SOME QUESTIONS ON THE SYRIAC SUPPORT FOR VARIANT GREEK READINGS

BY

JAMES T. CLEMONS Washington, D.C.

It would appear that a critical apparatus serves at least two important functions for study. Primarily it indicates the readings of various manuscripts, versions, patristic works and perhaps editions. To the extent that an apparatus merely shows how these sources read, it serves a worthwhile function and presents no real problems, apart from matters of translation i). But a second purpose, at least implied in the listing of such evidence, is to give support for one Greek reading to the exclusion of others. It is at this point that some question may be raised with regard to the citation of Peshitta evidence as it appears in various apparatus cyitici 2). If it can be demonstrated that the Peshitta version may be used to support readings other than those for which it is now cited, it would suggest first, that extreme caution be exercised

1) On the question of how to record versional readings for which no Greek evidence exists, see BRUCE M. METZGER,"On the Citation of Variant Read- ings of Matt i 16", JBL LXXVII (December, 1958) 361-363, and BURTON H. THROCKMORTON,Jr., "A Reply to Professor Metzger", JBL LXXVIII (June, 1959) 162-163. Relevant to this earlier dialogue and to the present topic is Professor G. D. KILPATRICK'Sstatement in his introduction to the British and Foreign Bible Society's Greek edition, "... the Greek text underlying a version cannot always be deducted with certainty". 2) The following works were used for major portions of the present study: The Greek New Testament, edited by ,MATTHEW BLACK, BRUCE M. METZGERand ALLEN WIKGREN, New York, American Bible Society, 1966; The New Testament in Syriac, edited by ROBERT KILGOUR,London, British and Foreign Bible Society, 1920 (1955 printing); H KAINH KH edited by G. D. KILPATRICK,London, British and Foreign Bible Society, 1954 (second edition) ; et Latine, edited by AUGUSTINMERK, S. J., Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1957; Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, edited by ERWIN NESTLE and KURT ALAND, Stuttgart, Württembergischen Bibelanstalt, 1960; Tetraeuangelium sanctum, edited by PHILIP EDWARDPUSEY and GEORGEHENRY GWILLIAM,Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1901; and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by CONSTANTINETISCHENDORF, Leipzig, Adolphus Winter, 1849. 27 when weighing the support offered by such citations, and secondly, that editors of future works of this nature would do well to delete the misleading citations, using instead a single footnote or prefatory statement to say about all that really needs to be said on the subject. A study of three words-the proper noun (with the corresponding I1hpoc;) and the two particles yxp and 3e'-will serve to suggest the impropriety of the support as it now appears in some editions.

K7]

The interchange of K-?cp5qand I1É:'t"poc;for the name of the Apostle is widely attested. In Galatians the proper noun occurs six times 1). Support from the Peshitta is cited for at i 18, ii ii, and ii 14 by KILPATRICK, MERK, NESTLE and TISCHENDORF. The same editors cite the Harclean version as support for I1É:'t"poc;at these verses. The Greek New Testament recently published by the American Bible Society does not list support for either name because its apparatus is "restricted for the most part to variant readings significant for translators or necessary for the establishing of the text" 2). Thus, the editors of this work have followed a procedure of which I approve, but their reasons for doing so are not based on the kind of study presented here. We can be grateful of course for the editions which show how the Peshitta and Harclean versions read, but can we assume that one version actually supports to the exclusion of I1É:'t"poc;and vice versa ? The answer rests on the technique used by the Syriac translator. If it can be established that he consistently used when he read and when he read I1É:1"pOc;,then we would be correct in assuming that the Peshitta and Harclean would actually support the readings for which they are cited, as their listing implies, rather than merely showing the proper name used in these versions. Conversely, if the Syriac translator was not careful to observe such distinctions, and if in fact he at times translated both the Greek and fle'-rpoq by the same Syriac word, and if he sometimes translated Hlzpoq by and even re_srl_ then we cannot take the mere listing of a Peshitta or Harclean reading as support for one proper noun to the exclusion of the other in the Greek text.

1) i 18, ii 7, 8, 9, II, 14. 2) Page v.