Background of Aramaic translations of the MT

[yaaqub]

Shlama,

Here's a quote from one of Gillian Greenberg's works concerning the background of the Aramaic translations of the Masoretic text I found interesting and in line with other accepted theories, etc.

"In the earlier literature, Talmon assembles evidence in the rabbinic writings, Hebrew fragments from after 70 CE such as those from Wadi Murabba`at and Massada, and some subsidiary details from the ancient version, and concludes that proto-Masoretic Texts were indeed established during the first century CE...Against the background of the evidence for the date of the standardization of the proto-Masoretic Text, it is historically possible that a MS which was close to even if not identical with the latter would have been in existence at the time of writing of the Peshitta, and could have formed the Vorlage....that the translators would have sought out a 'model' text, one given high status by those involved in Palestine, as the basis of the work of such importance, and that the model they would have wanted to work from would therefore have been in the line of transmission of the MT....

Jutscher describes some of the biblical scrolls found at Qumran as 'vernacular' copies, deliberately simplified and otherwise adapted for Hebrew-speaking readers, and circulating in the Holy Land up to the second century CE. The nature of these MSS, and the question of their suitability for the Vorlage of the Peshitta, is also discussed by Weitzman. These non-proto-Masoretic Text MSS, which made up such a large proportion of the total, may have been of great importance during the earlier life of the Qumran community: but their number may give a misleading idea of their importance during the later stages, the time at which the Peshitta was written, when as Tov suggests a central stream in Judaism may have been responsible for the copying and circulation of these texts...This evidence of the text of the Peshitta before the fifth century is found largely in the writings of Aphrahat and also in those of Ephrem...

'The Judaism of the Peshitta Pentateuch ... is predominantly rabbinic but embodies some non-rabbinic elements. The religion of the Peshitta Psalter is emphatically different from rabbinic Judaism ... The hypothesis may be ventured that the Pentateuch was translated while that community was yet Jewish, and the Psalter when its evangelization was well under way if not complete.' [Quoting Weitzman]...

Weitzman points out that the presence of some Jewish exegesis in the Peshitta is compatible with an origin in a Christian community if that community had Jewish roots or Jewish contacts, and concludes, overall, that the Peshitta was the work of non-rabbinic Jews, conscious, at least during the time of translation of all but the last books, of isolation from Jews elsewhere in the world... For such a community, the production of a biblical text which was readily accessible in a community where the knowledge of Hebrew was decreasing may have been more important than literalness."

(Extracted from Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah by Gillian Greenberg, copyright 2002, BRILL).

[gbausc]

Shlama Yaaqub,

You quoted:

The religion of the Peshitta Psalter is emphatically different from rabbinic Judaism ... The hypothesis may be ventured that the Pentateuch was translated while that community was yet Jewish, and the Psalter when its evangelization was well under way if not complete.' [Quoting Weitzman]...

I have translated quite a few Psalms from The Peshitta in the UBS Syriac Bible 1979, along with many of the subscriptions. The subscriptions are definitely Christian. A few even give indication of being 1st century. Psalm 23 has this heading :

"To David concerning the communion table of the kingdom, and to us now spiritually, an introduction of the Christian people recently."

Psalm 74 has this heading:

To Asaph when David saw the Angel of the sword among the people & cried, "With me and with my seed, & not with these innocent sheep.", & again, the former words of the imprisonment of the cities of nobles, the 40th year after the ascension; of Aspisinus the Elder and Titus his son, who killed 10,000 nobles and put Jerusalem to the sword and has taken away the nobles until today."

"Aspisinus" is Vespasian Caesar, by whom Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. The inscription of this Psalm would seem to have been written soon after the fact. The writer sounds as if he was still awaiting the return of the captured Jewish nobles. He would hardly have been waiting more than a few years; certainly not 30 years; so the date of the writing of this superscription cannot be later than the 1st century, and is most likely just after AD 70.

But what do you think?

I think these superscriptions are invaluable and seemingly have been ignored.

I intend to publish these along with my interlinear translation of The Psalms.


Dave

[yaaqub]

Shlama,

I would venture to say that the dating was probably soon after the destruction of the Temple but remaining within and not outside the first century, as you mentioned.

What is the actual source text of "UBS Syriac Bible 1979". Is this a critical edition?

I believe it would also be fair to say that it is quite possible that the superscriptions could very well have been added by a later scribe (or group of scribes), but I would not say for sure because I'm not completely familiar with the UBS text you mentioned. I'm interested in learning more about it.

Ya'aqub

[yaaqub]

Shlama,

I looked up some information on the UBS text you mentioned, Dave and found that it is a critical edition, perhaps based on several critical editions, as you mentioned in the description of your translation.

I tend to view most critical editions as being highly conjectural or hypothetical, in other words - with lots of room for academics (especially Western scholars) to make assumptions. I look at many of these as suspect, unless it is an edition that provides one single manuscript and indicates all the variants in the footnotes or columns.

I do use critical editions for comparison, especially when they are produced in an effort to indicate variants between manuscripts and other translations (i.e., Hebrew, Latin, Greek), but as far as using a critical edition (or especially a "critical edition based on several critical editions") I would prefer not to translate verbatim from such a volume. I would rather use critical editions for reference and rely more on a single manuscript if at all possible, and indicate within my translation the variants found elsewhere.

I suppose it all boils down to the translator's intent - do I want to use a hodgepodge of texts collected together under one volume that was primarily designed for academics to compose a version based on several versions, or do I want to translate a single ancient manuscript as faithfully as possible for the average student/reader of the Holy Text? I'll take the latter and provide references to the other editions and/or manuscripts for the benefit of the student/reader - and use the critical edition(s) where the original is not available or where the text is intelligible due to smearing or flaking of the characters.

By no means is this a judgment against those who choose to translate from critical editions. I believe critical editions are extremely valuable, but, for myself, in the context in which I explained above - mostly for reference.

But I'm still very interested in knowing the origin of the superscriptions you mentioned concerning the Psalms or "Psalter".

Thanks,
Ya'aqub

[yaaqub]

Shlama,

Here's another interesting quote on the subject of Jews and Christians translating/modifying the text:

"The Peshitta translation of Genesis, and indeed of the Pentateuch as a whole, is particularly rich in links with contemporary Jewish exegetical tradition, and this makes it likely that these books were translated by Jews rather than by Christians.... the Peshitta translation of Proverbs is also likely to have been the work of Jews in northern Mesopotamia; it subsequently came to be taken over by Syriac-speaking Christians and by later Jews (who lightly modified the dialect)"

-- The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, by Sebastian Brock.

[gbausc]

The O.T. portion is from Lee's edition (1826?) The superscriptions are at the beginning of each Psalm. It seems that most of the OT Peshitta editions made use of the Codex Ambrosianus (5th century), as it is the one complete ms. of The Peshitta Tanakh which is also very old.

I have all of Peshitta Leiden's Peshitta Tanakh downloaded also, but these do not have any superscriptions or subscripts.

Taybutha w'Burkta,

Dave