 2001.
Endnotes
1This study is a revision of an essay read at Syriac Symposium III on June
19, 1999, at the University of Notre Dame. My thanks go to Dr. Joseph P.
Amar for the challenge to present an essay on this topic and to Dr. Lucas
Van Rompay for his valuable critical comments which led to its improvement.
[Image]
2Cornill's views of the Peshitta of Ezekiel shaped the views of subsequent
scholars. For example, G. A. Cooke states: "The characteristic features of
the Versions of Ezekiel have been so thoroughly investigated by Cornill in
the Prolegomena to his Commentary that there is no need to restate them"
(Cooke 1937: xl; cf. Haefeli 1927: 52-53). The presentations of the Peshitta
in the modern critical tools BHK3 (Bewer, ed. 1932) and BHS (Elliger, ed.
1971) as well as the ICC commentary of Cooke (Cooke 1937) and the
BKAT/Hermeneia commentary of Walther Zimmerli (Zimmerli 1979 = Zimmerli
1969a; Zimmerli 1983 = Zimmerli 1969b) are largely shaped by Cornill.
[Image]
3Cornill states dogmatically: "Ja sogar die denkbar grösste Freiheit, durch
Hinzufügen oder Weglassen der Negation den Sinn in sein directes Gegentheil
zu verkehren, hat sich S ihrer Vorlage gegenüber wiederholt erlaubt"
(Cornill 1886: 153). [Image]
4Cornill uses the words "Ungebundenheit," "Willkur" and "Frieheit" in
describing the translation technique of the translator of the Peshitta of
Ezekiel (Cornill 1886: 148 and 153). [Image]
5Klein credits Elias Levita as the earliest to identify this technique of
translation in the targums (Klein 1976: 516, n. 5). Cf. Smelik 1995: 98.
[Image]
6Michael L. Klein shows that the masorah to Onqelos was aware of this
unusual rendering of Hebrew k.iy (Klein 1997: 73). [Image]
7R. B. ter Haar Romeny has argued that the addition of the negation by some
early MSS of the Peshitta in Gen 8:7 is a secondary reading, having entered
the Peshitta MS tradition under the influence of the LXX (Harr Romeny 1997:
276). If he is correct, then Y. Maori is incorrect in attributing the
addition of the negation in this verse to the direct influence of rabbinic
exegesis on the translator (Maori 1995:108-109). [Image]
8The use of (br in the sense of "enter (into a covenant)"
attested in Qumran Hebrew (1QS I 16, 18, 20, 24; II 10) is drawn from this
biblical passage and so has no independent value in determining the meaning.
[Image]
9The translation of this phrase by George M. Lamsa (Lamsa 1985), "for
catastrophe will not spare any of their possessions," is not justified.
[Image]
10G omits w:(owd b.axay.ym xay.ftam k.iy-xfzown )el-k.fl-hamownfh. lo)
yf$Ub. One could account for this by homoioteleuton, that is the
jumping over the first yf$Ub to the second. Alternatively, one
could view MT as expansive, the phrase k.iy-xfzown
)el-k.al-hAmownfh. coming from the preceding verse (xfzown
being a corruption of xfrown) and lo) yf$Ub the result
of dittography. [Image]
11G reads b(yn in place of MT b.a(Aownow. [Image]
12"For the seller will not return to what he has sold; and while they are
still living, they will be judged in their bodies [i.e. through exile]. For,
the prophets prophesy against all their tumult but they do not repent; but
each man desires his own sins; and until they stand in repentance they will
not be strengthened." The text is per Sperber 1962. [Image]
13G reads wkh in place of wl). [Image]
14The correspondence of Mosul with Leiden in this case is due to the
Vulgate. As M. H. Goshen-Gottstein remarks, the Mosul edition was corrected
at times by the Vulgate (Goshen-Gottstein 1960: 5, n. 22. [Image]
15Since the text of Lee was the basis of both BHK3 and BHS, they falsely
record " S om wl)" (Bewer, ed. 1932: 864, first apparatus;
Elliger, ed. 1971). [Image]
16G: and they are laid with the giants who fell of old. [Image]
17G here renders g.ib.owr as gi/gas as in vv. 12 and
21. [Image]
18G reads m"(owlfm (a)po\ ai)w=nos) instead of
m"(Ar"liym due to the influence of Gen 6:4 (hag.ib.oriym
)A$er m"(owlfm = oi( gi/gantes o(i a)p' ai)w=nos).[Image]
19Mulder remarks that the Syrohexapla reads wl) bracketed between
an asterisk and a metobelos (Mulder 1986a: 467). Cf. Mulder 1988 and Mulder
1986b. [Image]
20The Konkordanz zur Syrischen Bibel: Die Propheten edited by Werner
Strothmann is based on the Urmia Bible and the Syriac text of the London
Polyglot (Walton, ed. 1655-1657; cf. Strothmann, ed. 1984: VII), which also
omits l). [Image]
21The Peshitta text of Biblia Hebraica, Editio Quinta (BHQ) is supposed to
be based on the Leiden edition. The Hebrew University Bible, of which Isaiah
(Goshen-Gottstein, ed. 1995) and Jeremiah (Rabin, Talmon, and Tov, eds.
1997) have been published so far, correctly employs MS 7a1 (as over against
the prints) as its base text for the Peshitta. [Image]
Bibliography
Barnes, W. Emery 1897. An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version with a Discussion of the Value of the Codex Ambrosianus. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bewer, Julius A., ed. 1932. Biblia Hebraica: Librum Ezechiel. 3rd ed.
Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
Bloch, Joshua 1920-1921. "The Printed Texts of the Peshitta Old Testament."
AJSL 37: 136-144.
Cooke, George A. 1937. The Book of Ezekiel. Vol. 1. ICC. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Cornill, Carl Heinrich 1886. Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs.
Dirksen, Piet B.; and Mulder, Martin J., eds. 1988. The Peshitta: Its Early
Text and History. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden, no. 4.
Leiden: Brill.
Elliger, Karl, ed. 1971. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Librum Ezechielis.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Gordon, Robert P. 1999. "'Converse Translation' in the Targums and Beyond."
JSP 19: 3-21.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. 1960. "Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the
Peshitta." In Scripta Hierosolymitana 8: 1-42 [163-204].
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. 1995. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book
of Isaiah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Haefeli, Leo 1927. Die Peshitta des alten Testaments Münster i. W.: Verlag
der aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlund.
Harr Romeny, Robert Bas ter 1997. A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek,
Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on
Genesis. Traditio Exegetica Graeca, no. 6. Leuven: Peeters.
Hieronymus 1964. Commentariorum in Hiezechielem. Corpus Christianorum,
Series Latina, no. 75. Brepols: Turnholt.
Klein, Michael 1976. "Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique." Biblica
57: 515-537.
Klein, Michael L. 1997. "The Masorah to Onqelos: A Reflection of Targumic
Consciousness." HUCA 68: 63-75.
Lamsa, George M., trans. 1985. Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text. San
Francisco: Harper & Row.
Lust, Johan, ed. 1986. Ezekiel and His Book. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium, no. 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Maori, Yeshayahu 1995. The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch and Early
Jewish Exegesis [trgwm hp#y+t) ltwrh whpr#nwt hyhwdyt hqdwmh].
Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Mulder, Martin J. 1986a. "Einige Beobachtungen zum Peschittatext von
Ezechiel in seinen Beziehungen zum masoretischen Text, zur Septuaginta and
zum Targum." In Muñoz Léon, ed. 1986: 463-470.
Mulder, Martin J. 1986b. "Die neue Peshitta-Ausgabe von Ezechiel." In Lust,
ed. 1986: 101-110.
Mulder, Martin J. 1988. "Some Remarks on the Peshitta Translation of the
Book of Ezekiel." In Dirksen and Mulder, eds. 1988: 169-182.
Muñoz Léon, Domingo, ed. 1986. Salvación en la Palabra, Targum - Derash -
Berith (En memoria del professor Alejandro Díez Macho). Madrid: Ediciones
Cristiandad.
Rabin, C.; Talmon, S.; and Tov, E., eds. 1997. The Hebrew University Bible:
The Book of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Smelik, Willem F. 1995. The Targum of Judges. Oudtestamentlische Studiën,
no. 36. Leiden: Brill.
Sperber, Alexander, ed. 1962. The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. 3: The Latter
Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Leiden: Brill.
Strothmann, Werner, ed. 1984. Konkordanz zur Syrischen Bibel: Die Propheten.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Walton, Brian, ed. 1655-1657. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta. London: Thomas
Roycroft.
Weitzman, Michael P. 1999. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament.
University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, no. 56. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zimmerli, Walther 1969a. Ezechiel. Vol. 1. BKAT, no. 13/1.
Neukirchenen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins.
Zimmerli, Walther 1969b. Ezechiel. Vol. 2. BKAT, no. 13/2.
Neukirchenen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins.
Zimmerli, Walther 1979. Ezekiel. Vol. 1. Hermeneia. Translated by Ronald E.
Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Zimmerli, Walther 1983. Ezekiel. Vol. 2. Hermeneia. Translated by James D.
Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.