[AS 2.

1 (2004) 85-106]
ISSN 1477-8351

Peshitta Institute Communication XXIII∗

——
The New English Annotated Translation
of the Syriac Bible (NEATSB):
Retrospect and Prospect

K.D. Jenner, A. Salvesen, R.B. ter Haar Romeny, W.T. van Peursen

Universities of Leiden and Oxford

1. Introduction
On August, 1-6, 2004 the International Organization for the Study
of the Old Testament (IOSOT) will hold its eighteenth international
congress at Leiden. The Peshitta Institute will then organize a semi-
nar entitled The Bible of Edessa: Towards a New English Annotated
Translation of the Peshitta. This seminar will reconsider the initial the-
oretical reflections and related editorial policy that were the outcome
of the first seminar on the publication of an annotated translation of
the Syriac Bible.1 The first seminar was devoted to questions of how
to set up such a project and what aspects of translation technique
should be taken into consideration, the second seminar will focus on
cultural historical aspects of the Syriac Bible and its reception.2 The
∗
The first 22 Peshitta Institute Communications appeared in Vetus Testamen-
tum (from 1962 onwards).
1
This first seminar was also organized by the Peshitta Institute Leiden and held
at Leiden, 4-5 February, 1999. Two of the papers are already published, viz. J.
Joosten, ‘Materials for a Linguistic Approach to the Old Testament Peshitta’, JAB
1 (1999), pp. 203-18 and M.A. Zipor, ‘Towards an Annotated English Translation
of the Peshitta’, JNSL 28 (2002), pp. 63-82. The present article is a reworking of
the papers read by K.D. Jenner, A. van der Kooij, and A. Salvesen.
2
A small meeting of participants in the New English Annotated Translation of
the Syriac Bible was planned in the schedule of the third Peshitta Symposium,
August 2001. The informal exchange of information and experiences did not result

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004, The Tower Building, 11 York Road,
London SE1 7NX and 15 East 26th Street, suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.
86 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

conveners of the planned seminar3 are convinced that thorough study

of these aspects will give a deeper insight into the linguistic, literary
and theological profiles of the Syriac Bible and the underlying motives
of religious authorities, initial translators, and later revisers. Having a
sound grasp of the problems in these fields, the modern translator is
better equipped to understand the double position of the Peshitta and
to adapt its translation to the needs of modern religious society. She
or he should not underestimate this problem of its dual nature: viewed
from the perspective of its Hebrew source, the Peshitta’s Syriac is to
be taken as a target language, but from the standpoint of the modern
translator it is a source language.
There is an urgent need for such a translation as may be concluded
from the level of knowledge and expertise modern postgraduate stu-
dents have. They come from a variety of backgrounds, and a few al-
ready have some competence in Greek and Hebrew, but most of them
know no Aramaic or Syriac. The Aramaic Bible series4 , Le Déaut’s
Targum du Pentateuque,5 the Loeb edition of Philo and Josephus, and
the Septuagint translations of the Sorbonne6 , Toronto,7 and Germany8
are making it possible for these students to carry out their own investi-
gation of topics and strands of exegesis in the Targums and Septuagint.
As to the Peshitta the situation is different. Though there is already
an English translation of the Peshitta, in light of recent studies9 this

in new ideas or initiatives. However, it was a general feeling that a more stringent
formulation of the rules was required. Besides, the desire to plan a new Peshitta
seminar on neatsb in the near future was expressed.
3
R.B. ter Haar Romeny and W.T. van Peursen.
4
M. McNamara et al. (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: The Targums, (20 vols. so far;
Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1987–; in the USA: Washington, DA: Glazier and later
Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press).
5
Roger Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, traduit des deux recensions pales-
tiniennes complètes (5 vols.; Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1978–81).
6
Marguerite Harl et al. (eds.), La Bible d’Alexandrie: Traduction du texte grec
de la Septante, intruduction et notes (11 vols. so far; Paris: Les éditions du Cerf:
1986–).
7
Cf. Albert Pietersma, A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the
Other Greek translations Traditionally Included under that Title: The Psalms (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
8
See below, note 30.
9
Recently, M.D. Koster reviewed M.P. Weitzman’s The Syriac Version of the
Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications,
56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). In this review (‘A New In-
troduction to the Peshitta of the Old Testament’, AS 1 (2003), pp. 211-46) he

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 87

so-called Lamsa edition10 in no way complies with the needs of mod-

ern biblical research and the standards of modern linguistics. The aim
of this article is to concisely recapitulate the preparations to and the
actual setup of the New English Annotated Translation of the Syriac
Bible (neatsb).11

2. Initial Phase (1994-1999)

The late Jonas Greenfield pushed the Peshitta Institute several times
to set up a project for an English translation of the Peshitta. When he
visited Leiden University, he passionately advocated the publication of
a ‘Students’ Edition of the Peshitta’12 that should also present an En-
also evaluates the studies of P.B. Dirksen, A. Gelston, G. Greenberg, J. Joosten,
M.D. Koster, D.J. Lane, Y. Maori, and T. Muraoka. See also K.D. Jenner and E.
Talstra, ‘CALAP and its Relevance for the Translation and Interpretation of the
Syriac Bible. The presentation of a Research Programme on The Computer As-
sisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta’, in J. Cook (ed.) Bible and Computer—
The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference: Proceedings of the Association Internationale
Bible et Informatique ‘From Alpha to Byte’, University of Stellenbosch 17-21 July,
2000 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002), pp. 681-699; other relevant contributions to the
proceedings of this conference are: W.T. van Peursen, ‘Morphosyntactic and Syn-
tactic Issues in the Syriac Text of 1Kings 1’, pp. 99-111; H.J. Bosman and C.J.
Sikkel, ‘Reading Authors and Reading Documents’, pp. 113-33; J. Dyk, ‘Linguistic
Aspects of the Peshitta Version of 2 Kings 18 and 19’, pp. 519-43; and P.S.F. van
Keulen, ‘A Case of Ancient Exegesis: The Story of Solomon’s Adversaries (1 Kgs.
11:14-25) in Septuaginta, Peshitta and Josephus’, pp. 555-71. These articles are
the spin off of the Computer Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta, a re-
search programme, granted by the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research
(NWO). In this programme the Peshitta Institute at Leiden and the Research Unit
for the Application of Information Technology to Humanities (Free University at
Amsterdam) cooperate.
10
George M. Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts Contain-
ing the Old and New Testament Translated from the Peshitta, the Authorized Bible
of the Church of the East (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Company, 15th edn., 1967).
This translation is assimilated to the Hebrew text in quite a few places.
11
‘Syriac Bible’ here stands for Peshitta, even though this is not the only Syriac
Bible.
12
In his opinion, this edition should not merely represent the text of the BTR-text
of the Leiden edition: Vetus Testamentum Syriace: The Syriac Bible according to the
Peshitta (in progress). The text of the ‘Students’ Edition’ should provide the reader
with a consistent system of vowels. Alternatives should be accounted for in the
critical apparatus. Moreover, this apparatus should give a concise selection of the
variants as accepted in the Leiden Peshitta edition. Later Gideon Goldenberg made
similar remarks, though, contrary to Greenfield, he had an outspoken preference
for the East-Syrian vowels.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

88 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

glish translation. Such an edition could meet the needs of all students
who were interested in biblical studies, but lacked sufficient knowledge
of Syriac. In 1994 Pier Giorgio Borbone, Donald M. Walter, Konrad D.
Jenner, and Brill Publishers discussed for the first time the technical
and scholarly requirements for such an edition.13 Subjects of discussion
were, for example, the status of the Syriac text, the related critical ap-
paratus, the characteristics and quality of the English translation, goal
and content of the annotations, and the outline of the introduction.

2.1 The Relationship between Status of the Syriac text, Critical appa-
ratus, and Modern Translation
As to the status of the Syriac text on which the English translation
should be based, three options were evaluated in the following order of
preference:
1. Edition of the text of the preferred manuscript of a single biblical
book. The relevant manuscripts in this option seemed limited to 5b1,
5ph1, 8b1, and 9a1.14 Of course, obvious clerical errors should be cor-
rected. The choice for this option would meet the stance Koster took
with respect to the edition of the text of the Peshitta.15
2. Establishment of a critical text. The aim of this option should
be to establish the best and most original text on the basis of text-
critical and textual historical criteria. All ancient manuscripts should
be taken into account, and this selection should possibly be completed
with some younger ones that may have been directly copied from lost
ancient manuscripts.16
13
Needless to say Brill showed strong interested in the planned edition. The
employees then responsible had a positive attitude towards it and encouraged the
initiators to continue. At the time it was preferred that the edition should present
one page of the Syriac text and its critical apparatus faced to the page with the
corresponding English translation and its annotations.
14
At the time there was some discussion whether one might posit the existence
of some yet unknown ancient Syriac witnesses on the basis of a thorough study of
the Arabic translations of the Peshitta (P. Bengtsson).
15
M.D. Koster, ‘Peshitta Revisited: A Reassessment of its Value as a Version’,
JSS 38 (1993), pp. 235-68. But see now idem, ‘A New Introduction’, pp. 243-
46. In his forthcoming article ‘Translation or Transmission? That is the question:
The use of the Leiden Old Testament Peshitta Edition’, in M. Augustin and H.M.
Niemann (eds.), Basel und Bibel: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress
of the IOSOT, Basel 2001 (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des
antiken Judentums, 51; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, forthcoming) he will also
discuss this issue.
16
In 1972 K.D. Jenner and W.M. van Vliet had actually argued for a change in

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 89

3. Reproduction of the text presented in the Leiden edition Vetus

Testamentum Syriace (the Old Testament in Syriac according to the
Peshitta). Choosing this option would result in a text which is equal
to but not identical with Koster’s BTR.17
Whichever choice between the above alternatives was made, it was
beyond doubt that an edition of the text should be completed with
a deliberate selection of variant readings derived from the critical ap-
paratus in the Leiden edition and/or taken from the Syriac Fathers.
Anyway, the reception of the Peshitta as reflected in commentary and
theological literature should be accounted for in the English translation
and the annotations to it.
With respect to the relation between the Peshitta, its source text,
and its English translation two sets of questions arose. The first set is
concerned with linguistic aspects. What kind of translation should be
aimed at: a word-for-word translation of the Syriac or an intentional
and contextual one? And which of these two types can in fact be char-
acterized as literary and free translation? It can be argued that an
intentional and contextual translation also allows the English transla-
tor to pay attention to the nature of his Syriac source text and the
intention of the Peshitta translator(s). In fact, the English translator
has to choose either of the two options on the basis of his or her views
on the personality, aims and scholarly equipment of the Peshitta trans-
lators as well as of the linguistic, literary and theological profile s/he
perceives in their translation. In other words, the modern translator of
the Peshitta needs to answer the question of how the Peshitta, in its
role of target text, reflects its Hebrew source text. To what extent did
the cultural, political and theological incentives of the Peshitta trans-
lator interfere with his translation technique? In short, is it far-fetched
to presume that the Peshitta translator(s) made a new creation? The
answer to this question is related to one’s opinion on the cultural and
religious milieu in which the Peshitta emerged. It is no secret that

the editorial policy then operating, in favour of producing a critical text. At the
time the editors in chief (P.A.H. de Boer and W. Baars) did not support such an
idea.
17
M.D. Koster, The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the
Course of Fifteen Centuries (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 19; Assen: Van Gorcum,
1977), passim but especially pp. 1-5. According to Koster’s criteria the text should
not have been so frequently emended as it is. Cf. also Koster’s ‘A New Introduction’,
pp. 225-32. The term BTR is not undisputed, see Koster, ‘A New Introduction’,
p. 220.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

90 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

scholars differ greatly over the answer to this question. So, in the per-
ception of the participants in the aforementioned discussion it was an
important question to what extent the English translator should also
take into account the source text of the Peshitta. In light of this ques-
tion on the linguistic level another source of problems came to the fore,
viz. the comparative study of formal syntactical aspects of both lan-
guage systems. The problem then is in which way and to what extent
macro-syntactical structures of source and target language are iden-
tical. Besides, the translator should also take into account the Syriac
commentary literature on the Old Testament.
The second set of questions is related to the quality and style of
the English. What kind of English should be preferred? Should the
editorial policy aim at uniformity in language, i.e. of grammar, syntax,
style and idiom, and if so, what conditions should be required to make
this a reality?

2.2 Goal and Content of the Annotations & Outline of the Introduction
In light of the above remarks, the participants in the discussion men-
tioned above took it for granted that the annotations to the translation
would explain why the Syriac text had not been translated as literally
as might have been expected from the viewpoint of a ‘word-for-word’
translation. They were of the opinion that the annotations should re-
fer to possible nuances or alternatives in translation, which had to
be ignored in the running text. It was accepted that in a number of
cases nuances which are related to differences in pointing as found
in the manuscripts could not be accounted for, because such differ-
ences, especially those between the so-called Standard Text (TR) and
the later manuscripts,18 had been excluded from the critical apparatus
of the edition of Vetus Testamentum Syriace. Besides, the annotations
should also account for the text-critical and text-historical implications
or consequences of the information in the critical apparatus. Thus far
the participants agreed. Differences in opinion arose with respect to
the question of whether the annotations should give an explanation of
specific terminology and phraseology and should sufficiently account
for the aspect of intertextuality. Opinions also varied regarding the
outline of the introduction. The pros and cons of two options were re-
viewed. The first option was to add an extensive introduction to the
18
The differences between, e.g., haw and hu, hay and hy in the later mss often
simply reflect the subjective preferences of later copiists and lack the support of
the ancient mss.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 91

whole edition, the second one to add a small introduction to each in-
dividual book. The options were kept open. It was assumed that each
biblical book had a preference for specific terminology and idiom and
other characteristics as well. So, this could be taken as an argument in
favour for a smaller introduction to each individual book.
In conclusion, the problems under discussion are partly of a practi-
cal, partly of a methodological nature. In addition to these discussions
two pilot translations were started up: the books of Chronicles and the
books of Kings. The first pilot was scheduled as a long-term project the
goal of which was to get an image of all practical and methodological
problems to be accounted for and which could serve as a specimen and
sample for other books, for broader discussions between the invited
participants, and as the basis for a general preface. This pilot was en-
trusted to David Phillips and, according to the schedules at the time,
Robert Gordon, the editor of the Syriac text in Vetus Testamentum
Syriace and a specialist on the Peshitta of Chronicles, would give him
critical support. The goal of the second pilot was to obtain a quick an-
swer to the following two questions: (1) on which text the translation
should be based; and (2) how to deal with the problem of intertextual-
ity19 . Donald Walter took it as his duty to do this pilot and to prepare
a draft on the basis of a small portion of the books of Kings. He took
a revised text of 9a1 as the basis for his translation and annotations.

2.3 Initial Outline of the Project and Authorization of IOSOT

In February 1995 the sample prepared by Donald Walter was critically
evaluated and the following basic editorial policy was outlined20 :
1. The translation will be based on scholarly accepted rules. Nev-
ertheless the needs of the Syriac communities should not be ignored.21
2. The initial plan of a Students’ Edition, as suggested by Jonas
Greenfield, was definitively canceled. It was the intention now to sepa-
rately publish a critical edition and an English annotated translation.
The annotations should aim at the following aspects: (a) background
19
It should be tackled, for example, where passages in Isaiah, and Jeremiah, but
also other biblical books, were used for the translation of passages in Kings.
20
We did not, however, take any decision concerning the nature, quality and
uniformity of the English nor with reference to the composition of the Introduction.
21
India, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United
States. S.P. Brock and G. Kiraz had pleaded strongly for some kind of interac-
tion with these communities, though the project should not become involved in
theological and liturgical controversies. Anyhow, this suggestion for the first time
emphatically focused attention on non-scholarly users of this annotated translation.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

92 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

information on a scholarly acceptable level, (b) explanation of ambigu-

ous English and or Syriac phrases, (c) information about alternatives,
(d) information regarding reception (Syrian Fathers, commentary lit-
erature) and translation techniques.
3. For solely practical reasons the text and apparatus of the planned
translation should basically represent that of the BTR-text as pub-
lished in Vetus Testamentum Syriace (the Leiden edition in progress).22
So, with reference to the question which Syriac text should be cho-
sen as the basis for the English translation two previous options were
definitively cancelled: (a) the revised text of 5b1 and 9a1, and (b)
the completely reconstructed text (i.e. the critical text). Text-critical
annotations in neatsb should not go into details but only deal with
relevant issues. So, differences in diacritical punctuation and vowels, i.e.
different practices of pronunciation and reading traditions, attested in
whatever Syriac source will not be taken in account unless they have
essential text-critical value.
In December 1995, Michael P. Weitzman was consulted with re-
spect to the planned critical edition and the separate neatsb.23 He
made a substantial contribution to the outline of the editorial policy.
Though he could approve of the BTR-text as presented in the Vetus
Testamentum Syriace, he nevertheless argued for a text which would
be more in line with his notion of the original Peshitta, which he was
working out in his introduction to the Syriac Bible.24 As soon as he
was acquainted with the planned edition of the New English Transla-
tion of the Septuagint (nets, A. Pietersma cum suis), he informed the
Peshitta Institute by e-mail that he would not alter his view on the
editorial policy of the neatsb and certainly would not accept the in-
tended editorial policy of the English translation of the Greek Bible (see
below) as the basis for the English translation of its Syriac pendant.
In his view an editorial policy similar to that of the ‘Toronto group’
would not do justice to the idiosyncrasies of the Peshitta; the essential
differences between Septuagint and Peshitta should not be ignored.
Therefore he strongly advocated that the Peshitta Institute should or-

22
Text-critical editions were wanting at the time, and the establishment of a
critical text would require too long and too thorough a study of the theological and
commentary literature.
23
This happened during his stay in Leiden when he was the main speaker at the
first Peshitta Seminar. This seminar was devoted to the preparations of the sixth
chapter of his monograph The Syriac Version.
24
M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version, passim.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 93

ganize seminars in which internationally acknowledged specialists in

the various fields of linguistics, cultural history of the Ancient Near
East, and Semitic studies would evaluate the progress in the project of
neatsb.25
August 1998, IOSOT acknowledged: (a) neatsb as a sequel to Ve-
tus Testamentum Syriace, (b) the Peshitta Institute as the coordination
centre, and (c) Konrad Jenner, Jan Joosten, and Alison Salvesen26 as
General Editors of neatsb27 . The aim of neatsb would be: to fa-
cilitate the use of the Peshitta and access to the Syriac theological
literature, especially commentaries on the Bible and liturgical hymns.

3. NEATSB Seminar, February 1999 28

Since two modern translations of the Septuagint, nets (English) and
ba (French),29 had been initiated some years ago, the initiators of
these projects had already come to a clear but different perception on
25
The seminar of 4-5 February 1999 was organized on a much smaller scale than
Weitzman had in mind. Owing to his premature demise he was not involved in the
organization of this first seminar on neatsb.
26
A. Salvesen was invited to take the position of General Editor, since this po-
sition had fallen open when M.P. Weitzman deceased March 21st 1998. She had
initiated the translation and annotation of Jacob of Edessa’s Bible as part of the
Monograph Series of the Peshitta Institute: A. Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in
the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (MPIL, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999). The
goal of this edition is to publish the Syriac text completed with an English text
of good literary quality, a concise introduction and annotations that would allow
the student in cultural history and reception history of the Bible to get a reliable
historical image of Jacob’s motives and intentions. If necessary, a literal (i.e. a word-
for-word) translation is provided in the annotations which are as short as possible.
The introduction presents an evaluation of the nature and idiomatic characteristics
as well as linguistic features of Jacob’s revisional work of the Peshitta.
27
One of the General Editors would always be a representative of the Peshitta
Institute Leiden.
28
This section is based on the minutes of the neatsb seminar held at Leiden
on 4 and 5 February 1999, made by P.S.F. van Keulen, M.D. Koster, and W.T.
van Peursen, as well as on A. Salvesen’s paper (see below, Sections 4 and 5).
If papers were published, they are referred to. The evaluation of four extensive
samples (chosen from Leviticus, Job, Kings, and Chronicles) is not included here.
29
ba stands for La Bible d’Alexandrie. In the debates of the seminar, the Targum
translations of McNamara et al. and Le Déaut were left out of consideration; see
however Section 4 below. At the time this seminar was held its participants did
not yet know of the initiatives with respect to the translation of the Septuagint
into the German language. H.-J. Fabry and U. Offerhaus (eds.), Im Brennpunkt:
Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

94 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

their editorial policy, the question had arisen what could be learned
from these stable policies. With respect to this question the following
remarks30 can be made:
1. The Hebrew exemplar. nets and ba have a different perception
on the role and status of Hebrew as the source language of the Septu-
agint. nets focuses on the meaning and syntactical function of words
in Hebrew that would be the decisive factors in the correct understand-
ing of the Greek text.31 Some essential aspects seem to be ignored in
this perception:
(a) The Septuagint is but one distinct representative of the Greek
translations, so in Antiquity the Hebrew was understood in various
different ways.
(b) The outcome of textual and literary criticism has indicated a
complex and complicated process of transmitting and preserving the
Hebrew text, so the ancient Hebrew text may have been essentially
different from its later Massoretic redaction.
(c) The problem of how to manage ‘Hebraisms’ seems to receive no
attention in the editorial policy of either nets or ba.
2. The individuality of the Greek text. The editorial policy of ba
takes the Greek text as a literary creation with an intrinsic quality.
In this view the Greek text has first to be studied on its own merits,
i.e. a linguistic and literary profile of this translation has to be made,
based on a detailed analysis of the Greek language as such. This stance
differs from the editorial policy of nets.
3. Cultural and religious milieu of the translator. The editors of ba
intend to pay sufficient attention to aspects of the reception history.
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), gives a very clear impression of the cultural and
linguistic influences that are to be accounted for with respect to the Septuagint and
of the problems which the modern translator of the Septuagint has to solve. The
unmistakably clear message of this publication is that problems as to the translation
of ancient Versions in modern languages should certainly not be underestimated.
This study gives a listing and evaluation of the relevant publications in this field.
H. Utzschneider’s contribution (‘Auf Augenhöhe mit dem Text: Überlegungen zum
wissenschaftlichen Standort einer Übersetzung der Septuaginta ins Deutsche’, pp.
11-51) is a balanced methodological evaluation of the editorial policies of nets
versus ba.
30
The first two of these remarks A. van der Kooij first discussed at the Congress
of the IOSCS, Oslo 1998 (A. van der Kooij, Comments on nets and La Bible
d’Alexandrie’, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), Xth Congress of the IOSCS [SBLSCS, 51;
Atlanta: SBL, 2001], pp. 229-31), and then, from the perspective of comparison
with the Peshitta at the seminar on neatsb, Leiden 1999.
31
A similar principle underlies the Lamsa translation of the Peshitta (cf. n. 10).

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 95

Study of the reception history can point to textual problems and gives
one an idea about the ways in which the Old Testament was read and
understood by Jews and Christians.32 This view is in accordance with
the detailed and convincing plea of Martin Rösel that the Septuagint
is to be considered as a theological expression of Hellenistic Judaism
in interaction with (sub-)culture(s) and religions of Hellenistic Society
in Antiquity.33 By ignoring this argument one overlooks one of the
strongest incentives to create the Septuagint.
In conclusion, the lesson to be learned from nets and ba is that
Septuagint and Peshitta are just shots in the film of the reception of the
Old Testament. Therefore the modern translator of the Peshitta has to
consider this translation first and foremost as a creation of its own and
of its time.34 However, since it is common opinion that the Peshitta
was made on the basis of a Hebrew exemplar one may not ignore the
influence of this source document at a linguistic35 and theological level.
So, it is not sufficient for the modern translator to get a clear picture
of how the Greek translator understood his Hebrew exemplar and thus
he or she certainly cannot ignore the results of reception history and
modern literary and textual criticism of the Hebrew text.
The perception of the role of the Hebrew exemplar unmistakably
influences the quality and style of the target language, i.e. the English

32
The books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, Philo, Qumran, Tar-
gumim, Rabbinic commentaries.
33
M. Rösel, ‘Die Übersetzung der Gottesnamen in der Genesis-Septuaginta’, in:
D.R. Daniels, U. Gleßmer, M. Rösel (eds.), Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für
Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1991) pp. 357-77; idem, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur
Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW, 223; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1994); idem, ‘Theo-Logie
der Griechischen Bibel zur Wiedergabe der Gottesaussagen im LXX-Pentateuch’,
VT 48 (1998), pp. 49-62; idem, ‘Die Septuaginta-Version des Josuabuches’, in:
Fabry and Offerhaus (eds.), Im Brennpunkt, pp. 197-211.
34
The history of the investigation into the origin of the Peshitta and the initial
stage of its reception makes clear that it is very difficult to make firm conclusions
with respect to the interaction between translator(s) and cultural and religious
milieu. Cf. Weitzman, The Syriac Version, Chapter 6, as well as Bas ter Haar
Romeny, ‘Hypotheses on the Development of Judaism and Christianity in Syria in
the Period after 70 ce’, in Huub van de Sandt (ed.), Matthew and the Didache:
Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, forthcoming).
35
The investigations of the Computer Assisted Language Analysis of the Peshitta
(CALAP) reveal that the linguistic characteristics of the Peshitta and its relation
to the Hebrew are of a complex nature.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

96 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

translation. If one assumes, as Moshe Zipor argued on the basis of

texts from Leviticus 19 and 21, that students lacking sufficient knowl-
edge of Hebrew, Aramaic and classical Syriac should have access to the
Peshitta because of its homiletic nature and its slavish translation from
the Hebrew, the English translation should ‘. . . stick as much as pos-
sible to the Syriac wording, in order to warn the reader whenever the
Syriac says something different from the MT.’ The annotations should
‘. . . illuminate the following issues: any significant interpretation used
by the Syriac translator; cases of similarity to other ancient versions
or traditions and the possibility of a different Hebrew Vorlage’.36
Zipor’s respondent, David J. Lane, did not agree with this stance.
He did not dispute that the Peshitta was closely related to MT, but
was of a completely different opinion as to the conclusions that could
be drawn from this relationship. With reference to his own study on
the Peshitta of Leviticus37 he emphasized that the translation of the
Hebrew source text had been much more complicated than one would
expect from the biblical Peshitta manuscripts. Lane’s main argument
against Zipor was that (a) biblical and classical Syriac in some respects
are essentially different from Hebrew38 , and (b) that classical Syriac
had a considerable number of linguistic possibilities to avoid appar-
ent ambiguities in Hebrew. So, according to Lane, one should make a
fresh and creative translation from the Syriac and one should certainly
not make use of Modern English translations of the Old Testament.39
The Peshitta, though being a translation, should be evaluated on its
own merits, its own social audience, and its own cultural environment.
So, MT should play a minor role in the process of producing modern
translations. This opinion is to be taken into account in the quality
and style of the English translation.40 Another aspect which should be
acknowledged as a serious problem in translating biblical Syriac into
modern English is that it is necessary to have a much better insight
into the macrosyntactical structures of biblical and classical Syriac and
the differences in this respect between the language systems of biblical
Hebrew versus biblical and classical Syriac.41

36
Zipor, ‘Towards an Annotated English Translation’, pp. 63.
37
D.J. Lane, The Peshitta of Leviticus (MPIL, 6; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
38
This stance is being confirmed by the results of CALAP.
39
See however A. Salvesen (below, Section 4).
40
J. Joosten supported Lane’s view.
41
Further investigations into this field is one of the goals of CALAP.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 97

From the perspective of cultural history the Peshitta is a creation

in the context of a bilingual culture and society.42 In his typology for
the language of the Old Testament Peshitta, Joosten therefore recom-
mended that this phenomenon should be reflected upon in light of the
translation of the Peshitta into modern English. He emphasized that
the language of the Old Testament Peshitta shows but a relative unity,
especially when biblical Syriac is compared ‘. . . with other types of Syr-
iac such as the language of Old Syriac Gospels, or the language of early
Syriac inscriptions’.43 Careful study of Michael Weitzman points in the
direction of linguistic diversity, due to ‘. . . differences in the technique
of individual translators’, or to ‘. . . several phases in the development of
the [Syriac KDJ] language’.44 Joosten presented a tentative paradigm
as to the linguistic quality of biblical Syriac45 : (a) good, idiomatic46 ,
and (b) early47 Syriac, with an unmistakably influx of non-Syriac ele-
ments48 . Modern translators should keep this paradigm in mind when
translating the Old Testament Peshitta into modern English.
David Phillips drew special attention to four major categories of
practical problems he had to solve when translating and annotating
Chronicles49 : (a) the style of English to be used, (b) how and to what
extent divergences from the Massoretic text could be registered and
42
Cf. L. Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical
Syriac as a Standard Language: The Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Eccle-
siastical History’, in G. Goldenberg and S. Raz (eds.), Semitic and Cushitic Studies
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), pp. 70-89; idem, ‘La littérature exégétique syri-
aque et le rapprochement des traditions syrienne-occidentale et syrienne-orientale’,
Parole de l’Orient 20 (1995), pp. 221-35; idem, ‘The Christian Syriac Tradition of
Interpretation’, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its
Interpretation, I.1 (Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 612-41.
43
Joosten, ‘Materials’, p. 205.
44
Joosten, ‘Materials’, p. 204.
45
The paper in its published form is much more explicit on the three parameters
his referent, T. Muraoka, brought to the fore: for a better linguistic knowledge of the
Syriac language the following three parameters would need much more attention:
the idiomatic nature, the problem of continuity and discontinuity, and the problem
of orthography.
46
Joosten, ‘Materials’, pp. 205-11; 207: its ‘. . . vocabulary and syntax . . . are to
a very great extent shared with other Syriac texts’.
47
Joosten, ‘Materials’, pp. 211-215.
48
Joosten, ‘Materials’, pp. 215-218; he lists a number of West-Aramaic items.
As to Greek and Latin loan-words he refers to his ‘Greek and Latin Words in the
Peshitta Pentateuch: First Soundings’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum
VII (OCA, 256; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), pp. 37-47.
49
See above.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

98 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

referred to, (c) how and to what extent comparison with parallel texts
and the other versions could be treated (the problem of intertextuality),
and (d) the structure and length of the notes.50
Under the chairmanship of David Lane the participants agreed on
the following 15 issues:
1. The translation is aimed at a general educated audience.51 George
Kiraz will represent the Syriac churches as an advisor of the Editorial
Board and the General Editors.
2. The preferred characteristics of the translation are: idiomatic,
flowing, smooth, and comprehensible English that is an adequate rep-
resentation of the Syriac. The choice for idiomatic English also means
that ‘and’ at the beginning of every sentence should be avoided. The
translation of isomorphs will be adjusted to their contexts. The use
of the two concordances to the Peshitta (Borbone-Jenner, and Stroth-
mann) may be of great help in such cases.
3. The authority of the BTR-text as published in Vetus Testa-
mentum Syriace is generally accepted. So, this text will serve as ba-
sis for translation, though only in the perspective of a well-founded
text-critical and text-historical evaluation. The evaluation of textual
variants is a matter of common sense.
4. The translation will not indicate divergences from the MT by
means of italics, underlined text, brackets or any other diacritics, both
for practical reasons (an excessive use of different formats may be
confusing or distracting for the reader) and because of theoretical-
methodological considerations (the relationship between MT and P is
often too complicated to be captured in straightforward indications of
‘plus’, ‘minus’, etc.). An exception may be made for Chronicles, where
the major differences from MT may be italicized. Symbols referring to
the annotations will be avoided as well. In the annotations there will
be lemmata taking up words from the translation.
50
He preferred and advocated an English style which is similar but not identical
to that of the Revised Standard Version, extensive references to parallels in order
to explain intertextuality and extensive annotations.
51
As Salvesen formulated it: what is the point of the translation and what is
its target readership? Are we aiming at Syriac scholars like ourselves; or at those
with a rudimentary knowledge of Syriac, or of Aramaic or Hebrew; or at those
interested in ancient Bible translation and interpretation but without any expertise
in Semitic languages? Or are we considering a religious readership, principally but
not exclusively from the communities whose roots are in the Syriac churches? Most
probably we are thinking of an annotated translation that can benefit all of these
groups.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 99

5. The annotations should provide information about the follow-

ing matters: (a) significant divergences from MT (in relation to the
other Ancient Versions), (b) significant variant readings in the Peshitta
manuscripts, (c) significant information about the reception history.
When useful, Jewish (non-Syriac) traditions can also be included. Al-
ternative translations should be given in the annotations and not in
the leading text. Textual and informative notes will be given in one
apparatus.
6. There should be an introduction to each book that discusses the
general relation between MT and P and the character of the translation
(‘translation technique’). The introduction should also deal with recur-
rent phenomena in translation, which would otherwise be mentioned
(over and over again) in the annotations.
7. Preferably each translated book will be published in a separate
fascicle. In a later stage the fascicles should be put together into vol-
umes, such as one for the Pentateuch, one for the Minor Prophets, etc.
In this second stage the introductions to the separate books can be
screened to avoid overlap and partly be replaced by a general intro-
duction. However, it is uncertain whether this two-stage procedure is
feasible.
8. The General Editors will invite participants in the project and
send them sample texts (the first sample prepared for this purpose is
that of Alison Salvesen, printed below in Section 5 of this paper).
9. In the preparation of each book at least two persons will be in-
volved, but one of them will do the main work. The model of a trans-
lator and a counter reader is suggested. The General Editors52 finally
will evaluate annotations, introduction, and translation and have final
responsibility.
10. Payne Smith will function as the basic dictionary (e.g. for giving
references), but Brockelmann will be employed as well.
11. There should be a database where the participants can enter
their decision on the translation of lexemes. This database may even-

52
At present the following general editors are in function: G. Greenberg (unifor-
mity in use of English), R.B. ter Haar Romeny (representative of P.I., reception
history), J. Joosten, W.T. van Peursen (representative of P.I.), and A. Salvesen.
They are supported by an Editorial Board, whose function is to independently mon-
itor the project and to recommend the project for financial support. The members
of this board are: P.G. Borbone, K.D. Jenner, A. v.d. Kooij, T. Muraoka, D.M. Wal-
ter, while S.P. Brock and M. Zipor are advisors and G. Kiraz is a representative of
the Syriac Churches.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

100 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

tually lead to a dictionary on the Peshitta. There is already a database

set up by P.G. Borbone and K.D. Jenner, but some further investi-
gation is needed to see whether it can be made fit to be used as an
interactive database by the participants of the project.
12. There should also be a database of grammatical issues, where
participants under headings of Nöldeke’s paragraph numbers can enter
how they render certain syntagms, etc.53 The purpose of this database
is consistency and uniformity in translation throughout the volumes,
not a grammar of the Peshitta.54
13. For the databases mentioned under 11 and 12 the Peshitta In-
stitute will contact the ‘Research Team for Information Technology
Applied to the Humanities’55 at the Free University (Amsterdam), the
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon project (CAL, Cincinnati), and fur-
ther Borbone and Kiraz to discuss how the projects already set up can
be utilized.
14. The neatsb will follow the chapter and verse numbering of the
BHS, even though the Peshitta manuscripts and the modern printed
editions (Mosul, Lee, and Urmia) may prefer another division.
15. It may be useful to include at the end of the introduction a
bibliography. Shortened bibliographical references can be given in the
annotations.

4. Aspects of Translation Techniques

In order to provide the participants in the neatsb project with some

basic thoughts of orientation Alison Salvesen evaluated many of the
aforementioned topics in the perspective of translation techniques. Her
evaluation is printed in this section, and is followed by her sample
translations of two passages from 1 Samuel in Section 5.56
It is theoretically possible for a translation to try to convey the
impression that the Peshitta text created on the contemporaries of the
translator of each book, or on hearers in the sixth, seventh, eighth
century, and so on, in terms of natural Syriac idiom versus Hebraic,
53
For subjects not treated by Nöldeke the references will be to Muraoka’s gram-
mar.
54
This would cause overlap with the CALAP project.
55
Dutch equivalent: Werkgroep voor Informatica Vrije Universiteit (WIVU).
56
The first page of Salvesen’s essay is not reproduced here because it duplicates
a number of questions that have been dealt with in the previous paragraphs of this
article.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 101

biblical style. But it would be difficult to decide which era one was
aiming at, and still harder to try to replicate in English that precise
impression. Realistically one would probably prefer to focus on what
the translator thought his text meant. In the end, however, the pri-
mary target will surely be clarity for the modern reader rather than a
questionable recreation of the ancient impact of the original Syriac.
After that, one would perhaps try to pinpoint a general style and
technique for the English translation. I assume that we are ruling out
a very literal, ‘crib’ translation: an extremely literal translation is very
annoying for anyone not using it as a ‘crib’ to the original language, and
runs the risk of alienating part of the readership who may consider that
the Syriac must have been as barbaric as the English. More importantly
it is unnecessary to produce a crib, since individual phrases can be
rendered literally in the notes.
A close rather than literal rendering seems desirable. One would
not want to give the impression that the Peshitta paraphrased the He-
brew or rendered it freely where that was not the case. The Peshitta
is not a Syriac Good News Bible, after all, and should not be repre-
sented as such. But having eliminated the extremes of highly literal and
unhelpfully loose, we still have a bewildering variety of types of mod-
ern English translation and registers of English language as precedents
and possible guides for this project. English speakers in particular now
have at their disposal a huge number of versions in their language.
Without having consciously set out to collect English translations, I
personally have on my shelves the Authorized Version, the New King
James, the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version,
New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New In-
ternational Version, most of which have been produced this century,
in modern English. It is clear that nowadays a Bible text does not
have to be in archaic language to be acceptable to religious and other
readers, and to produce a translation of the Peshitta that was con-
sciously archaic throughout in its English style would be flying in the
face of the contemporary trend. Admittedly the best English style of
all Bible translations has to be that of the Authorized Version. Its
long use and absorption into the canon of English literature has meant
that the Semiticisms are barely noticeable as such, but are regarded as
‘biblical style’ and do not grate. However, even to comparatively well-
educated British English-speakers of my own or a younger generation,
the English of the Revised Standard Version is difficult, and that of the
Authorized Version unintelligibly archaic. I suspect that the situation

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

102 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

in North America and the Antipodes is no different. This will seem

strange to those many non-native speakers of English who are highly
literate in a range of English literature from Shakespeare to Dickens,
but it is a fact. The use of the old second person singular ‘thou’, ‘thee’,
‘thy’, ‘thine’, whether addressed to the Deity or another person, is
probably better understood by those who are familiar with this turn
of speech from their own language: Du, tu, etc. It is now barely under-
stood by any Anglophone who is not part of a church regularly using
the Authorized Version or Book of Common Prayer (the exceptions
being a few thousand natives of Bradford in Yorkshire, who continue
to use these forms within the family and for very close friends, but who
would probably address God politely ard formally as ‘you’ !). It is a fact
that some of the most prominent features of the Authorized Version
make its English seem a foreign language to many Anglophones: the
same could also be said of Shakespeare.
The question is, can one get away with a close translation of the
Peshitta without resorting to the archaisms and Hebraisms of the Au-
thorized Version? Is a New King James Version style possible or appro-
priate? If the goal is not to represent the Peshitta so that the English
rendering becomes a crib to the Syriac, for those whose Syriac is very
elementary or non-existent, but rather to provide a running text which
highlights in passing the Peshitta’s more interesting interpretations of
the Hebrew (or Greek), then the latter is preferable: to indicate genuine
quirks of the Peshitta rather than replicating what are quite normal
features of Syriac biblical style. More literal renderings of the Syriac
should be included, but this can be done in the footnotes.
Certainly a Syriac idiom ought to be rendered naturally not literally
in English: it should not startle the modern reader any more than it did
the original audience. On the other hand, if the usage can be proved
to be Hebraistic in Syriac (which is not as simple as it seems), perhaps
this should filter through into the English, that is, a Hebrew idiom in
Syriac should be perhaps rendered literally in English.
Turning back to the readership angle: the Aramaic Bible series has
proved a useful tool. While the Peshitta project is not likely to wish
to duplicate its format, the style of translation of the Targum series,
while unexciting, provides a good guide to content, is fully comprehen-
sible to non-Anglophones, and is inoffensive to native English speakers,
whether North American, Australian or British. (Note, however, that
at least in a number of fascicles this translation is assimilated to the
Hebrew text.)

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 103

At first sight, Moshe Zipor’s advocacy of the nrsv as a base trans-

lation would seem quite sensible, since the Peshitta translator himself
was working from the Hebrew in most cases and one would generally
expect him to reach the same interpretation as the nrsv in straight-
forward passages. On the other hand, there will of course be a good
many divergences, and differences in nuance: after all, modern versions
working from the Hebrew do not always agree with each other. But
the technique of using the nrsv could prove an aid to non-Anglophone
translators: what it lacks in high literary style it makes up for in accu-
racy of translation and it provides a good English text which most will
find acceptable. However, it may prove an impossible procedure with
many poetic books, such as Job: the differences may be too many and
too great, largely because the Peshitta has understood the Hebrew in
one way and the English another. Even in prose, there may be small
differences in emphasis between the Peshitta and nrsv which should
not be ignored. Perhaps, we should aim at the general style of the nrsv
rather than following the translation verse by verse in our renderings.

5. An Illustrative Example
Provided below are translations of the first ten verses of 1 Sam. 1
(prose), and of the first ten verses of 1 Sam. 2 (poetry), which I ren-
dered closely and rather crudely without using nrsv as a base. Then
I compared the result with nrsv. The prose rendering was quite close,
but as might be expected, the poetry diverged considerably where the
Syriac translator and English tradition had interpreted the Hebrew
quite differently. Notes indicate differences between P and MT.
One feature evident here which was a constant problem when I
was translating Jacob of Edessa’s version of Samuel, was the rendering
of place names and personal names. Does one use the usual English
equivalent, even if the Syriac is very different, or transliterate into
consonants alone, or follow the vocalization tradition of, say, the Urmia
edition? Full transliteration would require vowel macrons and dots and
lines below consonants. This is the most accurate way of doing it, but
the non-Syriacist may find the result more confusing than helpful. You
will notice that I have not used any dots or markings here, and the
vocalization follows roughly that of the Urmia edition. The annotations
in this version give words in Hebrew and Syriac in Hebrew and Syriac
scripts. We will have to decide on an (academic or general-purpose)
system of transliteration for the final publication.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

104 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

1 Samuel 1.1-10
1. There was a certain man from Ramtha of the Watchmen, from
the mountain of Aphrem. His name was Halqana son of Jarhom,
son of Elihu, son of Tahu, son of Suph, an Aphrathite.
2. He had two wives. The name of one was Hanna and the name of
the other was Panena. Panena had children, but Hanna had no
children.
3. The man used to go up from his town from season to season to
worship and make sacrifice to the Lord Sabaoth in Shilo, where
there were the two sons of ‘Eli, Haphni and Pinhes, priests to the
Lord.
4. The day came when Halqana made a sacrifice and gave (some)
to Panena his wife, and to all her sons and daughters he gave
portions.
5. But to Hanna he gave a double portion, because it was Hanna
that he loved, though the Lord had closed her womb.
6. Her rival used to provoke her exceedingly, in order to grieve her,
because the Lord had closed up her uterus.
7. This is what Panena used to do year by year, at the time when
she would go up to the house of the Lord. In this way she would
provoke her and Hanna wept and did not eat.
8. Halqana her husband said to her, ‘Hanna, why are you weeping,
and why have you not eaten? Why is your heart sad? See, I am
better to you than ten children!’
9. Hanna stood up after she had eaten in Shilo and after she had
drunk, and she went up to the house of the Lord. ‘Eli the priest
was sitting on a chair by the doorpost of the sanctuary of the Lord.
10. Her very soul was sorrowful, and she was praying before the Lord
and weeping bitterly.
———
1 Ramtha of the Watchmen] the word atmr is ambiguous in Syriac and in He-
brew: it often functions as a placename (Ramah/Ramtha), but also means ‘height,
hill’. P and Tg follow MT in taking Ha-Ramathaim-Zophim as a place name,
‘Ramtha/the Hill of the Watchmen’, but modern scholars suggest on the basis of
lxx that Zophim has been corrupted from a patronymic, ‘a Zuphite’. — Halqana]
MT Elqanah.
3 season to season] MT lit. ‘from days to days’, i.e. yearly.
5 a double portion] MT ‘one of face (µypa)’: emendation has been suggested to
spa ‘nothing’, but MT as it stands suggests some sort of special treatment due to
Halqana’s preference for Hanna, in spite of her childlessness. lxx on the other hand
has ‘single portion’, explained by Hanna’s infertility.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

 Jenner et al. NEATSB 105

6. lxx has a long plus concerning Hanna’s grief at her lack of children, but it
does not refer to her rival’s provocation. — uterus] though the same Hebrew word
for ‘womb’ is used at the end of vv. 5 and 6, different Syriac terms are found in P.
7 Panena, Hanna] > MT. P adds proper names for clarification, in contrast to
lxx, which understands the whole verse as a description of Hanna’s reaction to her
infertility. — eat] Í[l, also in vv 8, 9. This verb tended to be displaced in later
Syriac by Lka as it came to be regarded as a rather vulgar term. Jacob of Edessa
(late seventh century) has Lka in these verses in his version of Samuel.
8 See, I am better ] MT ‘am I not better. . . ?’
9 and she went up to the house of the Lord ] > MT. Cf. lxx ‘and she stood before
the Lord’.
10 Her very soul was sorrowful ] MT ‘She was sorrowful of soul’

1 Samuel 2.1-10
1. Hannah prayed and said, ‘My heart is strong in the Lord, and my
horn has been exalted [in my God]. My mouth has been opened
against my enemies, because you have made me rejoice in your
salvation.
2. There is none who is holy like the Lord, because there is none
except you. There is none who is strong like our God.
3. Do not speak many great things, and do not let violence come out
of your mouth, because the Lord is knowing, and devices do not
stand firm before him.
4. The bows of the champions will be broken, and the feeble have
been strengthened with might.
5. Those sated with bread have hired themselves out, but the hungry
have (food) to spare. The barren woman has borne and is satisfied,
but she who has many children has become desolate.
6. The Lord slays and makes alive, he brings down to Sheol and raises
up.
7. The Lord makes poor and makes rich, he humbles and exalts.
8. He raises up the poor man from the dust, and lifts the wretched
from the dunghill, to seat him with nobles, and he will make them
inherit a throne of glory. The Lord has roofed over the depths of
the earth and placed the world upon them.
9. He will guard the feet of his just ones, but the wicked shall be si-
lenced in darkness. Because it is not by his might that a champion
excels.
10. The Lord will break those who rebel against him and will thunder
against them in the heavens. The Lord will judge the ends of the
earth: he will give strength to his king and raise the horn of his
anointed one.’

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

106 Aramaic Studies 2.1 (2004)

1 in my God ] This phrase appears in lxx, ms 7al and a few other P mss (see
apparatus to the edition), but is absent in the rest of the P tradition. MT and
4QSama have ‘in the Lord’. — is strong] Apparently this represents Hebrew zl[,
‘exult’, the meaning of which was probably unknown to the translator of P, hence
the resort to a verb with positive connotations appropriate to the context. —
you have made me rejoice] The corresponding Hebrew is ytjm, ‘I have rejoiced’.
Perhaps the translator of P read the form as a Piel with first person suffix, yntjm.
2 strong] Hebrew rwx, literally ‘rock’, but often understood as P does in a meta-
phorical sense, perhaps to avoid any suggestion of idolatry.
3 and do not] > MT. — devices do not stand firm] The translator perhaps took
MT wnktn (‘[actions] are weighed’, < ÷kt) as a form of ÷wk, ‘be firm’. — before him]
> MT.
5 have food to spare] MT d[ wldj, lit. ‘have ceased for ever’. The Hebrew has
been explained or emended in various ways, but the translator of P appears to have
made a guess from the context. — and is satisfied ] The dot distinguishing Hebrew
letters śin and šin sibilants was a late development, and the translator has read
MT h[bv, ‘seven’ (i.e. children), as h[bc, ‘she is satisfied’.
8 The Lord has roofed over the depths] MT ‘for to the Lord are the straits’.
Perhaps corrupted from an original Syriac ayrml Lfm ‘for to the Lord’ to the
present ayrm Llf.
9 a champion] MT ya, ‘a man’. P arbng , ‘champion’, has probably been
corrupted from the similar arbg , ‘a man’, under the influence of the preceding
verb rbngtm.

c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.