University College Thesis submitted for the Ph.D. degree, 1999 Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah Gillian Greenbere, in B. Sc., M. B., B. S., M. A. LILL LONDON 2 Abstract of thesis Translation technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah This discussion is based on a word by word comparison of the source document and the translation throughout the 1364 versesof the book. The conclusions drawn are: 1. the translator's main aim was to present the senseof his Hebrew Vorlage without change,tn and to do so in a readily accessiblepresentational style. The evidence on which this conclusion is basedis the presenceof two co-existing fon-ns of translation throughout: (i) almost always literal, in presentation of the sense. The few points at which the senseis modified almost all pertain to the theme of the movement from the Temple- and sacrifice-basedpre-exilic religion to a prayer-basedreligion compatible with exile; (ii) often non-literal, stylistically, in pursuit of the precise and intelligible presentational style. When the translator wished to add lexical items, breaking the constraints of quantitative literalism so as to increase the precision of expression, he did so. 2. Comparison of earlier with later mss. shows that these characteristics are to be found not only in the work of the translator, but also in the work of later editors: those Peshitta. the to evidently editingt:' mss. valued presentational style sufficiently impose it on the text even though they knew that by so doing they were likely to lessenthe correspondencebetween that text and the Hebrew Vorlage. 3. The Vorlage was probably a document almost but not quite atthe end of the processof recension which led to the formulation of Nff: a group of m inuses in LXX the Peshitta MT, the Hebrew which and aareeeý acainsteý occurringtý' at points of text textual the where criticism suggestsC. some underlyingCý problem, constitute evidence on which this conclusion is based. 4. The translator's approach to the choice of lexical equivalents is that of one 3 literary who enjoyed exercisingC) initiative. 5. There is no evidence that more than one translator was involved. 6. Future work, assessingthe literary style of the Peshitta as a whole, is to throw li ht the the incompatibility the Peshitta.to suggestedtý 9 on puzzle of of Isaiah and to Psalmswith the classification of the other books of the Peshitta according to the characteristicsof the translation technique. 4 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments 6 Chapter I Introduction 7 The nature of the Vorlage 9 The nature of the Urtext 15 The work of the editors 23 The choice of 7al 24 Influence from the Targums 25 The character of the translation 27 Maximalist view of translation technique 29 Published work 30 Annex I Aphrahat 37 Annex 2 The language of the Vorlage 40 Chapter 2 Translation Technique 44 Preservation of the senseof N4T 47 Choice of lexical equivalents 52 Literary initiative 52 Precision 65 Occasional inattention 67 Harmonisation 69 Other biblical books 72 Within Jeremiah 73 Additions 76 Increasing clarity 77 Specifying subject or object 84 Additional verb 87 tl; of< 91 Epithets 92 New infon-nation 93 Figurative language 96 Anthropomorphism 98 Grammatical consistency 102 Number 102 5 Table of Contents Person 106 Gender 108 Logical cohesion 109 Word order III Number of translators 118 Annex 3 Translation of n-N) 120 Chapter 3 Duplicate Passages 124 Both passagesin Jeremiah 130 Independent translation 130 Dependence 134 One passagein another book 138 Isaiah 139 Kings 143 Obadiah 150 Wording of the Vorlagen 153 Chapter 4 Minuses 156 Qumran evidence 157 Accidental minuses 169 Deliberate minuses 176 Wording of the Vorlagen 182 Chapter 5 The Work of the Editors 197 In common with translation technique 199 Development in the language with time 217 Chapter 6 Difficult Hebrew 221 Taking guidance from LXX 227 Guesswork, based usually on etymology 251 Another part of the Hebrew Bible 274 Mimicking the sound of the Hebrew word 284 Atomistic translation 286 Chapter 7 Conclusion 290 Bibliography 294 6 Acknowledgments So many people have given me so much help during the time that I have worked on the Peshitta to Jeremiah that it is difficult to know where to start in acknowledging their generosity and support. Selection is always invidious, but there are some in particular to whom I wish to expressthanks. Dr. Donald Walter gave me immediate permission to use his collations of the manuscript variants in advance of the publication of his work by the Leiden Peshitta Institute; this was great generosity, and similar generosity was shown me by Dr. Konrad Jenner, Head of the Peshitta Institute, who gave me equally unstinting permission to use this material before its publication. Professor John Klier was, as always, a supportive Head of Department, particularly at the time of Dr. Michael Weitzman's sudden and premature death. Dr. Robert Murray took over the supervision of this thesis after that sad time, and gave me great support at a time when I much neededit, as well as bringing his learning and intellectual rigor to bear on the work. Of Dr. Michael Weitzman there is so much to say: it was his scholarship, outstanding in depth as well as in range, which first inspired me to work in the field of Peshitta studies; it was his generosity, both with his leaming and with his time, which supported me during the work, and it is with enormous sadnessthat I write these words. Quite simply, no student could ever have had a better teacher. Finally, my husband: without the inspiration of his original thinking, his constant and unbounded enthusiasm, and his unfailing support I would not even have begun this course of study, let alone been able to do the work embodied in this thesis. 7 Chapter I Introduction Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah Jeremiah long book, thirteen hundred is a C, containing6 about verses, one- fourteenth of the entire Hebrew Bible; the verse by verse study of a text of this length has given an excellent opportunity for an analysis of the translation techmque. Translation technique Translation technique is here taken, following the definition used by Tov, in a discussion of the translation technique in LXX, to incorporate the following three components: (1) the characteristic approach of the translator to his source text, for instance the choice of lexical equivalents, the degree of adherenceto the source text, and the equivalence of source and translated grammatical categories; (2) cooperation between translators and the use of earlier translations; (3) the work of later editors of the original translation, that is, revisional activity (Tov, 1987, p.339). The arrangement of the discussion The principal elements of the discussion are divided into chapters according to the following outline: Chapter 1: in this chapter, the study is introduced, with a broad discussion of: the probable nature of the Vorlage and of the Urtext; the general characteristics of the translation and of the principal editorial work, in to the background the translator the later relation religioustn t5 againstIn which and editors worked; the choice of 7a I as the basis for the study; the general impact of the translation on the reader; the decision to take a maximalist view of translation technique; and of some of the important literature on the Peshitta to Jeremiah which has not 8 Chapter I Introduction already been adequately reviewed in published work; fuller discussion of the relevant literature is given in the individual chapters. Chapter 2: the characteristic approach of the translator to his source text is discussedhere. The detailed analysis shows, in essence,that the senseof the Hebrew is almost always accurately translated, but that, particularly in relation to the selection of lexical equivalents, and to the constraints of quantitative literalism, the approach is frequently non-literal. Chapter 3: there are a number of duplicate passagesin Jeremiah; usually, both members of the pair are in Jeremiah, but in some casesone member of the pair is in another biblical book. The translations of these passages,discussed in this further information the translator's to his source text, chapter, tDgive on approach and also throw light on Tov's second component, the extent to which the translator of Jeremiah was influenced by work on the Peshitta which had already been completed. Chapter 4: the minuses in the Peshitta in comparison with the MT are analysed here; this analysis, taken together with the text of LXX, gives insight into the Vorlage at certain points. Although, in the absenceof ms. evidence, the suggestion is not susceptible to proof, the findings amount to strong evidence that some of these minuses, "true" with respect to NIT, are only "apparent" with respectto the Vorlage. Chapter 5: ms. evidence shows that the Peshitta to Jeremiah has been extensively revised, and the work of the later editors is discussedhere. It is apparent that the features which characterise "translation technique" also characterise "revisional activity". Chapter 6: the translator evidently had an excellent knowledge of Hebrew, but there are some passageswhich he failed to understand, sometimes becausethe Hebrew difficult, becausethe was perhaps using0 unfamiliar roots, and sometimes Hebrew was obscure, perhaps as a result of textual corruption during These discussed in this the transmission. passagesM, are chapter, and influences 9 Chapter I Introduction the he in on the translator and various approaches employed workingM. on these areas are