A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS NEW YORK LEMCKE & BUECHNER 30-32 EAST 20 TH STREET LONDON HUMPHREY MILFORD AMEN CORNER, E.G. SHANGHAI EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Ltd. 30 NORTH SZECHUEN ROAD H CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY No. VII. @. CxiikcA ^%<xvmci\oxi OF THE ^ef^t^^a (P^tpon of i^i. (gooft of (&3ta BY CHARLES ARTHUR HAWLEY, S.T.M., Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE INTERNATIONAL YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION COLLEGE SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS (Uew ^orft COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1922 [All Rights Reserved] *♦ 4. Printed by W. Druguun, Leipzig. TO MY HONORED TEACHER Professor JULIUS A. BE WER, Ph. D., D. Theol. IN GRATITUDE FOR HIS INSPIRING TEACHING, WISE COUNSEL AND TRUE FRIENDSHIP. NOTE The present Study of the Peshitta text of the Book of Ezra fills a lacuna in the hterature devoted to that translation of the Old Testament. Whether we agree or not with the conclusions reached by Dr. Hawley, everyone who reads the following pages must feel certain that he has gone deeply into the subject and has made use of all the material that is available. Columbia University Richard Gottheil. 1922 PREFACE This dissertation is the outcome of an investigation begun during postgraduate work in Union Theological Seminary in a Seminar conducted by Professor Julius A. Bewer. After reviewing the adverse criticisms of the scholars concerning the Peshitta Text of the Book of Ezra, and then carefully studying the Peshitta itself, I found that the value of the latter for textual criticism had been considerably under- estimated and as a result almost entirely neglected. During further postgraduate study at the University of Basel, I con- tinued my study of the Ezra text. Finally, during the summer semester of 1922 at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, I brought this work to the point where I offer my investiga- tions to the public. I take this opportunity gratefully to acknowledge my in- debtedness to Professor Richard J. H. Gottheil, and to Dr. Fred- erick Vanderburgh of Columbia University; to Professors Fagnani and Henry Preserved Smith of Union Theological Seminary; and to Professors Duhm, Alt, Wernle, and the late Friedrich Schulthess of the University of Basel; and to Professors Gunkel, Brockelmann, Bauer, and Dr. Hempel of the University of Halle- Wittenberg. To Professor Bauer of Halle and to Professor Budde of Marburg I express deep appreciation for valuable assistance given me in reading the proof. I gratefully acknowledge my special indebtedness X PREFACE to Professor Julius A. Bewer of Union Theological Seminary under whose sympathetic direction and inspiration I have done all my work. University of Halle- Wittenberg in August 1922. CHARLES ARTHUR HAWLEY. BIBLIOGRAPHY ! Barnes, W. E., Peshitta Text of Chronicles (Camb. Univ. Press, 1897). Batten, L. W., Ezra-Nehemiah (New York, 191 3). ' Bertholet, a., Esra und Nehemia (Tiibingen, 1902). j Bewer, J. A., Der Text des Buches Ezra (Gottingen, 1922). 1 Block, Joshua, A Critical Examination of the Text of the Syriac Version | of the Song of Songs. AJSL, 1922. j Buhl, F., Canon and Text of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1894). I Burkitt, F. C, Article "Text and Versions", Ency. Biblica. ; CORNILL, C. H., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tiibingen, 1913). Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886). Davies, T. W., Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (New York, 1909). DuHM, B., Die Psalmen (Tiibingen, 1922). ' Duval, R., La Litt6rature Syriaque (Paris, 1907). Guthe, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, (Leipzig and New York, 1901). , Klostermann, a., Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munchen, 1896). I Meyer, Ed., Die Entstehung des Judenthums (Halle, 1896). ] Nestle, E., Bibeliibersetzungen (Syrische Ubersetzungen) PRE IIL ' Noldeke, Theodor, Die Alttestamentliche Literatur (Leipzig, 1868). Rahlfs, Beitrage zur Textkritik der Peschitta ZATW 1889. Siegfried, D. C, Esra, Nehemia, und Esther (Gottingen, 1901). Steuernagel, C, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tiibingen, 191 2). SwETE, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 19 14). Torre Y, C, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 19 10). j Wellhausen, J., Text der Biicher Samuelis (Gottingen, 1871). Wright, W., A Short History of Syriac Literature (London 1894). The ) Homilies of Aphraates (London, 1869). ' i ABBREVIATIONS AJSL, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. BDB, Brown, Driver, Briggs. Hebrew Dictionary. Esd., I Esdras Swete, Old Testament in Greek. Esd. A, Alexandrian Codex of I Esdras. Esd. B, Vatican Codex of I Esdras. Esd. L Lagarde's text of I Esdras in "Libri Veteris Testamenti Syriace". 1861. Esd.Syr., Syriac of I Esdras, according to Lagarde. G (LXX), The Greek translation, according to Swete's Edition. GA, Alexandrian Codex of the Greek Ezra. GB, Vatican Codex of the Greek Ezra. G L, Lagarde's Edition of Ezra. MT, Masoretic Text, Neh., Nehemiah. PRE, Realencyclopadie f. Prot. Theol. u. Kirche. 3. Aufl. S, Syriac (Peshitta). Vulg., Vulgate. L, Lee's Edition of the Syriac Text. P, Paris Polyglott RV, American Revised Version (1901). U, Urumia Edition of Syriac Text. W, London Polyglott (Walton). ZATW, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft -f-, Addition to the text. INTRODUCTION. The Bible of the Syriac Church, like that of the Alex- andrian (Greek), was the work of several translators and was made at different times. After the ninth century, Syriac Mss. of the Old Testament generally went by the name of Peshitta. The origin of the Peshitta lies in obscurity. Internal evidence points to characteristics both of Jewish and of Christian translators. Noldeke' has stated the facts in the case as follows: "Sic (Peschita) zeigt, namentlich im Pentateuch, nicht bloB in der Auffassung, sondern selbst in den Ausdriicken eine ent- schiedene Verwandtschaft mit den Targumen, theils mit den officiellen, theils mit den iibrigen. Man hat deshalb in neuerer Zeit auch die Peschita ohne weiteres als eine jiidische Ueber- setzung beanspruchen wollen, aber dagegen sprechen doch gewichtige Griinde. Manche Stellen zeigen in ihr eine ent- schiedene christliche Auffassung, zum Theil in Widerspruch mit alien sonstigen alten Uebersetzungen und in einer Weise, die nicht durch nachtragliche Interpolation erklart werden kann; namentlich finden sich solche Stellen im Syrischen Psalter. Ferner ist die Peschita, soweit wir wissen, nie von Juden gebraucht — der Verfasser des Targums zu den Spruchen unterwarf sie erst einer Umarbeitung im jiidischen Sinn — , wahrend sie stets bei alien christlichen Parteien I Noldeke, Die Alttestamentliche Literatur, S. 262. Cf. also Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Tesiamcni, p. 186. 1 2 INTRODUCTION Syrians als Kircheniibersetzung gedient hat. Auch ist der Dialect, in dem sie abgefasst ist, derselbe, welcher im syrischen Neuen Testament herrscht und der iiberhaupt die Schriftsprache der christlichen Syrer bildet, deren erstes Monument fiir uns wenigstens eben sie ist, wahrend wir keine jiidischen Schriften in dieser Mundart kennen." Wright^ similarly holds that the Peshitta is "not impro- bably a monument of the learning and the zeal of the Christians of Edessa. Possibly Jewish converts, or even Jews, took a part in it, for some books (such as the Pentateuch and Job) are very literally rendered whereas the coincidences with the LXX (which are particularly numerous in the pro- phetical books) show the hand of Christian translators or re- visers. That Jews should have had at any rate a consultative share in this work need not surprise us, when we remember that Syrian fathers, such as Aphraates, in the middle of the fourth century, and Jacob of Edessa, in the latter half of the seventh, had frequent recourse, like Jerome, to the scholars of the synagogue." An example of purely Jewish translation is pointed out by Noldeke^ "Eine besondere Stellung nimmt aber die syrische Uebersetzung der Chronik ein. Diese ist allerdings ein reines Targum. Sie zeigt vielfache Zusatze, Umschreibungen und rabbinische Ausdeutungen: die Aengstlichkeit bei der Ver- meidung von Anthropomorphismen ist hier ganz wie in den Targumen. Den rein jiidischen Character zeigt die Stelle I. Chron. 52, wo es heisst: "aus Juda wird hervorgehen der Konig Messias"; wer diesen Zusatz gemacht hat, fiir den war doch Christus noch nicht gekommen. Bei diesem wenig gelesenen Buche haben die Syrer also ein jiidisches Targum arglos iibernommen." » Wright, Syrtac Literature, p. 3. 2 Noldeke, AL, S. 263 f. INTRODUCTION 3 The antiquity of the Peshitta has long been recognized. Noldeke says:" "Die Peschita ist wohl die alteste aller christ- lichen Bibeliibersetzungen. Bei der starken Ausbreitung des Christentums in Syrien und Mesopotamien schon in dessen friihsten Zeiten konnte man eines allgemein verstandlichen Textes des damals noch allein als kanonisch geltenden Alten Testaments nicht lange entbehren. Fiir den heiligen Ephraim (gestorben 373) ist die Peschita denn auch schon ein altes Werk. Fiir ein hohes Alter spricht auch die Reception bei alien syrischen Secten, die sich doch sonst unter einander so bitter haliten, und ferner das oben dargelegte Verhaltnis zur jiidischen Tradition." The Edessene Canon omitted Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe- miah.» The Nestorians further omitted Esther. Whether this indicates that the Chronicler's work was translated into Syriac at a later time than the first translations, we cannot say. Wright points out^ "that all these books are cited by Aphraates, and that they all appear in the Codex Ambro- sianus." Later the books at first omitted were received into the Canon of the Peshitta. At what time we do not know. No interpretations in Ezra indicate the hand of a Chris- tian. This may be due to the content of the book which gave no occasion where a Christian would be led to make a theological gloss. The entire translation indicates the work of a most careful biblical scholar. The Syriac translation of Ezra is in no case slavishly literal as is that of the Penta- teuch but it is often paraphrastic. Why should it not be so? The translator wanted to bring out the meaning of the ori- ginal as effectively as possible, and he felt that this could be done in a number of cases better by a paraphrase than 1 Noldeke, AL, S. 264. 2 Duval, Lit. Syr. p. 32; Nestle, PRE3 III S. 170. 3 Wright, Syr. Lit., p. 5. Homilies of Aphraates, vol. I. pgs. 48, 358, 376. I* \ 4 INTRODUCTION by a very literal translation. Thus he put into language in- telligible to all who might read his work, certain phrases which, if literally rendered, would, in his time, have had no meaning.^ In 2 63 for example, the Hebrew D>»n'?1 n>^)t6 ]n3 ^DV IV is rendered by S. luao ^Uio .ia» l»o^9 yiOAj; Jbo«:^. A com- parison with the Greek translations (G & Esd., G eco^ dvaCTf) lepeoq Toi^ cpoTi^oDOiv Kai roiq reXeioig, Esd. ev6e6i3|ievo(; xi\v 8f|Xa)6tv Kai rf|v dXf|i^eiav) shows that all three para- phrased the text but that S. has given the clearest explanation of the meaning of the ancient oracular device. G. makes no sense; Esd. is better than G. but certainly inferior to S. Not only in this case, but all the way through, a com- parison of S. with G. shows that the Peshitta version of Ezra was not influenced by G. This is against the opinion ot Siegfried.* The cases in which S. and G. agree against MT are of so unimportant a nature that the Syriac translator may never have read G.3 It is all the more remarkable, there- fore, that Siegfried's statement should have been accepted as valid for more than twenty years. Evidently nobody has ever examined into its truth. Again, the generally accepted opinion in regard to the in- dependent value of S. is also false. Siegfried holds that the Syriac "ist oft mehr Umschreibung als Uebersetzung." Kloster- mann says that the translation is of little value due to scribal errors and the "reine Willkur des Punktators." -» Torrey in his "Ezra Studies'* goes even so far as to say, "the « Cf. 2 63, 9 4- Any reader of the English Bible who has had no scien- tific training is under a handicap in not understanding such phrases as "urim and tummim", which an unskilled reader of S. would not have experienced. » Siegfried, Esra, Nehftnia und Esther Handkommentar S. 9 ("1st von den LXX beeinflusst"). 3 Cf. G & S. vs. MT 4 10 la, 55. 7 8, 19, 25, 836, 9 x- 4 Realencyclopaedie, Art. Ezra- Nefutnia. INTRODUCTION 5 Syriac and Arabic versions of the canonical Chron.-Ezra- Neh. have long been known to be late and wellnigh worth- less— the Arabic absolutely so — and any attempt to make a critical use or * investigation' of them is a waste of time."' Batten in his commentary on Ezra^ ignores S. absolutely; and Lohr in his edition of Ezra in Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica" uses it only three times. Others 3 dismiss the Syriac Version without a mention or hold it to be of little value. In fact, until the publication of Professor Bewer s ''Der Text des Buches Ezrd\'' S. has been wellnigh friendless. Professor Bewer has done much to correct the erroneous ideas regard- ing S. When we undertake a comparison between the Hebrew and Syriac, we are at once confronted with the lack of a critical edition of S. The Peshitta text is found only in the Codex Ambrosianus, in the Paris and Walton (London) Poly- glotts, and has been reprinted three times by missionary societies. The text found in the Paris Polyglott is that edited by Gabriel Sionita from a late Ms. This, the "editio princeps", was printed in 1645, and in 1657 reproduced in the London Polyglott. The latter is a careful reprint, there being but one variant spelling (619). In 1823 Lee produced an edition for the British and Foreign Bible Society. This, the most accessible edition, reproduces with slight variation the text of the Paris Polyglott. In 1852 the American Missionaries at Urumia published an edition in Nestorian characters, fully punctated and in a simplified spelling.s An- other edition, published in 1887 at Mosul, I have been 1 Torrey, Ezra Studies p. 64. 2 Batten, Commentary on Ezr a-Nehemiah in ICC series 1913. 3 Cf. Steueraagel, Einleitung in das Alte Testament^ S 17- 4 Bewer, Der Text des Buches Ezra, (Gottingen, 1922). 5 The Urumia Edition has the classical and modern Syriac in parallel columns. 6 INTRODUCTION unable to obtain; but from all inquiries, I learn that it has no independent value. The editions are really the same, all of them being reprints of the Paris Polyglott. A minute comparison of the Paris (P), Walton (W), and Lee (L) gives the following result: 311 WP Jj^Ojw^ L j^i^aaa. 42 W y^iiXoU PL ^AxoN. 6 19 WL ou-ca« P OL/^. This is a variant spelling. One form is as correct as the other. A similar comparison of Paris, Walton, Lee, and Urumia (U) yields this result: 3 II U i^aa> Q^a^ WP J'>i^o<^'> Q->-^» L ia^a;^ <!">->>. U OmitS ck reading: "they shouted a shout of joy"; it is evidently an im- proved edition of L. 4 2 W ^AtoU ULP ^A«l;. The mistake is in W. Cf. above. 4 10 WLP ^.xarol U r^Atol. Here an attempt has been made to bring U closer to MT — 1DiD«. 69 LP %MxaA WU oL-jfi. Variant spellings of the same word. 826 WPL v?«»-:^^ U v««^-r*' ^^^. Here U has been cor- rected by MT which reads DT^'^V- 92 WPL j^n^SiO U isaaci^, MT ^OJ?^. From this comparison, it is evident that U was made with MT at hand as a corrective. In the following particulars also U differs from PLW: a) Ribui is often omitted in the plurals; b) 00.0 is omitted in 515; c) simplified spelling is considerably used, e.g.yodh and aleph are omitted in such words as ^tfm^{ (PLW) which U writes ^fra^. It is apparent that for all practical purpose these various editions are of equal value, since they all represent one and the same text. I have used L. because it is the most convenient. Unfortunately, the Mss. of the Book of Ezra have not INTRODUCTION ^ been collated since the collation by Thorndyke of the Usher, Pococke, and Cambridge Mss. in vol. vi of Walton's Polyglott' which is reproduced here: 2 13 ^oji^J] nostri, >.aj«uil. 2 20 •ia^%] nostri, Usa^o. 2 25 >i.ajtZo !p)o] nostri, /JL» ^^.^a 1oI;^o. 2 22 ^^aja*.] Uss. ^.«iL.o. 236 ^oju ^.x^] nostri, lo^. 243 JL^J nostri, Ui^ji. 2 46 iool*] nostri uASa^sjt. 2 52 w^^] Poc. JU.^. 2 47 JL/, .Jia ;.^ uia] nostri, Un ;.^^ uia. 270 v«'»>-»»*o] Hebr. postulat vooMV«uia. 35 i*,fA.] nostri, JLuuA- scribe ex Heb. JUt^o. 39 U»^« wcoiao] nostri, dAa,. 4 5 Uai^] lege JLxaii\» etsi contra libros. 46 «{.AAA»{ laj»\iaao] 4u^t; oflo^i^Mxao. 410 r^^Axol] nostri, H^^mlo. lb. Kiikjilo] nostri K*^ ^l 411 K;uu»lo] nostri \iio/o. 4 13 ^o\^ ^!l jl] Poc. omittit j), item Uss. 417 ^o] lege ex Heb. «* etsi invitis libris. 418 Jba^JL,,] nostri, uo^iwl. 64 i^p«] nostri, Jp^fso male. 66 ^Jkox**;] nostri, ^-.j^a**;, male. 6 13 uu\a*] Uss. ttx<\*i: Potius deesse puto i^*^^ **-;» e chald. 715 Qli>aM:s.«] Poc. Q^kua^M!!^. Uss. oN->j^>>S. 7 17 ^ajl] nostri «1. 8 i v*-»-^'?] Hebr. \QOMeij»lj libris non obstantibus. 8 14 «Ui>.] nostri ^.lol.. 8 15 kcij^.] nostri, loo». ibid. w^o\. uia ^] Hebr. postulant «o j) u.«ii. uia sed libri non juvant. 8 16 u^ fortasse iCki^. 833 iUk^. jl] nostri iiiA,. 836 q^omo] Poc. cio^^. 91 ^l^] nostri leii- male. lb. JLja::»j:aj nostri JLLi>».ia«. « pro «. 97 ^a**] Poc. ^eia^o ^iA*o. 98 ooo)] nostri, ^pooM. 99 >>fMp«] videtur scribendum y^po^i;, etsi libri non juvant. 103 **!• ^a^] nostri o^A^o Qt^a^. 104 j-^^^o] nostri, vi-=»^«- 10 15 V.laiia^] Poc. ^lout^. 10 18 ijk^;^^o] nostri, JA.j.^0. 1020 uxi*-] nostri, >*x*xm. The yield of this collation is negligible. While it is, of course, quite possible that a careful collation of all existing Mss. would help us to correct a number of inferior readings, it seems likely that most corruptions will be found in almost all of them, and that our method of correction cannot be simply that of selecting the best reading of the Mss. For- tunately, we have the original Hebrew text from which S. was translated and we are therefore very frequently in a 8 INTRODUCTION position to remedy the mistakes of the S text by a careful comparison with MT and by pointing out how the Syriac which we now have has been corrupted by copyists from a Syriac text which corresponded more closely to MT. Syriac copyists were just as careless and just as careful as other copyists. They frequently confused letters which looked similar to others. We find, e. g., the following confusions more or less frequently: y*y y*, h ', i, K, 1. ^, i- I, 5- *, '^. !> V, h ^. Keeping this in mind, I find that the Syriac text should be corrected in the following places: Proposed Corrections of the Syriac Text. Ch. I. 8. lijotjo] Ijiftoo, — II. »jSftA*] »jajMt, cf. 5 14 same error. Ch. 2. 2. Juojo] fajnao. — 12. ij^] t^i^. - I/. '^y>] -j^. — l8. No^m] Uom. — 19. yUfcOAAj] yLM9M. — 20. t-s^] r^^^. — 25. ^r^^^iO-BJ ^^^^^f&JB, >&L^MftIo IfxJ^o] "AOlA loifA^O. 30. *f*^] <u^<^. — 33- *!-«] r^r-- — 36. r*»^ i-^l — 40. i-oaj-o] Voojj», «a»%] w«&a«. — 42. Vk^il] JLx^il, s^vi^^] yViV^, ooa^] ooa^. — 43. Ui^j] Ijul^j, ia-aoA*] ifiOA^. — 44. ^to^] »flo;jB, ^aa] U^^^, \o;^] >^r«. 45. Ua^] JIA^, «0AX] OOA^. — 47. "^JU^j^] "^p^, ;-«:^] Vju.^, i^lj] i^U, — 48. V^j^?] ^j*, '**a?] ^*JM. — 49. wk*ft^] uM.fiQa, Uaa] M^fta. — 50. U^l] jixol, ixjLj«] ^LAi&^M. — 5 [. tojMH^] ]«jwfjh«. — INTRODUCTION g 52. lr.u»] l^xj^ or l;-uu», cf. text, ad loc. — 53. v«a*;ji] «a*^, >^1] .^1. _ 54. Ijaa^] Jjau^ (?). _ 55. ,.=^] ^^^, >^*^ic»] y^A*, y^x^] »4^. — 56. j\:^] iX>^, s^a] v«u.?j. — 57. lo;jia] lofaA, ;^l] «.»/. — 58. yiAAo ^a^] Jjai* ^,-cw. — 59. l.\AOa^l] a-\aciXl, uaiaa] oofj. — 60. JL^jtu] l,oju. — 61. jO*»j»] Ch. 3. 2. ^.liov*] ^lJ^:i,jL». — 8. ;ja] ^;jt. — 9. u»^] \^jji, tyjoi] 1^. — II. l.:iaaa] J^^<\.">. Ch. 4. 6. K^] ju^. — 7. lijo»io] Ijiisao, cf. 18. — 8. «ma] MA^a*. — 9. J.x»4] JLAa;^, JLovl] Uavl. — 10. ^*a«/] ;fttm/. — 22. lAaoN.] J^\^\. Ch. 5. 3. o»aJ^n iUjoaii^f. — 16. l»o, l^u^] J«,S^ J^.*3 (?). Ch. 6. 2. JL>fj»j] Jifaoj. — 3. ^,] ^po. —4. JLxil] jL^p. (?). — 12. ^AAjxalj] ^sukU, faa^] ;j>a.^. Ch. 7. 2. ^j.s^] -Uw. Ch. 8. 2. ;Jol] poK>!. — 4. uia iOiMO j.^] ^ wXk^^ooM^^. — 5. ^/luj] ^Iuu. — 7. Uj]^] jLAKx. — 8. JL;.^.;] i.^,. — 9. ^JLjoj] ^JLxo. — 10. JLaojaw] JLacoo*. — 12. r^^i^] r^s^*^, jioflj] litt^j. — 13. )oOjajyi!] >QaA*Jjf, ^*K»] V»j.^. — 15. 41^:!^.] ijL^^. — 16. ^^fj v^^**^> <^i^] >'>*rA., o^<u cku^^o^. — 18. JL-;*] J-ojA. — 21. ^>j4^] ^1 ua^ (?). — 33. -o^^] -ai3. Ch. 10. 2. ^>JLxi] ^jjLo. — 6. >a.A-5^] A^juL^. — 9. tlimst] )a^;xa:^:^. — 1 5. '<\^{ai3a^] ^J ms, jLiJui] jLuo, w&oo] .»N"im or «.KaA. 18. O^iOy] OL^pO^. 21. V.JLu>y] V»j.uuk^. 22. ^1] ^Oo^, ^ixut] ^i^.>uu, {.ajOi'] t^ja^. — 23. f2ijO-a] i-aj«->, ^l^ j ^\ no] J ^An «a( jAjBO. — 24. >sjui^.] ojuu^, -jo/] wiol. — 25. 1-uju] JL»L,, ^^Lsajoa] *oaAao, f*J^X] il^2i^ or iji^kj^. — 26. i^^] JLaioB, ^.^JLa^j] V»ijuu.> or V,JLu-.. — 27. i-j^j] li^j, «aA*A^] ui.so.^, OJU&] o.jiA^, JLAii^] i^iKao, ioaj] t^aj, JLja:^] ll-Uw. — 29. waa] «A=», >>q1*1 ^] ^oiA^, j-»ja2fc.] j-j:*-, "^ito-] oOA-, ^oJL»] \.Im. — 30. JLi^r^s»] )iA; i-*A» *kio wo»<ixao] Iajjoo wotoiao. — 31. !**»/] j^»-/, — 32. JLa^o^*] JL^:»a. — 33. ;jj] ^aj, P6}j] ioop. — 34. ^ *aa (r). - 35. ^a] J-^a. — 37. -i^xft:*.] M^a^. — 39. i-iu.] Ur^.— lO INTRODUCTION 40. oUAJ«] «a^*iu., -#«] -#Jfc. — 41. \^Wf^] ^^''^r^. — 43- V.faai] While most of these corrections concern names, there is still a goodly number of other cases where the original reading has been restored. It seems to me quite obvious that the method which Professor Bewer used in his "Text des Buches Ezra" for the Greek versions, must be applied to the Syraic text too and that any editing of S. which simply professes to give the best available text of the Mss. is not a critical edition. We are not left to speculate or to conjecture wildly about a possible text, because we have the Hebrew text from which S. was translated and have therefore a constant check and norm at our disposal. It is, of course, not claimed that every one of the above proposed emendations of S. represents certainly the original Syriac reading, but I believe in most cases it has actually been rediscovered by this method. This, in itself, is an important contribution to the textual history of the Book of Ezra, but it is not the most valuable, because it is even more significant that in our comparison of S. with MT we find a number of places where S. has retained a better reading than MT, in other words, where the original Helfrew Text can be restored on the basis of S. Before giving a list of these, we must make clearer the character of the Peshitta Version of Ezra. The Syriac translation, as has already been pointed out, is, in the main, carefully made and true to the sense with- out being slavishly literal. The translator has done exactly as wc do in rendering French or German into English. On the other hand, in the forms of the verb, especially in the suffixes, and in the additions and omissions of the copula, a greater freedom is taken than we would like. How far this can be laid at the door of the copyists we cannot say. INTRODUCTION II In the matter of synonyms for theological ideas and offices an interchange is common; but in no case is the sense of the text injured. In the case of doublets, such as 9 7 und 10 12, the blame must not be laid on the translator. These are more likely marginal references which later copyists put into the text. As is to be expected in any text that has suffered much at the hands of copyists, there are many words omitted. The omissions, however, are of an unimportant nature. They consist mostly of particles, the copula, words not understood, and certain words in paraphrastic phrases. Omissions occur in: II, 2, 6; 231, 68, 69; 313; 43, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, 22; 57, 8, II, 12, 15, 17; 61, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 20, 21; 71, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 28; 83, 6, 15, 20, 26, 27; 96, 8; I09, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 43. There is also a large number of additions. These, as in the case of the omissions, are of an unimportant character and are due to the copyists. By far the largest number of the omissions and additions are those of the copula. The translator has also a fondness for adding the obvious, e. g., when a person is referred to in MT by name only, the S. translator adds, in nearly every case the title of his office, e. g., Ezra (the scribe or priest), etc. Additions occur in: I I, 2, 6, 7, 10, iij 21, 3, 4, 5, 7, II, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67; 38, 9, 10, 12; 42, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 19, 23; 53, 8, II, 14, 17; 63, 8,9, II, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21; 71, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27; 81, 17, 19, 26, 30; 9h 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15; 102, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 30, 35, 41, 42. Variants in the Divine name commonly occur. The trans- lator invariably renders TWTV by U'r» in keeping with Jewish tradition. Occasionally D\n^« is also rendered by Wr» e. g. 15; 38, 9; 622; 715; 10 I, 6, 9. 12 INTRODUCTION Words are sometimes misunderstood. Several words from the Persian occur in Ezra. These the translator has not always understood as is shown by the following: «i"^DDfc< which S. has as follows: 5 8 ^Kav** cf. note ad loc. 68 omits; 6 12 V^^ "quickly"; 7 21 K-j-Ju^aj^ "zealously"; 7 17, 26 i^U-^ "carefully". «ni!^"inn, the designation of the Persian Governor of Judea in Ezra 2 63 is given as V»l;^ft>l^ jjuy. Cf. note ad loc. In Ezra 4 13, 20; 724 is a list of the terms used for toll and customs. The translator misunderstood these terms and rendered as follows: 4 13, MT "tribute, custom, toll" by a paraphrase ''there will be no tribute for thee". 4 20: Here the translator departs yet farther from MT, para- phrasing the original "and tribute, toll, and custom was paid them" by "and for the former kings they had no regard at alT' 7 24, MT reads, "Tribute, custom, and toll it is not law- ful to levy on them" by "it is not lawful to say a thing to them.*' In 48, 54, and 613 occurs the word «DiD which the translator mistook and translated by JLmoau y*? except in 59, 11, where the word occurs again it is correct- ly rendered. In 4 13 the word DnB« "impost" (reading with many Mss. DHfiH) is incorrectly translated by -o« *l "also she". As to the k'thib and k're the translator used his own judgment as to the better reading but preferred the k're to the k'thib. Out of a total of 28 cases, the translator uses the k're 17 times, the k'thib 6 times and follows his own judgment 5 times. The list follows: K'thib K're Syriac 2 1 ni2r:iDni I^JilDUi tjij^oAj = k're. 246 ^DB' "•D^PB^ »oii* = k're. 2 50 D»D^Bi D^D1D3 ^^uBo%Ai =. k're. 3 3 *?P^ \^T\ <uljbU ^ k're. INTRODUCTION K'thib l^Ve Syriac 42 «^1 1^1 «Q|6|^« : = k're. 44 D\n^nDi D"''?nnDi = k'thib. 47 inuD vnii3 Q,lai>h = k'thib. 49 -D^^ «^1D1« Uavf S. here 13 49 «im 411 Tinj; 51 n«^ai 512 «nDD 6 14 n«^ni 617 «^tDn^ 718 ybv ynt^ 72s p«n follows neither k'thib nor k're but reads independently «''31« which a later scribe has carelessly written «''m«. Torrey suggests this reading^ but gives no credit to the Peshitta. «Nm JL-o,, = k're. linv y.j.=^ =. k'thib. «^ni JLoj =- k're. ni^'in:i Ij^ = k're. «^ai JU=u = k're. n«tsn^ lo^^ =- independent. i^V yV. = k're. in« ^l = k'thib. ]^in ,^j = k're. 7 26 S. paraphrases and reads independently. 813 hi^)V' ^«T ^A^ S. read originally k're. A copyist has confused ^ and j. 814 ^nt "ll^t ia^) = k're. 8 17 S. paraphrases but follows k're ad sensum, 102 D^IV D^-'j; >i:5ux = k're. 10 12 X'^ma iims yxsa^j^ =» k'thib. 1029 niDT nifill lojo^Q = k'thib. 1035 ''H^^^ im^D o«hAj» = independent. I o 37 Ity V't ''tyV'1 -1<^ = k're originally. 1043 n*" ""T S. omits. 1044 '^tJ^i 1«tyi o-imi = k're. This proves that the translator knew the traditional reading of the synagogue but by no means felt bound by I Cf. Ezra Studies, ad loc. 14 INTRODUCTION that system. No decisive argument can be deduced from the above to prove that the translator was a Jew; a Christian would have known the k're corrections as well as a Jew. Differences in vocalization frequently occur. The majority of these instances are confined to proper names. All these cases are fully discussed in the text further on. Free paraphrases occur in ever>' chapter. These are in some instances due to foreign words, the meaning of which the translator did not know. In the second place, the trans- lator shows a predilection to add explanatory words, such as priest, prophet, etc. In the third case, paraphrases ex- plain what would otherwise be unintelligible to the trans- lator's readers. G. misunderstood some of these passages in the original and nothing, it would seem, shows so clearly the independence of S. over G as 2 63 : MT JHD WVrh) nniN'? (cf. Neh. 765). S. paraphrases by l^i ho^ (ua« Vjjuo, while GAB translates with an attempt at extreme literalness itpeuq roiq cptoritjouoiv Kal teXeioK; which makes no sense. GAB wrongly connects D^"11K and D'Dn with 11« and Don. The Peshitta translator understood the meaning. First, there is the addition of iai to h^^ (cf. Ex. 2830, Lev. 818, Num. 2721) which shows historical accuracy and also is in keeping with the translator's habit of adding ex- planatory words. In the second place, he paraphrases cor- rectly the meaning of D'lDn'?! Dni«^. If the Peshitta trans- lation of Ezra had been made under the influence of G, should wc not expect its influence to be seen in a difficult passage such as this? Another passage of the same order is 9 4 where n^Vn nniD is translated by ^^ck* ^Ki.. Here again GAB follows MT literally with xf\q duoictq Tfj; dc^jrepivqi;. The translator of the Peshitta, however, with historical accuracy, renders "until INTRODUCTION 15 the ninth hour", i. g., the hour of prayer, which, in the times, when there was no temple, and so no minhah, took the place of the evening sacrifice \ The translator, exactly as in 2 63, has not literally rendered words which might be mis- understood or meaningless but by his paraphrase has made the passage perfectly intelligible to his readers. Another instance occurs in 10 i. MT has here **and the people wept"; the translator has paraphased this as "the children wept" which seemed to him to be the true meaning of the original. While these instances show the freedom of the translator, they by no means prove that the Peshitta is a mere para- phrase. Moreover, in none of these illustrations is there the slightest dependence on G. These passages and a few similar ones that occur in the translation are fully discussed in the comparison of the text with MT. It is manifest that the Syriac translator has succeeded, on the whole, remarkably well in presenting the Book of Ezra in a good Syriac dress to his countrymen and that it could thus take its place appropriately in the Syriac Bible. For the Biblical scholar, however, and especially for the textual critic, the greatest value of the Peshitta of Ezra lies in the fact that it has in forty-two instances preserved the original reading, and therefore it must be employed to recon- struct the Hebrew text of the Massorites. These original read- ings are as follows: 1 6 in*?] 04 J = 2h^ = "very much" which is undoubtedly the original reading. 2 25 D^iy ri^*^p] ^fikj K^«ai» which was originally ^^ == D'^iyv A scribe has carelessly written x for * both here and in Neh. 729. S. represents here (in the original) I Duhm, Die Psalmen, to Ps. 141 a- Cf. also Acts, 3 1. I I6 INTRODUCTION the correct reading. MT is due to carelessness. GAB and Neh. 729 both bear witness with S. that MT must be corrected. 34 rhy] ll^li S. here with G and several Heb. mss. has preserved the plural and MT must be corrected accord- ingly. 3 9 rmrp] JL.}«^ = iTTIH. As 2 40 shows, S. has here pre- served the correct form of this name. 3 10 ITOy^l] ftiMo -- HDV^I. S. agrees with several Heb. Mss. and G, and undoubtedly represents the original. 3 12 jiy^«"in n"'nn-n«j u»^ i^i •njuia jio. la^c^ s. alone of all the versions has here preserved the original reading, viz. "this house in its great honor". MT has lost the words **in its great honor", and must be corrected by supplying ni?il IIH. nriDbn] lUjjyiao. S. reads the copula, as does Esd., which is the correct reading. MT must be changed to 4 3 tncn'^D B'lD i^nn] «f» A..ioo •fj* S. omits I'^OH (G and Elsd. also). MT should be corrected accordingly, since "King Cyrus, King of Persia" is evidently redundant. 4 10 n^'ipD] i^vo&a S. reads "in the cities of the province of Samaria". This (cf. 2 Kgs. 17 24) is also G's reading and is preferable to MT's "in the city". 4 23 Dim] + U»^ '^'^j* S. and GL alone preserve the ori- ginal text. The title DyO'^VS must be inserted in the Hebrew. C£ vss. 8, 9, 17. 5 I H^K^ni] Uaj. S. has quite grammatically "Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo the prophet." This is certainly better than MT and it may represent the ori- ginal text. The alternative is to follow Esd. in omitting nirni after ^in. $4 KilDH] tt^I. S. and G have preserved here the ori- ginal text MT must be emended to read nD«. INTRODUCTION 17 5 17 ^:in:n ''T n^n ^D'pD-n «"«ti:i n^nn] ii^ Kx^ i^u uiji:^ 1; Aaiooj MT reads here "in the king's treasury there which is in Babylon" but S. reads "in the records, that are in the treasury of the kings of Babylon." MT does not here pre- sent the original text and must be emended to read with S. which here undoubtedly presents the original = iT'lD ^1 ^HBDl •qi] J = n. So also several Heb. mss. and Esd. This is clearly the preferable reading. G has both readings. 6 2 t<nDn«^] v^^oojwJLa. S. preserves the original form of this Persian word. Cf. BDB. 63 D^fiyn^'n] )A*5oia h^U = Dbl2^11''m. So several Heb. mss., Esd., G, and Vulg. This is the original text and MT must be corrected accordingly. I'lnty] ^fxaiv. S. corresponds here to i Kg. 6 2 and apparently represents the original. The reading in MT is influenced by the preceding )"'nty. 618 «n!?« riT'n);-^^] l*»S^j ll^, llr*^:^ \:^. S. agrees with G^ and is better than MT. We must insert therefore in the Aramaic text IT2 before i<n^«. 7 12 1''Di] yt^^A. S. alone has preserved the epistolatory style demanded, viz. ''greeting". 7 19 D^tyn"" n'?^] )»Xfti«iaj IchS^. S. presents the original and only possible reading. The reading in MT is unparalleled. MT must accordingly be corrected to D^tyn*"! ''1 «n^«. 7 22 nt^D jTin 15;i] IJL» Jb^J i»*p^\. Jb»j.v. The order of MT has been confused by a copyist and should read as does S. j'Tin n^Q nvi. 725 Tn] JLcDOiu. S. translates by a singular. The Greek versions also have the singular which Guthe (Esra ad loc) and others believe is the original reading. Vs. 26 favors the singular == H'l. |8 TNTRODUCnON 8 la rruefj^] ^^^n^. S. reads with 38 Heb. mss. and Esd L v^iat is undoubtedly the original. MT should be emended accordingly to U^^tffV. 824 rr'nsrn] U^ju^: S. with Esd.AB has preserved the original reading because Hashabia was not a priest but a Levite according to vs. 18. 8 34 bptyoi] l^jfcb^aaao. The copula must be inserted in MT to read '?pirOD1 with S. 91 DH^rQVHD] v^-ii^^^*^ = t3iTnnvrin, so also G and this was most probably the original reading. So Bewer. 93 nin] -bJiij. MT must be emended to read '^"]^2 with S. instead of sing. 9 4 naiS] li^^j* v^ = mi. The reading in S. is vouched for by G, Esd., and Vulg. and doubtlessly represents the original reading. Cf. Bewer ad loc. 9 12 dViv] >»^.-^ = ^^V == kVe of MT which is preferable to MT kethib. This reading is vouched for by G, Esd^ and Vulg. 105 D^lSl] jL?il.». S. reads "priests and Levite s'' ^ D"'lSni MT should be corrected accordingly. 106 "^^1] oL-« «= ]^^1. A scribe has carelessly written "^ for ] in MT. S, preserves the original reading. (Esd. also.) 107 D^EH'^^I] ^il*ioJj3Q. S. here has preserved the original which is vouched for by many Heb. Mss. and also by G. The context also demands it in agreement with the previous "in Judea*'. 10 14 Ty] '^+». MT must be emended to read ^y for "TV according to the more original reading of S. 10 16 I^Ii^J *{A«. S. (cf. also G) gives evidence of an original V*15;i which MT demands as Ezra is subject of the sentence. MT reads plural; but this must be emended. 10 16 BftTT^] "^ i\ftb>i«\ -= ^Trh. This is the correct read- in^j. MT must be accordingly corrected. INTRODUCTION 19 10 17 D^tJ^ifc^] Ifas^ v«*^- MT must be emended to read D^tyiSn. 1020 iT'llt] j^^jj. S. and 9 Heb. Mss. may well represent the original. 10 31 Din ''ill] y>iM HJkA «. GAB and many Heb. mss. agree with S. in this reading which is doubtless original. MT must be corrected to read ''i|01. GAB, EsdAl.B vocalize Din as does S. MT must also be corrected to read with S. 1034 ''ii] "^^. Cf. vs. 29 where the "sons of Bani" are already listed. S. must be correct, as one clan would not be listed twice. MT must accordingly be corrected to read "'31. ^«1«] ^lo. = bt^V to which Esd.ABL and GLB also testify. MT must be accordingly corrected. 1035 N'TI^D, k're im^D] oo^Aj* = irT'^D which may have pre- served the original reading. 1038 "^lill '•ini] ^oioia «Jbo. S., in spite of a scribal cor- ruption, has preserved the original reading -•la *aa» , i. e. "the sons of Binnui". So also G. MT must be accordingly corrected to '•Un '•ini. JO A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA CHAPTER I 1 . TViy^''] + U=^. Cf. also I 2, 7. The translator of Ezra adds such explanatory words. Cf. the parallel in 2 Chr. 36 22 where the same addition is made. ^BD] Qpa^^ « is a free translation. S. supports MT over against "BS of Esd. and GL In the duplicate section, 2 Chr. 36 22, '•Bl = eoeoA^. DIB ^bo 15'"D]. S. omits. t^lD here, either by accident or by oversight of a copyist. 2. noboo ^3] lla«l>8. The translator or a copyist may have omitted accidentally both ^D and the s^j^ame points of (L%Am. But it is also possible that ^3 seemed superfluous to the translator, because he took the Hebrew to mean "the rule of the earth". In any case we need not assume that the translator had a Hebrew original different from the MT. D^n^n] + IK-p.. Cf. note on vs. I. 3. 1Dy-^3D] Uv oC^j ^. As in 2 Chr. 3623 the duplicate section. \T] mm: 4. imKBfi^] *»a«1aju. This is a very literal translation which does not represent the true meaning of the Hebrew here which is to "help". G also did not know this meaning, translating Xf|}i.>)/ovTau 5. ta^] X*.. nvrj ImCk hfoi^. The translator took the relative 1t5^« to VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 21 refer to niiT and translated "a house for the Lord nin"* the God who is in Jerusalem". Taking Hin^ as a proper name, his addition, the God, was appropriate and quite in accord- ance with his habit (cf. note on i i). MT reads: "the house of niiT which is in Jerusalem." 6. Iptn] ©Hk*}. S. renders freely, due perhaps to Dn''T3. ^ntl] Jbo,jo etc. The translator does not repeat the pre- position governing two nouns in succession as the Syriac style does not require such a repetition. in^] o-ij. MT here is evidently corrupt. S. (also Esd.) reads „very much" which is doubtless the original reading. minn-'?D"Vj^] *a^jI, ^A*' «• S. understood minn as re- ferring to the persons who gave freely and translated ac- cordingly. MT took it as referring to the gifts which were given to the temple (in accordance with vs. 4) and its mean- ing is "in addition (^V) to all that had been freely given" (to the temple). S's original apparently did not have ^D, it was neither in G nor in Esd.L and must therefore have been omitted in the Hebrew mss. (accidentally through haplo- graphy). That it was in the older texts is clear not only from MT but from Esd.AB. Cf Bewer, Text des Buches Ezra^ S. 14. 7. l^tilDUi] -1- Vo^j jj.Xao. Cf. note on vs. i. 8. miriD] iMo^io. It is quite apparent that this reading is not due to the original translator who wrote l?«ioo but to a careless copyist who mistook I for o,. l^jnti^tJ^] ijsajuh. This also must not be put to the account of the translator who wrote ij^jut but to that of a care- less scribe who wrote this incorrectly and fixed the wrong form in his mind, for he makes the same mistake in i 11, 5 14. 9. •'i'tDi:i«] U^l. S. interprets as meaning "bowls'. D''3^n»] K^l. The translator connected the word with ^Vi cha?ige. 22 A CRITICAL EXAML\ATION OF THE PESHTTTA Cf. nfi^^n garment for changing. The Vulg. renders adtri and Esd. dotoKai dpyupal. I a Apparently the translator had omitted the gold bowls first; then he noticed his mistake and added them with ool. D^^3J + o. The addition of the copula, although of no cri- tical significance, is noted. (Cf. discussion of these additions and omissions in the Introduction.) II. ^"iyHvi^ ijnuLA. Cf. note on vs. 8. ^33D nVlin] ^^-o^ « \.A\tt; IK^AAA;. The addition of is simply in the interest of a good translation. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 23 CHAPTER II 1. T\h)yn ''^K^D] JLa^a ^. The translator probably regarded T]b)yn as superfluous and, accordingly, left it untranslated. Cf. Neh. 7 6 where both words are literally rendered as in MT. Vnn^ ♦ ♦ ♦ n^:in] ^^u^^sa, ^\ '^oU . . . i^*,. s. freely renders MT's „carried into exile — to Babylon", by "which he carried into exile — and brought them to Babylon". Neh. 76 translates MT literally as above. Uliy^l] o2^jU . . . oixaoto. This is a similar free translation. 2. ^5211] ^^^xa^ioj. This is the regular Syriac vocalization in Ezra, Neh., Hag., and Zech. )0n] ^aAs. This is due to a different vocalization. "IBDD] jixud. The translator misunderstood this name and incorrectly translated it "number". !?«1ty"' nv ''t!^i«] ^lf«v»lj JLiiil}. S. avoids the tautological expression of MT by omitting ny. In Neh. 77, however, S. translates it verbatim. 6. n«"l)D nns] olaso ^^a* in Ezra. S. always translates nns as if it were a noun. (Neh. 711 idem.) The translator of Hag. 1 1, 2 22 renders it by J^*, taking it as did the translator of Ezra. The term had, by this time, become a proper name. •«in^] .40. S. disregards the h = "namely" (cf. i 5) and continues the catalogue noting each as a separate clan. L 24 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA 2«V] c*la*o. S correctly renders nsn. Neh. 7, and Esd. also vouch for the reading in S. 8. «inT] J-li. The difference in the vocalization is probably due to the omission of the mater lectionis in the Ms. which the translator used. 10. Vi^] was omitted by a careless scribe. 12. "Tity] ir.^^. This is evidently a scribal corruption for y^ii.. Cf. Neh. 7 17. 13. op^ilK] )>aAAijl. This is the usual Syriac transcription. Neh. 7 17 and Ezra 8 13 ^ojaj-il is a scribal corruption for 15. ]^TV] ^?r^- This is the same as in Neh. 720. Cf. note on 38. DH!ton] ^b^lo. This mistake was probably occasioned by the figure in the preceding verse. 16. n^ptn^*?] j-AJBiJu^. This is without "• preformative as MT Neh. 7 21. 17. ^2] ijA. This is a copyist's mistake for the original ^f>. as in Neh. 7 23. 18. rnv] ?!••>*. Misled by a confusion of » and j, a scribe thought the well known Ijo^m was meant and wrote accord- ingly. There is no reason to think that this corresponded to a different Heb. original. 19. Dtyn] TftA«>*. Note the different vocalization. Neh. 722 is a scribal error for yuto**. 20. ini] y^ is partly due to the confusion of 4 and j and partly to the careless omission of c». As in 2 18 it is not necessary to hypothecate a different Heb. original. 22. new] iA^«j. This vocalization, as in Neh. 726 is due to the absence of the niater lectio?iis in the translator's Heb. Ms. 25. Dnj; n^Tp] ^;aj )^t«j». This was originally v*^- A scribe has carelessly written i for * both here and in Neh. 7 29. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 25 S, presents here (in the original) the correct reading. MT's reading is due to carelessness. GAB and Neh. 7 29 both bear witness with 225 that MT must here be corrected. V^^ mii^ni]. The printed Syriac texts here have a wrong division of these words as ^ij^jilo.ft^o which were originally, of course, ^a^a* lol^Aao as Neh. 729. Thorndyke's Mss. read this also. 26. m«tt t5^t2^] liiast-ut. This is a scribal error due to the preceding verse. Cf. vss. 10, 15, and Neh. 730. 28. ^yni] u^o. S. omits the article in proper names as do the English versions. 30. li^''n:iD] Ars^. This is due to a scribal confusion of o and t. 31. in«]. S. omits. 33. T'ln] ivJ^o. This mistake of ; and ? is due to a copyist 1i1«1] ai-lo. This is as Neh. 737; the difference is due to a copyist. 37. IDS] i^l S. writes as in 740 with different vocaliza- tion, but in I. Chr. 912, 2414, »•»/. ^V«] + ^liao%. This addition is due to the influence of the following verse. 38. nynti^l D'^V^IN] U^<^^ ^^a.Ao. This is due to careless- ness. 39. nnn] r»o;^. S. writes with a different vocalization. Cf. vss. 15, 22, 30. 40. '?«''Dnp1] U»t-oo. The omission of ^ here is due to the carelessness of a scribe. In Neh. 7 43 this word is cor- rectly written. •>in^] ^^o. Both MT and S. are here corrupt. The original Heb. had the proper name ""Un^. Cf. vs. 6. ,Tmn] JLjoo, = nnin. S. agrees here with the kVe of Neh. 743- (So also in 39-) 41. nnnt^^'DH] ^:*A»juoj ^o, = D^niti^i::n. MT is correct 26 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA 42. D^iyi^] V^il. This is a copyist's error for Us^ii. Cf. vs. 40 for opposite mistake in writing final ^, The translator took this word for a proper name. This accounts for the addition of the copula to the following to^a. ]d'?DJ v^^w. This is due to a copyist's interchanging of letters. 31py] ooA^. As in Neh. 745, the copyist's error is due to dittography. The mistake was easily made, as y\p)^ is a more familiar name than 2)p)f. ^B^tDH] l-^a^^. S. writes the word with different vocalization. 43. «n^2l] JLax*j. This is evidently a copyist's error for the original U>-j as in careless writing they look so much alike. Cf. Neh. 745 where ImjI occurs. HDItyri] i^^AOJw. S. writes with a different vocalization. Cf. 242. The confusion of ca and « is due to a copyist. 44. i<nV^D] jL*. This is a copyist's error for the original D"lp] >£OrJi. This is the result of a copyist's confusion of } and 4. jnD] ^^f•. This is the result of a copyist's confusion of T and «. 45. ni!J^] Ua^. This is evidently a copyist's error for the original jia^ and is due to a confusion of - and j. Dpy] ««AX. Cf. vs. 42 for the same confusion of c^ and «. 46. ^^DB'] *o.:vA. So also MT k're and Neh. 7 48. 47. bli] Vi^. This is the result of copyist's confusion of t and ;. VliJ fc^. As in Neh. 7 49, this transposition of consonants is due to a copyist. iTKt] Ulj. This is due to a copyist's confusion of j and \. Cf. the worse confusion in Neh. 7 50, jL( for i-li. 48. pn] ^j-,. As in Neh. 750, the j is a copyist's error, but the punctation is truly Aramaic. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 27 i^Tlpi] lioaj. Here is a confusion of i and 1, as well as of JD and o, with a good Semitic name as the result. In Neh. 7 50 the name appears as J»%jb?. 49. riDB] ^j^h^. This is due to a confusion of woo with 1. ••DS] jLBfta. This is due to a confusion of j with *. 50. niDfe<] Ueol. This is due to a confusion of i with *. D^ilV^] ^*»J^. This is due to a confusion of :*- with K. D"'D''Si] ^^juBDOAi. S. reads as does MT k're. 51. "limn] ia>rfj^. This is due to a confusion of » with ». Cf. Neh. 7 53 where io^^ is due to an aural error. 52. XTTID] Ipuyop. This is probably due to a confusion of i with j; but several Heb. mss. read ^ITID both here and in Neh. 754. 53. Dipin] «*jBfjB. This is due to a confusion of* with •a. non] >4.iaol. As in Neh. 756, this is due to the careless writing of a scribe. 54. «S"'On] JLao^. This is due to a different vocalization which GB also has. 55. nnv] fa^. This is due to the omission of - and the confusion of » with ». nobtS^] )«*A* «Aa. The •ua is a mistake. The translator took nny and no^tJ^ as two names as in vs. 58. Neh. 7 60 S. = MT. = 'BD] >xA^. The yi is due to the preceding ^oA*. nnSDn] 1o;a«I. This is due to a different vocalization. 56. n'^V^] jL The i». is omitted by haplography as in Neh. 758 and Ji^s^a, uib comes from vs. 57. ppm] >^?1. The 1 is a copyist's error for ?. 57. n"'ttSB^ ""il] is omitted here and transposed to vs. 56. ^••tDn] ^o^. This is due to a different vocalization. niDB] lorjao. This is due to a confusion of * and o and to a different vocalization. D'^nsn] IJ^iX*^ ui=>. The translator took "sn not as a name 28 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA but as a noun and wrongly connected it with «3:{ whose plural is m«22{. Neh. 7 59 t»a«i *^; GB uiol Acepcoeiv; GA omits and reads: rioi, and as usual translates literally. "tt3«] f*»l is a copyist's error for original *ool. 58. no^ nny] ^^Aao #a^. Cf. note on vs. 55. The trans- lator wrongly takes as two separate names. 59. n^D ^n] J\**^\.I. This is due to a transposition of con- sonants. WC'in Vn] iA^l.^^. The translator mistook these words and prefixed '^ = place to which; then took Kti^in as the Ara- maic word «K^in for "forest" = i.a^, together making JL=L:^K!i- to "Tel-'Aba". Evidently the translator knew nothing of the geography of this region. 31"D) ^ioji^o. Again the translator takes this as a place to which and prefixed "^ as well as the copula "and". He reads a different vocalization and a scribe has added > making what, to him, was a familiar name. -lOS p«] ("from) Addan, Immer"] pofU ^j-c] "then it was reported". As in Neh. 761, S. takes these names for a clause. The mistake was easy to make as the translator thought in Aramaic and when his eye caught these words he carelessly translated as above. Cf. his careless translation of "IDDD in vs. 2. D«] ! v^ Jl^ S. translates MT's "whether" by "except that (they were of Israel)." In MT it is questionable whether these Exiles were of the stock of Israel; in S. the only question is their ability to show a certificate of birth. 60. KHIpiJ JLjAi. This is due to a scribe's confusion of ? and « and to a diff*erent vocalization. 61. D^iHDn ^inoi]. S. omits. Y^p7^] jVOM*. A copyist has carelessly transposed the con- sonants. 62. IKIQ:] «MAAt — ItCflO. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 29 D^tJ^n^riDn DSHDJ \o*»Ka-^» Ij^^^a^. Here are free but good translations, and, in no way, presuppose a different Hebrew original. 63. fc^ntJ'inn] ^^l;ja>lj Ijuv. This is an unsuccessful attempt to explain a Persian word (tirsatha) which the translator did not know. More than 700 years intervened between Ezra and the translator and the Persian terms for office were entirely unknown to him. The plural form of the verb is necessited by Jbuv. Cf. Neh. 7 65 where this word is rendered )nD] JLa; |ibM>. Here, as in Esd., "the high priest" is an interpretative translation. D'Din^l D"'"n^<^J lu^io ^U^o "and he shall inquire and deter- mine (lit. see)". Here a paraphrase of the terms Urim and Thummim is given by the translator as the original signific- ance of these terms was unknown to the popular reader. 65. MT nnntyDI DnitJ^» onbl] "and their singers male and female". S. v««»^ ,**aaii»j \oe»jjLjuaibeo "and their servants who were serving them " This mistake arose from the similarity of the words D"'"11tJ^D and DTIItJ^O. 68. "IDipfi-bj; n^D^n^ DM^«n n^nb minn = they gave free will offerings for the house of God to establish it upon its site. S. \^ei^Juuo QQQio oaajBQ .j^po; tb..A.-^\. cukvilt <= they planned together for the house of the Lord; and then rose up and did bravely. S. paraphrases here but not correctly. D\nb«n] i^#» Cf. 15, 38,9. 69. D^ilDDn] JioA^vv S. gives the Persian equivalent. ^li^] Kiut is less usual than K». *)DD1]. S. omits o before JLama. 70. UK^:.] oftaoi. The matres lectionis not appearing in the ms., our translator read UB^;; then he added « to the words "singers and porters". 30 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA Omyn] v**^*^'*- The • is evidently a mistake for o. + ••« r^^? ^A*U]. A comparison of MT und S. shows in translation the following: S. "So the priests and levites and a part of the people and part of the servants and part of the porters and the Nethinim and those who were dwelling in their cities returned; and all Israel in their ciiies^^ MT is certainly corrupt as it stands. S. tried to remedy the reading with the above result. MT. "The priests and levites, and (the rest) of the people, and the singers, and porters and the Nethinim dwelt in their cities, even all Israel in their cities"^ » Dittography. (.S. corrected as above VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 31 CHAPTER III T. D'?t5^n''-^«] >Aa;ojX auajo\,. MT has the people already at Jerusalem. In S. the people gather at some undefined place "to go up to Jerusalem". This does not imply that S. had a Heb. original different from that of our MT. S. pre- sents here simply a paraphrastic element in the translation. 2. ^MTl^fc^li^] V.{^\«,. S's reading is a copyist's mistake for )^K^JL». Cf. 3 8, 5 2 for a similar error. D\n'?«n-t5^''«] Ib^j U=^. As in I Chr. 23 14 und II Chr. 30 16 S. renders the MT ''man of God" by "prophet of God". Cf. Dt. 33 I und Jos. 146 where the same phrase is rendered in S. by /ojlS^j o»p^. 3. nntDH li-'DM] JLuoja. ^UU. S. translated freely by a pas- sive. nD"'«n] Ifc^? liM^;. S. brings out the force of the strong ^)D^^ but disregards the preposition 2. ni2{^i<n] IKi^faoa ^j^a^;. S. gives a correct paraphrastic translation. Ipn*? r\)hV] Irs^^ li^^^. S. has the singular; but whether this is due to the translator or to a copyist who altered the pi. Il^ife^ by carelessly copying, we do not know. 4. n^V] ll«:^. Cf. vs. 3. Here S., the Greek versions and several Heb. mss. have the plural. This seems to be preferable. 6. nibj;] li:^. Cf. on vs. 3. 32 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA 10^ H^J ^ja^U i^ U«*^ jj>j^. Mt represents the temple as not yet begun, "the foundation was not laid;" S. represents the work as "not yet completed". 7. ons^l D^n^J^J My^j^o i-voj. S. transposes tlie order. «1B^ D^-^«J U*^ U*a. S. translates "by the sea to Joppa" freely but well. Cf. II Chr. 2 15. 8. D\-6«nj i^p»i. Cf. 15, 268. D^BhT^J >AA4«iaj. Cf. I 3, 4. iVnnj ir*. S. is obviously an error for the original ^.^^ = MT. The i was confused with » and then to make a Syriac word i was added. D'linDnj JpBoao. The addition of o is due to a misunder- standing of S. n:ii^] isBOAa toQO^. In rendering the Mt "to superintend" by "to be by the day", the translator wrongly reads for ri?Ji^ which, in the unpointed text, was written with the same radicals, viz: HSi*? "in perpetuo", "daily". 9. Vn«1 ViiJ wotoiao -o,*j;;lo. S. changes the order as in vs. 7. Vn^lp] UsofJBo. This is due to a careless scribe who omitted the final '^ as in 240. rniiT' ^i:i] Ui^^ ^-j^o. S. has preserved this name better than MT. Cf. 2 40. nlryVj; n:JiV] ^^a^^ \oooai. S. translates MT "to superinted the doing (of the work)" by "who were doing" because of his misunderstanding TTli^b in vs. 8. XV2^] mh^j^}. This is merely a free translation. D\T^Kn] 1-p.j. Cf. I 5, 2 68, 3 8. Tlinj ;^«i. The confusion of ? and i is due to a copyist; but the interchange of H and n doubtless goes back to the translator. 10. D^innj )uia,. The MT "the builders" is rendered in S. "of the building". This is not correct. One might think VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 33 the original read Uib, = MT; but this would involve the change of position of JLoa which should come directly after n'«p^*l] <mAo. S. translates MT "and they stationed" by *'and they rose up". S's reading (H^j;*)) agrees with several Heb. Mss. as well as with the Greek versions and doubt- lessly represents the original. ni12f2{n^] ^6o «^Ao Iffaj, ll^iji vH-w/«. S. here freely renders MT's "with trumpets" by "and holding rams' horns and blowing them". D^n'p^JDn] lfaax*a. S. renders the MT's "with trumpets" by "with cymbals". But S. hardly had a different Heb. original. Cf. proceeding note. 11. minni ^Snn )^T)] IKjuo^J^o. ?K.j«K» ai.^«. S. renders freely but well. nj^lin] JL:^*a. This is a mistake in Lee's text for j ">">o o (Walton). IDinj l\l^a*. True to the idea expressed in vs. 6, MT's laying of the foundation of the temple is S's "completion" of the same. 12. •'tyt^l'l] u*>v. S. carelessly omits the copula. HD"*! piS'Kin n''nn"n«] JLoojj» ia* o.;j»-ia liot iK^^iL.. S. renders MT's "the first house, when its foundation was laid" by "this house in its great former honor" (=ni352); and pro- bably has alone of all the versions preserved an original reading. Cf. Bewer p. 46. HD'^n] fjft^ f>. Cf vs. II. nnotyn] Ilo^juao. S. reads the copula with Esd. which is the correct reading. MT should be changed to read nnDl^ai accordingly. 13. nnQli^n]. This is omitted by S. through oversight. 3 34 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHTTTA MT "And the people could not distinguish the sound of the shout of joy from the sound of the people's weeping; be- cause the people were shout- ing a great shout and the sound was heard for a long distance." Both MT and S. are confused because the Hebrew is corrupt. Cf. translation of MT and S. following: S. "And the people could not hear the sound of the trum- pets, because the people were blowing the trumpets with a loud noise, and the sound of weeping was heard for a long distance." VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 35 CHAPTER IV 2. niZli] ^4-w «t Jiaj. S. brings out the meaning freely but correctly by rendering "we also will build". tJ^mi] Jkaj. S. repeats "we will build"; but this a copyist's error for Kaj = t^mi. O'lnnt Um« »h)] him ^lAJuca, oa.W^«. S. had the same read- ing as !^'re, i. e. 1^"| for 8^1 and freely and pointedly adds "here," evidently meaning these ''enemies" also had been in the habit of worshipping Jahweh at Jerusalem. JimOK] »^;jujuo. This reading of "Sennacherib" for "Esar- haddon" by no means makes the presupposition of a diffe- rent underlying text necessary. Sennacherib, the father of Esarhaddon, was more familiar to the translator than his son, and the misreading may therefore have been quite ac- cidental. 3. IKaa]. S. freely adds. Cf. note on i i. iVon]. S. omits as does G. and Esd.: MT should be corrected accordingly; for "king Cyrus king of Persia" is evidently redundant. 4. |>n«n DV] JbwaJ*-. The MT "people of the land", I e, common people, seems always to denote a contrast with Israel, "the chosen people". Originally the phrase meant the native races of Palestine and later the heathen. The irony of MT is lost by S. which freely renders "peoples". Cf. 34 where this phrase is also paraphrased. 91 shows 3* 36 A CRITICAT. EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA clearly the significance of the phrase as meaning "heathen"; S. here renders ''people of the provinces" which brings out the exact meaning. mi^Vj voiaj Jlj. This is a free but good translation. 5. D''2jyV] iia»i^. This is evidently a copyist's error in S. for the original Uo^jo = D''S5V. Thorndyke in Walton sug- gests jLJtaO^J*. "TVlJ \^r^, without the copula. 6. trmtrnxj Jb»l» a^-uu*!. Cf note on I I. nitotr] )u^. In the sense of accusation Jia^ does not occur elsewhere. It is therefore most likely that the trans- lator wrote V^ = MT which a copyist corrupted to Kfc-** 7. D^tyi] )a^ju» ^JL»o. S. completely misunderstood this name and took it as the noun >Aa with the preposition o stand- ing pregnantly for >a^jia '^JL* = /te sainted, rmno] lijooo. The confusion of « and j and is due to a scribe. Cf i 8 where the same error occurs. 8. The section from 48—618 is in Aramaic. DVBJ JLio^o^ which in 49, 17, 23 is written jb*^ but in each instance appears to be a mistake for l-^a:^ which we must read in all cases. (So also Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, col. 1431). In view of the persistent mistake it may, however, be suggested that M^^.^ is really rdyfia, al- though this is ordinarily written 1.^*^. In 4 18 D^tS is trans- lated by J%>^^.} «= Sidraypia. HMDiy] «ma]. Without the final yodh occurs also in 49, 17, 23. HDiD] i^%Mi ^\, This is a wrong translation which con- nects HQ^ with i£D%au. 9. K^anCVCKI] J-vAiBoU. The nature of the officials repre- sented by MT is uncertain. S. gives an interpretation. Mar- quart (cf. notes in Bertholet's "Esra und Nehemia" p. 15) arg^ues for S*s reading («nDD). VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 37 «''^S1to] l^'^ stands for the original JLi:^^;.^. A scribe has omitted the ^. ••IDIW] l-Lavl. This shows a confusion of u> and o. «im] JL.O,, = I^'re N\m. 10. "iSiDt^] ^-^arol. This is due to a confusion of < and « and the transposition of the j corrupted to j- originally it was r^ixol. iTIpl] JLvojaa. S. reads "in the cities of (the province of) Samaria". Cf 11. Kings 1724. This is better than MT. G=.S. -^m)]. S. omits. nij^ai] Xjl:^/*. This transliteration shows that the trans- lator did not understand this word which the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine show was the regular particle (also written riJ^D and )J^D) to introduce the matter of a letter after the greeting. It should be translated "to proceed" or "further". Obviously it did not originally occur in this verse; as it stands, it is a copyist's mistake brought in from the following verse (cf Payne Smith, T/ies. Syr under ^>-fl col. 1790: "Pro n^V3 I. Esd IV. 10, II extat in Polygl. ^^^^l sed codd. Poc. et Uss. in V. 10 exhibent Kjix yJ, in v. 11 Ki^l. Valet voc. Chald. niJJ3 sic, ita, et caetera, sed pro nom. prop, habuisse videtur Syrus.") Both MT and S. must be cor- rected by omitting this word. Cf. Vulg. "in pace" ; G. rightly omits. 11. niJ^DI] Ki^lo. Cf. note on vs. 10. Here this word is used correctly. 12. '^ntyi] «iuiOAo with suffix = G. . «''tr«1] 6>AiblK*o with suffix = G. 13. ]V3] V^^. Cf. note on vs. 10. Again S. misunderstood this word. l^ini'' «^ ^^m l^n mifi] ^ KA. Vl\^. S. paraphrases MT's "tribute, custom, or toll they will not give" by "there will 38 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA be no tribute for thee*'. This paraphrase omits I^S and "JJ^n which the translator apparently did not understand. 1^2 is the Assyrian biltu\ ^'^n does not occur in Biblical Hebrew. Cf. G-"^- cpopoi ouK eoovrai <5oi = S. It looks as if S. and G. had read ^ Kin'? vb (cf. Bewer ad loc.) ponn D^3^D DnD«l] ^^l jl ^j^X* -o, j»te. S. again para- phrases MT = ''and the royal taxation will suffer damage" by "neither will she (/. e. the city) recognize kings" /. g. -•• a\ for DnB8 which has been a source of conjecture from the earliest time of scientific criticism. The best reading is DnD«. The Greek versions did not know the meaning of this word either, ptinn is then very freely translated, although S. knew its meaning quite well, cf. vs. 15. 14. )V2] VLAioQ. Cf. note in vss. 10, n, 13. «Dte^]. S. omits. 15. -IBDn -ipn^J c.^ UZ. For MT's "let search be made in the book", S. has "do thou read the book". "inniS^KI] JLavoi liio&^lQ. S. renders freely. Cf. note on i i. 16. rp-JlB^I] dMVo*. S. and GB follow the K'thib = cf. vs. 12. p'jn] U^*A. S. renders MT's "part" by **rule". This is a free but good translation. 17. S. connects vss. 16 and 17 by •, the copula. "•B^OB^Ij i^AM* l«^«. S. carries over the force of h^, liyKI] ^^K^i Ur* i«^«. This is due to the force of ^V as above. nyDj occurs elsewhere as n^Va cf. vss. 10, li. S. reads *AA*i r» and connects with vs. 18. Kxui ^ "when it arrives", represents a mere conjecture on the part of the translator. Cf. vss. 10, 13. 18. Wi^y] -l«^. S. renders correctly and naturally "to me", i. e, the king. ^ip] m^. S. renders a passive by 3 pi. active. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 39 19. llplSI] o*jio. Cf. note on vs. 15. innty«i] j^i uoftou. Cf. vs. 15. 20. \\nb nnTiD ^S^^ )b2 m»i] v**i o^uu* j) y>jjaa u-^ j-^v^nq. MT "and tribute, toll, and custom was paid them". S. "and for the former kings they had no regard at all". S. here departs from MT in a radical manner. When we compare this verse with vs. 13, we see that the same difficulty was found with the loan word iVs (biltu) but Til^i^ was under- stood, while ^^^ (not found in Biblical Hebrew) caused dif- ficulty. Here the translator who did not know the correct rendering has done the best he could and paraphrased. 21. ]p] ^^u^Aso. Cf vs. 14. 22. I^B^]. S. omits. y^hn] J.f>Nvi\. Probably the plural sign was carelessly omitted by a copyist. 23. •'r]D] 111 jj. ''When it (the letter) came." This is a free but good translation. Dim] -h A»^«^ '^■2'^. With QL, S. alone preserves the ori- ginal text. The title Dj;tD"'?j;n must be inserted in the Aramaic. Cf. vss. 8, 9, 17. imniiai] v«««»i**^ ^A*^ ^r**- ^- renders MPs "their com- panions" by "and before those who were their equals" as in vs. 7. 1^t«] «^jl ^^o.. S. renders freely. 40 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA CHAPTER V «"««^2iJ U^. S. has quite grammatically "Haggai the pro- phet and Zechariah the son of Iddo the prophet". This is certainly better than MT and it may present the original text The alternative is to follow Esd. in omitting n«'':3i after ''in. 3. ''itU inc^] vi*^*^^ This is due to a confusion of i and 1 and to the omission of final ^ which in the translator's Ms. may not have been written. S. quite correctly writes the names as one word. Dr6] U^ji^m \o«»^. S. freely adds "and to the rest", inter- preting MTs "to them" as applying only to the leaders, i e. Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Tlhbj^] oMfWi,. This is a free but good translation. Cf. 4 16. 4. «0i3] Uooaw y*l. Cf. note on 48. KilDK) 0^1. S. and G. have preserved here the original text. MT must be emended to read MOi^. 5. Dnn^Kj ?o,ii.. S. and G. omit the suffix. ^ab^J /bukAA. S. and G. translate "elders of" by "captivity of" because both read K' for ty. ^D7^ ^Vb5] «1^. The translator of S. omitted the pronoun and translated the pa'el as pe'al. MT "they did not compel them to stop"; S. "they did not stop". VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 41 6. '»Mn ^r\\i^] ^ft^h^l Cf. note on vs. 3. W-^DDIB^]. S. omits. 7. «'?D]. S. omits. 8. r\'2h], S. omits. ^•'VnDn Db^n» V^)] ^^j^bU* vim^uo IJ^aro Ui^^fx. S. freely renders MT's "and wood is put into the walls" by "and many transverse beams are joined together in its walls". *rf^ ^jlo a\£d JLai ljA:i.o ^l. S. paraphrases MT's "and this work is done diligently and prospers" by "and great works are done there; and the great work (literally, goes up and proceeds to the top) i. e. is progressing well". Note «i'^SD« is translated here by l^voi, it is omitted in 68, but in 612 is rendered by V^^^ (quickly), in 7 21 it is rendered K-i^«*AM (zealously), and in 7 17, 26 by K>JLa-j (carefully). 9. «D3D] JL90(0. S. here (also in vs. 11) correctly translates this word. Esd. omits. GAB= MT. 10. D^J louajt. S. and G. here have the plural But this does not necessitate a different Aramaic original = nritttS^. 11. «p«"l]. Omits. S. has here the usual form Uiajtj fo»Ss = D''Dty*n Nl'?^. It is possible that S. has here preserved the better text as the phrase in the Persian period = S. «n''n I'^ill] ^Axiaj j<Q( IKxaj jiAiao. S. is paraphrastic "and the building of this house which we are building". \*liD ni] -o,ai3io;o. S. mistook the two words for one, i. e. •^nnnnni cf. Dan. 5 1, 3. 12. ^nn]. S. omits. 13. hyi^ ^rfij. S. correctly calls Cyrus King of Persia. MT's connotation is of course original. King of Babylon, is Cyrus's title also in the cuneiform inscriptions. GAB omit. Esd. = paCiXeuovTog Kupou X^P^-*^ BapoXcoviag. 14. n:jiiDUi] + )^^. «'?D\"l^] o^iwc^^. Esd. also has the suffix ^v to) daurou vaci). 42 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA S's ail^^i^ ^^^^ for MT ^nn n »hynh represents a free translation rather than a witness of a different Aramaic original. i:t::B^] ij»A*. S. has a confusion of o and ^. ia\T1] o«M«. S. and G. read singular. 15. nnK] ^dkCD \a*U. S. freely renders "and bring (and) place". HrhH], S. omits. 16. «nb« no] ^«« ^iuo. This may not be the original Syriac reading but a scribal corruption of /ot^Js^ K-i^. 17. b222 n non «d'?d-'t «nii n-inn] ii^ k^ k.!, ui^^^ Voo; J.j>^bf»;. MT's "in the king's treasury there which is in Babylon", S. renders "in the records, that are in the treasury of the kings of Babylon". That MT here is not the ori- ginal text Esd. (^v rolg pacxi}^iK0ig pipXiocpuXaKioiq tou Kupiou paciXetoc; rote; ^v Ba^uXcovi) as well als S. bear wit- ness. S. presents the nearest to the original (perhaps is original) = ^nn n «D^D n «ni:i non n «nSD3. Cf. Bewer, ad loc. •jjT] , = n. This reading is also in several Aram. Mss. and in Esd. G. has both. S. has the preferable reading. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 43 CHAPTER VI 1. I'^nnnio ^niJi n «nsD n^22 iipni] iis^ k^ h^u iiiK^a h^; S. renders MT's "and they searched in the hall of records where the treasures were laid up" by "and he read the re- cords which are in the treasury". S. gives a paraphrastic translation, keeping, as does G., Darius as subject. For the translation of "lp2 by l^ cf. 4 15, 19. 2. n^ntS^m] oaaaIq. S. keeps the same subject as in vs. i. XnonNS] vj^uojwjb. S. here preserves the original form of the Persian name. Cf. BDB, t^r\y22] /Ki^po. This may be a corruption of the original ilfxaa which a copyist misread fKi.,jjaa, as a result of this, «ni''nD after ^D^ was omitted. ny)^l ni:i:s] h-^. o,«^^. MT "(There was written) in it a record". S. "(und thus was written) in the volume". A copyist has inadvertently written l-afa? for l»r3o,. 3. DJ^ID Dty] rJ^o jjcDoaoi yuxt. This is a double translation. D^tyn^l] A*5oJLa l^U = nbsS^ITn""'^. So read several Aram. mss., Esd., G. and Vulg. This is the original text and MT must be corrected accordingly. «n''a]. S. omits, as do Esd. and GL, because their con- struction of the sentence does not require it ]'''?niDD] «j. This manifestly is a serious scribal mistake for ^A3o;jD = MT. )'nty] w^^ S. corresponds here to I. Kings 62 and L 44 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA apparently represents the original. MT was probably occa- sioned by the proceeding )^nty. 4. '!\y^^] J^U. It is not likely that S. had a different Aramaic text. Either this a free rendering facilitated by the (cor- rupt) reading mn which S. follows or it is a scribal correc- tion for the original Kapo. 5. -^inDIDi] + i*^. Cf. note on I I. . D^ir'ITn-n «'?D\T]D]. S. omits through oversight y»«iUJ^ >AAf«Jb} jLuoi^. S. mistook the sense and translated MT's "let them restore and let it (all) come to the tenriple which is in Jerusalem, to its place" by "and they restored (them) and they came to their places to the temple which is in Jerusalem". S's suffixes are naturally correct, but that does not mean that S. had a different original Aramaic from MT. vooi&u»«^ and \ooi;lj) are doublets, of which the latter is secondary. A reader who missed it at the end inserted it. nnnij oi.iaA*llo. S. translates MT's "and put down" by "and they assembled them together". MT is not correct, but S. translated freely. It seems most likely that the original trans- lator wrote the imperfect of the various verbs in this verse as is demanded by the sense. 6. K^DDnfi«J JL^*. S. renders freely. 7. «mn^ nnc ^l] l,^^ duo^^x^,. S. translates MT's "that governor of the Jews" by "that the Jews may do it". Some commentators would omit this passage in MT as a gloss. GB omits, but GAL follow MT. ^3b^l \l.*AA as in 5 5. S. makes good sense: "Leave the work of the house of God alone that the Jews may do it and also (let alone) the captivity of the Jews that the house of God may be built upon its place." It is not probable, however, that S. had a different underlying Aramaic. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 45 p]. S. omits. S. renders MT's "what you shall do in cooperation with those elders of the Jews", by "take care that you do not quarrel with the captivity of the Jews". S. paraphrases. ^b«J. S. omits. JTiQ n] llljioo. MT "out of the King's revenues which are from the tribute of Abarnahara" allows the Jews to have a portion "of the tribute" while S. more liberally "of the king's revenues and the tribute which (is gotten) in Abar- nahara". This is an example of S's free rendering. «i1BD«]. S. omits. «^blb fc<b"''l] ^^*\ ^. ->\B ^^oo6a Jl \^js:^o. S. renders freely. 9. ]n^n riDI] ^^o|:!^ yo^joBuyl Jl^ >>t.3oo .^tti:^ a^et ^jOj^; y»fc^ S. ren- ders MT's "and what they need" by "and give them what they wish and do not let anything be wanting for them". S. has here not only a doublet, but anticipates also the verb, which it translates again after the catalogue. *ltt«DD] ^*j^; k^l This is a free but good translation. . nnTllS] ^isA» \oo6u. S. translates MT's "causing it to be given" by "let them bring (or they shall bring)". This is a free translation. 10. )'*mn''i] Jkavftjft. MT "incense" by "sacrifices" is a free rendering. «d'?D '^'^nb] UV» v»-. S. freely renders "on behalf of the king" MT's "for the life of the king". MT "and let him be crucified and fastened on it (2. e. the beam)". S. "and let them make him a cross and crucify him upon it". S. is a full and free rendering. 12. ]315^ ''1] vJ>.«.r>ifcN. This is a copyist's error for ^r^U. ^l]. This is a scribal doublet. n:iD''l fj*i^. MT "he shall over throw"; S. "he shall dwell". 46 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA S. presents here a scribal error for t^H^. This is a con- fusion of ^ and ^^. t2Vn^] r*V. S. "that he quickly perish". A scribe wrote I for >5.; the original Syr. was jA:kj. 13. ^inD *MV!f] vi*^^'. This is always so written in Ezra. -n bnp^] ? >-P». "Because" is rendered by S. "the thing that". iO'jO B'lm]. S. carelessly omits. KOiD] IxDOMj y\. S. did not understand this word. 14. "nty] Ibu^a*. As in 55, 67y 8. S. mistakes b> for K^; in 59, however, S. translates correctly. ]^i2] ^j^kx. S. translates freely. »nv] •y^. Cf. 5 I. «ntS^nm«1] Kaau^W, JUd^mi ^•. S. repeats the phrase. 16. Hivhi] /jottM. S. translates freely. nnnn nil ^n'^s-n^n riDin] lu^^ io,>fc. i^, U tK*i\ »,k.. MX **the dedication of this house of God with joy"; S. "the feast for this house, which is the house of God, with joy". S. gives a needless repetition. 17. nn]. S. omits. '?«'W''-^r^V S^an^] ^f^a.! uia, l^^j;; a^^am^. MT "for a sinoffering for all Israel"; S. "to remit the sins of the Israelites". S. gives a free but good translation. 18. pnru'^Dn and Jinnp^^non]. S. renders freely by «rA« nTny-*?y] l*C&; IKa*, U^**^. \x. S. agrees with Gl- and is better than MT. We must insert therefore in the Aramaic text XT'n before H7]hH. TVth^ ^D 2/103] ^a»f J,.aDaMJi l^&waa OL.»Jbt^; y^l. S. renders freely. Cf. note on i i. 20. nODH iBHtt^^l] U>^^ ItMl «14^«. S. avoids the pregnant VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 47 Heb. construction "they kUled the passover" by "and they killed the sheep at the passover". DHTl] \0Qi^ «I«. S. renders freely. 21. n^i:inD] \Aa; IKxsu^ «. S. adds paraphrastically "of Babylon". h^\] \j». MT has not only the returned exiles but also all others who qualified; S. has only those of the returned who qualified. «nV«]. S. omits as the sense did not seem to require it. \lhnb] ).^ *A.jiQ^. MT "to seek", by S. "to pray before". This is a free rendering. 22. DVnb>«n] |-»i5> as often in S. cf. i 6, 8, 3 8, 9. 4S A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHTTTA CHAPTER VII I. T6t<n] + ^o.!^. S. freely expands. 4. ny] ^►S8». This is a copyist's error for -c^^. Cf. Neh. 12 19, 42. 5. Ity^fc^] iii-kS^. It is possible that this name was pronounc- ed as by S. B^«nn inan] h^^. MT has "Aaron, the high priest". S. takes B^Kin with the next word, wrongly. 7]hv «"1TV «in] a1«! l4i^ Jio. U^i. MT, "this Ezra went up". S. "Ezra was the first who went up". Cf. vs. 5. 6. *l\1D] hu^AM. S. renders freely. i-^j. intS^pn 'tD is translated by i=»^j Jl^I, IKao»cuo. nin"'"TD l^y Vn^« is represented by JL^joj o>mnviir^ ^chj. This is strange, for in vs. 9 S. translates this phrase correctly. jL»r»! »>movftt"> suggests that the translator mistook nin"*"1"'D for nVT m^ and further ^chj suggests that he took the *]"? of "^ten as a verb. S. = "the favor to walk in the law of the Lord as he wished". 7. omtStem] Jubuui v<u«t. S. omits 1 and translates D^mtl'on v. 15. cf note on 241. D^TJ^m] Kvl «•. MT "and the porters"; S. "and some of the porters". This is merely a free rendering. D^T h»] + miilMi} ^A-l ««. S. adds freely. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 49 8. »T)] olio = 1«n"«1, so also 3 Heb. mss., GAB and Vulg. MT in Vss. 8—9 considers Ezra as subject and so uses the singular; the versions regard the exiles as subject and so use the plural. 9. in«n]. S. omits. ID'' «in] a*;A. S. uses pi. as in vs. 8 ^. v.; but had no different original text. «a] oil. Cf. note on vs. 8. 1% n:i)^r\ Vn^«-1'»D] v«o.^ *^U'! '0^6.? U y-l. MT "Ac- cording to the good hand of his God upon him". S. "ac- <:ording to the hand of God which prospered them". Both MT and S. consistently carry out their preferences begun in vs. 8. 10. \ihnb] r^\W\. S. renders freely and awkwardly, be- cause the same verb follows almost directly afterwards again. It is therefore a fair question whether the original did not have JvavnN which is the exact equivalent of ll^Tlb. Cf lo i6. toSK^Dl pn] U>jo JLibosfai. The plural signs may of course be due to a copyist. 11. ''"im 1SD ISDn] JLia;^K»; ^ao. The versions have diffi- culties with this. GAB to) ypap-jiarei pipXiou Xoycov which corresponds to '»W 1BD 1SD. Esd. paraphrases lib and omits these words. S. simplifies by omitting ISDH either de- liberately or accidentally. '?«nty''-i?V] V»ltxa.l cn1j» ^^ as in 7 I, S. adds ^ freely. 12. «'«D^» ite] U^ii» ^ JLAao. Cf note on I i. ^rn *1&D] ifDoiu i.Axo Ifsuso. S. adds IfAxso frecty. I'id:!] )a\*. GAB^ Esd., Vulg. have here all incorrectly trans- lated. S. alone has preserved what the epistolatory style demands, viz. "greeting", instead of MT's "perfect". Pro- lessor Bewer holds that the present MT is a corruption of 50 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA what must have stood here, viz: d'jB^. "Mir scheint in der Tat, in T'Di ein alter Fehler fur ub\i^ vorzuliegen, die erste Silbc Oi enthalt noch einen Rest davon, die zweitc "l"* scheint mir verdorbene Dittographie des folgenden D1 zu sein. Der urspriingliche Text lautete also: D^IS^ «"'01S^ n^K. So las auch Pesch."' W31]. S. omits. Cf. note on 48. 13. DVfi D''B^ ''iO] JjtoaaM ioa«o I^jba M. S. renders freely and pleonastically to express the formal style. D'rB^n''^]. S. omits. 14. «3^0 C3lp-]0 •'1 ^^P"^3] A««^ia* ^^^^»«« ^r" M. This is a repetition of vs. 13 where it represents the Aramaic ^50 n'^b^ \nt35;^ nyntyi] .^-^ « l^r*'- MT "and his seven councillors, thou art sent". S. "and I have sent some of my courtiers". S. does not only put the words in the first person in the mouth of the king, as also in vs. 15, but omits n^^ty and misinterprets the meaning of the original. S., of course, gives sense but is in reality nothing but a free and incor- rect translation. ^rn '»T "^n^K mn] ^.v-j^, ^.o^, jL«*i** v*. oi.uj.:i. «u. mt "according to the law (niD must be read) of thy God which is in thy hand (i. e. with thee)". S. "and also to inquire about the law of thy God which is in thy hands". If S*s text is correctly handed down, the translator repeated for the sake of clearness '^a. ^j^ui^., misunderstanding the mean- ing of the original. But it is perhaps not quite impossible that this repetition is due to a copyist and that the original translator wrote y-l instead of «!•. If he did, his original « Bewer: •<Der Text des Baches Ezra", S. 69. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 51 read n^D which was the original reading rather than mn of MT. NniOJ^^I]. S. omits. 1 5. minn] K^^* »*x*:»-i l*a^ « M?. MT "have freely given". S. "which I have voluntarily offered". This is a free trans- lation put into the first person singular. ^«1fcy"' nb«^] JL^j iiuoi^.. For the interchange in the Divine name cf. 15, 38, 9, 622, 10 i, 6, 9. The addition of Ift^a^ is of no consequence for textual purposes. 16. i^DD b^)] lAxojt \ji. S. omits the copula. h^^] \^A "^AA. Vaa is due to dittography. «Dj; nim^nn nV] ^jJ. ysos^. MT "with the free will offerings of the people". S. "let go with thee". Cf. vs. 13. This is a very poor rendering. N'linDI]. S. freely adds l-i«i^o and understands J^mino to refer to the laymen, translating it y^aa*. Vjjba!^ ^^j ^lo "and those who wish to go with thee", and adds ^il> "let them go", as a result of this faulty interpretation. S. renders very freely and quite incorrectly from an entirely different point of view. 17. n*"^]. S. omits. 18. nsmi «DDD] JiQi JLamj»;. This is due to the influence of vs. 17. DDn^fc<] y.o»:5i^. S. translates with Ezra in mind. 19. D^U^n'' n!?«] )-X»;«JLa, I^nSs.. MT here is quite unparalleled in Ezra. S. presents here the original DVtyn'»3 ""T «n^«, so also Esd., G. and Vulg. 20. ^nbi^ n^n mntrn i«tj^i] ih^^^ix ^ ^2^^*00, m»j Uf*o y6»^ KjLaj. S. translates very freely. ]n^Db ^b '?B'' ''1]. S. omits. jnin] ^llo laxal. "Thou Shalt take and give." The parallel translation of the entire verse shows the freedom of S. 52 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA MT S. And whatsoever other re- And the rest of the vessels quirement of the house of which are required by thee thy God it shall fall to thee for the service of the house to give, thou shalt give it of thy God, thou shalt take, from the king's treasury. and give from the king's treasury. 21. «m IDD] irooiaj ;^xd /;jLffl. Cf. vs. II MT. naVri^] v«r*^^' ^- renders freely. 22. HKto JTin lyi] 1\jA K^v Jmiiv>S h»^. As in the fore- going in MT and in S. the order should be riK^D 1^1 Y^^- The order of MT has been confused by a scribe. 23. '•T^D] + ci»i. aao»« o«MKi JLo^Aa. "(Everything) shall be put on a slip of writing", z. e., it shall be carefully noted down for reference, "and give to him", /. e., to Ezra "(ac- cording to the precept of the God of heaven.") «n?-n« inj;n'«] yaj^» c-u. MT "let it to be done exactly". S., "he shall take it and use it". S. paraphrases. 24. «''i''ni «"'V"^n i^^ior] IK^jis^ ^vj»o. MT "singers porters, nethinim". S. connects quite wrongly fc<"'V'^^ with nV"l"in and got the meaning "trumpeters" for "singers and porters". The nethinim S. omitted. S. omits as previously (cf. 413, 20) IjSti )h2 miD and then translates as if its Aramaic original read 10fc<D^ 0''^K^ ^b UTVby. This is in reality merely a careless guess to make a smooth reading and to cover the translator's ignorance of the preceeding words. 25. »1ty] -I- l*A«. Cf. I I. f BDB^] «>&»«•(. S. renders freely. ^m] i.M%aM. S. translates by a singular. The Greek ver- VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 53 sions also have the singular which Guthe and others be- lieve is the original reading. Vs. 26 favours the sing. == n"n. 26. IfiS^ltS^^] JLww. S. paraphrastically renders by the word that makes the natural antithesis to "death". 27. n«D] ?jo» l^\». This is a free but good transla- tion. 1t5^«]. S. omits. 28. b:^b) 1'>5JV"I'1]. S. omits. niiT TD] JLfio; opyoi mX:^. loot; |ui^?. S. paraphrascs. 54 A CRITICAL EXANHNATION OF THE PESHITTA CHAPTER VIII HB^KI 7]h»\] ijuv, (o;m* ^^oio. S. adds freely after (and these are) "the names of" because a list of names follows. DiTnn«] >jia-«ia/. A scribe has carelessly changed the pro- nominal ending. DirnTini] oaiKAlj. S. renders MT's "and their genealogy" by "who were reckoned by genealogy." This is a free trans- lation. The following comparison of MT and S. shows the freedom the translator used: MT S. Now these are the chiefs Now these are t/ie names of their fathers and their of the chiefs of your fathers genealogy, (viz.) the ones who were reckoned by genea- going up with me in the logy and went up with me, reign of Artaxerxes, the king, in the reign of Artaxerxes, from Babylon. the king, from Babylon. 2. ")Dn''K] fa»L for the original ^'^\. A scribe has written the shorter form as a result of haplography due to the similar ending of the preceding word. 3. ^:nD] uiA ^o. 4. 2K1D nnc] oloM ^^OA. S's usual way of writing this. Cf. note on 26. p ^i^j;iiT7K] %aa yai^9 U>^. S. wrongly divides this name into two names ^iij^l iTVk which necessitates the changing of ^ into toa. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 55 5. b«'»m"'-p] ^iuu ;^ oj^. S. has just as Esd AB and GA Zai&ofi<; — «!int which has dropped from MT, for o^^ was certainly •!;. Esd AB and GA insert «^ni after ''ina, S. after «''iDli\ ^Ijuui is a scribal corruption of ^l^juuu. 6. ''iDDI] Mia ^ without the copula. V^V] vi*^. Cf. note on 74 for a similar scribal error. The original v!*s^ or rather yoj.^ has easily been changed because of the similarity of 1 and j. The V here has the hard sound = ^ as in Gomorrah = ma^. S. follows a different vocalization than that of the Massorites. inv] oj.aJ^. o was perhaps originally the copula with the next word; in any case it is wrong. 7. IT'bny] j-..iKj. S. presents again a scribe's confusion of x with 1, and of V with j for the original U^^.:*.. 8. nnnt] U>r^). S. presents here a scribal confusion of i and ; and A and *. 9. bw^n''] ^>JUu. S. presents the easy confusion of * for -. The original of course was V^i^uu. Cf. vs. 5. 10. n^BD"l''"p n>i2)b^] JL^omi ^ .ln^\m .l^ia\m. The MT has evidently lost a word. S. noticed this and supplied it by writing ZoM^^^fiD twice, in this way trying to make sense. We know from GA and Esdras that the missing word was Paavi = ">iD which MT lost by haplography. Usoxaj is due to confusion of 1 and .♦ and different vocalization. MT should read n^Ki^b^ ^112 ''inDI etc. n«D] ^liao so also Esd.syr. 11. ""nn] I4A3. S. so in each case (twice), Esd.L GL have PoKxel =* S. 12. ly^V] rKtJ^ for original ^-.ss^i^; confusion of j and ;. )tspn] U^jif is a copyist's error for U^^u A scribe has con- fused -j» and ^. 56 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA mbfy] ^, mv . This reading is also found in 38 Heb. Mss. and in Esd. L 13. Dp^il«] )BOjauw;l for original >»aAAjil. Confusion of? and » and of ** and aj. ^KI^T "^i-i^ for original ^>i^*. Confusion of j and *. 14. TUn] iQ-ajo. S. follows the YJyq of the Hebrew text, IDH Vulg., Esd. LB also read as S. This is the original. 1DV1] vookso^o so also several Heb. Mss. D^V^B^ ^iJi. This is a mistake due to the preceding verse. 15. nini] ^ooi. This is a free translation. Nin«] lo«». So also vss. 21, 31. Ity'^fc^^] i*:^^, originally this was it^^, so Thorndyke. 16. )ni^«] ^l^\ for original v*-i^. I^yh] cx^. for original ci^;A,. 2^TV] «atJ^^ for original «a>#-»a-. D''y30] Uui \«o»1a ^ai. S., as the text stands, paraphrases by "these were all of them chiefs" but the iL»*v is a mistake due to the preceding Ajuv. Originally the text read JL*-f« or iAOfs which is the exact equivalent of D''i''DD. D^tS^D^] )>o\jua\,. This is the usual Syriac vocalization in Ezra. 17. n«:{1«l] I,A» -= Is're of MT = nj^WJ. This is preferable to the K'thib. nnj -jl. The mater lectionis was lacking in the translator's MS. B^Kin] >ji«t^; Uu^. S. translates freely. n«] »}•• mistake for «jl as before. l^nH] ^Ju#l, a correction of the translator. D^i^nin] vo., ^;a,. S. renders MT's "Nethinim" by "those who dwelt", misunderstanding it and connecting it with the late Heb. meaning of )n3. 18. nniDH] lU^/,. Cf. note on 79. iTntBh] JUfAtt. A copyist has omitted the va in Uaf*. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 57 nb^J? ni»K^] ^:m^vl. S. has 12 for MT's 18. This is a copyist's error. S. usually agrees with MT in numbers much closer than does Esd. but of. note on vs. 26 below. 20. O'l^Tli (twice). S. translates by /v-a^^ and by v^o^i. S. felt the original force of the word. We are used to re- gard Nethinim almost like a name; but it was merely the designation of the old temple slaves. D'»1t5'n"l] S. omits through oversight. niDU^i] \ooMo»^auAa. S. renders freely. 21. D12J DtJ^] v!"' i»j>L9o. The translator misunderstood D1^ "fast", and connected it with niiJ "command". D he took as the suffix, and DfiJ^ he omitted. nity*'] lyl was probably ly'^l originally. liBtD^] vNft^N. The Syriac reading is here probably cor- rupt. The original read ^.Aq^N. or ^; a^. 22. hV] y^. S. renders freely MT's "upon" by "with".-- n^lt^D] ^A^^v\\^. S. translates a collective by a plural. Cf vs. 31. 1i\n^«] U^. S. omits the suffix here but in vs. 23 = MT. This may perhaps be a scribal corruption from v"^ as vs. 23. 24. ^Ifcy] ujujuD is regarded by the translator as an equi- valent, — a free rendering. Cf 9 2. jT'ntS^n] JLasjuA.©. S. with Esd. AB preserves an original read- ing. Cf Bewer ad loc. 25. n^1ptfi^«"l] hujM. S. freely renders MT's "weighed" by "counted". n»1in] Ihu^i. S. renders freely. VSyM] -oiovUo, a free translation. CKSDin] + ^l freely. 26. DT'"^V] S. renders freely by \06»A^. D^ifiyDm nt^D'tJ^ti^] ^juHLyQ l)Jo. This is an unusual case be- 58 A CRITICAL EXAmNATION OF THE PESHITTA cause S. agrees with MT regarding numerals much better than the other versions. 1DD n«D anr D'^-DD'? n«D ^DD-'i'^DI] S. (as Esd. A) omits. 27. D''iD-n«'?] ^oii^vj*. S. translates ^ by •. ^•©3] U*^. S. freely renders "bowls" by "platters." in^TD] A-Bo-io*. S. translates freely "corinthian" which is a synonym for precious. Cf. I. Kings 745. I. Ch. 297. D'':ty] S. omits. rmon] ^;jaaj. S. renders quite freely. 29. l^ptS'n] ttMOMl*!. Cf. vss. 25, 26, 23- l\OVhTi\ JX-t^ma. S. renders freely. 30. S. adds \ott»A^. ^pB^D] JXaKma yasD^Aii. S. renders freely. 3 1 . y^^^] y^->v\\^. S. translates a collective by a plural, as in vs. 22. 33. T-^V] "^ \«"' ,^«1aIo. S. translates freely, l^tl'*] ioijoaj. This is a scribe's error for ^)^. iTiyii] U^%9u for original l-»r2*-<»J. A scribe has miscopied. •«1in] wCL^i. The translator mistook ""Un for ^un. 34. ^pK^n] jXj»Kiaao. The copula must be inserted in MT, as Esd,, G., Vulg., as well as S. show. 35. '»i2] *J:a ^. S. renders freely. riKcn n^s:}] \t>^ ^ji^^u^ u-^^ Cf. 6 17. rhv Van] ll^li ^o^ ^o,. S. translates freely but well; the original Heb. did of course not read ni^V- 36. ^m] i^^^.} = 6idTaYpLa, GAB to v6pLicJ}ia. S. knows of only one decree. 1«tri] •%m rfiJ»^^%. S. translates MT's "helped" by "were honoring". The translator misunderstood the meaning (cf. i 4) employed here by MT thinking it signified "lift up" ■^- honor. Esd. and G made the same error. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 59 CHAPTER IX 1. n^«] + ^<bt2^. D'*1tyn] JLjLuuD. S. translates here according to the sense. ^K-lty*' nvn] ^Ir^U h»^. S. translates as if MT read D^ ^t^lty^ but S. had no different original text. niS1«n] \h^r». This is the usual translation in Ezra. Cf. 3 3, 92, 7. Dn^nnvriD] v?««i«M-=» — Dn^nnynn so also G, and this was most probably the original reading. •"l^Jlon •'3«»n ^i»Vn ^Din\T nisn]. S. has different order, 2. D'»i:iDm nnfcyn] ;j;ois.jo JLju*jdj. The translator here dis- agrees with MT which holds the political officials guilty. The translator of S. holds the religious leaders guilty. This is of course only an interpretation by S., who had the same text as MT. G omits D^iillDm which leads Guthe, Bertholet and others to hold it to be a doublet of Dnty. Bewer, on the other hand, upholds the MT. Cf. "Der Text des Buches Ezra!' ad loc. 3. n^n] -AJij. S. with Esd. and G. reads the plural nil which is to be preferred to MT. 4. '>nmn nn ^d] lisXao ^^^ \o6,^ Joo, ^^u^^i, ^i v>. S. "all who were concerned about the word" (sing.) The singular lis^ao ^5w = imn was probably the original reading. It is vouched for also by Esdras and Vulg. 6o A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA 7^b)yr(] ^b^-tAA .Jo oj»XxIj. S. renders freely but well. 3iyn nniD^] <^*sas!»&s\.. S. renders paraphrastically, sub- stituting the time "ninth hour" for the "evening offering" which was at this time (3 p. m.) Cf. Acts 3 i. 5. 2"iyn nnio:s] ^^^a >&jii« ^r^- C^- "^^e on vs. 4. ^Pp3] JB^*XD ^. S. renders freely. *^']y2] -l^Jui plur. as in vs. 3, also here correct. ••BD rffi^"lB«1]. S. adds freely lloi^ja the correct explanation. h^] ^^. S. shows a fine sense of reverence. Mb«] lo.:iv. S. omits the suffix. 6. ^no^Dil ^ntJ^n] ^It^. S. reads plural; MT sing. \"I*?K] v*^- S. reads plural and changes order of words. ^iB] ^} plur. suffix. nVli linDiy«1] i.avo» ^o^jio plur. S. freely adds oa^td. 7. 1ini«]. S. adds freely but well ,h^KaI. nbiy nDtr«n]. S. plur. as in vs. 6. Un:i irnii;;m] ^>o:^l j.0,^4* l^.^^^ ,v^^N \^. S. para- phrases. ni^m '^^^2]. S. has the reverse order. 1ini«»]. S. adds freely ^^o/o. ni^JIKn ''D^D T'n]. S. adds freely v»">->,Nn->; Ulo«. S. changes the order and paraphrases freely in this verse. 8. Vy\ IDVDD] iob.) Vk\j» j^. This is free and good. mrP], S. omits, as does GB. Tn*»] /Kj«j. S. translates freely, linn^l]. S. omits suffix. 9. ir*?V B""!]. S. adds vjA.?. iTHD] jjs^f ^uBOJios. S. translates freely by "our daily sup- port". DOn^] )»pi^tt freely. ^^h'^\^h] ^ ^Kj« freely. 10. nOHi]. S. adds freely ^as.^. nit] ^««^ ^o,. S. renders freely, cf. 9 i. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 6l 11. WiJ]. S. adds suffix freely yl^aji. p«]. S. omits as unnecessary in the translation. 1tt«7] ^ lp»lo. S. renders freely. ni2J1fc«n '«»j;] ?^i.jjojo Jbaaastj, probably the copula is due to a copyist. Dn«OtDn] 6»«Jlao .Uioo vooMp^Q. S. paraphrases. 12. Dntyiini] y^Uh^ v«»iolo. S. translates pleonastically and not very differently from MT = "and leave it for an in- heritance". 13. 73] ^4tti\j> ^of. Cf. vs. I, 10. n^lin "liniStJ^^D] l^vo; ^o»^juo« plur. as in vs. 7. )y:^)V^ ntDtt^ niDb^n] ^6*^- ,it^»^\ ^^j^^ k ">■*>». mt "thou hast punished us less than our sins (warrant)". S. "thou hast planned for us to forgive our sins". This comes from the reading r\^^T] for H^t^n which 9 Heb. Mss. have. nNT3] Jv<\n">. S. renders freely. 14. ISn^ IlltJ'in] vfAii.0 ^ASQill ^iM. S. loses the rhetorical question of MT rendering, "Is it possible that again we shall trespass" by "We have turned away and trespassed". G makes a similar error. ]nnnn^1] ^.naj ^jlo. Again S. overlooks the question MT "or marry people of these abominations" and renders freely "and we went and clung to these unclean folks"; and freely adds v?«»>'p^ y*? vr^^*« S. disregards the question again and presents here a lengthy paraphrase: "But thou art merciful. Thou wilt not be angry with us. Forgive our transgressions from before thee. Because thou art merciful, leave us rem- nants in the world, because there is none like thee « and may we not perish." S. paraphrases: "We stand and confess before thee our sins.'* IIOj;^] JLm yjM^ p»b»^. S. paraphrases. 62 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHTTTA CHAPTER X 1. ^BiriDI HDn] i-aao loov Jjo». S. changes the word order. DN-l'PWn] i-poj. Cf. 15, 38, 9, 622, 715. Dyn IDD] J-^ Qoot ^jLaa. S. renders instead of "the people wept"; "the children were weeping". HDn nnin] o^? Ui u^. Cf. 1 1. 2. ^K^rp] '^JJuj is a scribal confusion of i for *. The ori- ginal was V»JjuL*. d'^IV] yA*:^ - MT 1^'re ub'^V. H-^W^] + Ir^^. Cf. note on i i. )ynh»2] v«^ i-'r^. Cf. vs. I. 3. ^ynhnh n''in-n-Di] v^CSs. y»^ Ih^^ i»^. S. translates freely MT's "let us make a covenant with our God" by "let us say oaths before our God". D'^B^i] {]^«^aj U*. MT is obviously incorrect as only the foreign wives were meant. GABL support the reading of S., accordingly we should emend MT to read D"'K^J mnpan. It is possible that the translator has used his prerogative of making clear what was meant and that the original text read D^B^in or li^B^i. Professor Bewer (ad loc) adopts the latter on the ground that "Die Einfugung lasst sich leicht, die Aus- lassung schwer erklaren". nspa] Jji^a* y^U = my3. So also GAB and many oriental Hcb. mss. This is the correct reading; the interchange of VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 63 n and 3 was easily made in the Heb. MT must be accord- ingly mended. TpV,:] ya^. MT "let it he done". S. ''do". S. connects the following Dip cf. vs. 4 with this imperative «jkto "and con- firm". MT is better. 4. mn ybv] h^ iAcaa AAuaa Q«» yA:^. S. paraphrases "(for) on thy account this decision has been decided". liPIi^l] ,5!**, ^^^jo. J v^jo is repeated because of the foregoing paraphrase. «1tV] + hfAoi. Cf. note on i i, 102. 5. •''nfcy] MjuMM. This is S's usual paraphrase of this word. Cf 824, 91. D^il^n D''in3n] JL*^© rp.**. S. reads the copula with GAEL and Esd. This is obviously the original reading = D''inDn miD] >WB^ ^^ S. brings out the specific sense of 121^ here. 6. «1tj;] -t- Ifaro. As in vss. 2 and 5. DNnb«n] JLpoj. As in vs. i. D'D^b] /vj.mal. S. reads pi. n'»B^''^«] 'AjuSiw. S. is the result of scribal carelessness which changed *a ajiA\ into ^^jui^ by miscopying the •». Esd. AB and GAB vouch for the originality of MT. ^jh"^)] oi^6 = ]h*^. A scribe has carelessly written T for ] in MT. S. preserved the original reading. Cf. Esd. ^^h^^Ti] l^^^,. S. paraphrases. 7. ^"Ip ITIlj;''] JLi<»A ofjBo. S. freely and correctly para- phrases MT's "they made proclamations" by "and the priests proclaimed". D^tJ^IIM] )a^ioi.3o. S. here has preserved the original which is vouched for by many Heb. Mss. also by G. The con- text also demands it in agreement with the previous "in Judea". 64 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITTA b^h] '^ao. Again S. construes as in the foregoing and reads "and among all the captives." In MT the proclama- tion is to the exiles alone; S. has it to all the province of Judea, to the capital and to the exiles. D^tr^lT] + ?^^r^. Cf. note on i i. 8. rCiV^] + -^ '•«*^- S. renders freely. D^ipTHl D^lb^n] jiavoijo Iaaajdj. S. has a different order. nb)yn hrrpi:i] ^l^jauf, i^^ ^. S. interprets. Cf. vs. 6. 9. tyin «in] l^^^. S. renders freely. D*'"lfcyVi] M,.mv">. This is due to a scribe's carelessness. nuf"*] oAi^. S. renders freely. SV2 SimD]. S. omits through oversight. D\n^«n] UiM. Cf. vs. I. D"'0B^in01 imn-^J^ Dn"»pD] iKia. ^r*. ^Bwl;o ,ji..jo. "Quaking and shivering because of the matter." S. either translated pleonastically D^TV^D (cf. vs. 12) and omits D^'DtS^^HDI (cf. vs. 12) or took the latter wrongly for D''t5'V^D1. 10. nrhvt] + loi^i^. Cf. vs. 2. nOB^H] ; lo*^. S. reads plur. as usual. 12. hnp] Jba^. S. interprets as in vss. 6 and 8. no«''1] + UuA,. Cf. note on i i. niBfyV li'i^y ?;'«imD p]. if S. is not simply a free para- phrase, its present text may contain a doublet of which the original ^il^ y*jii^^]boi ^;-aa "thy words to us" was /a^er cor- rected by (l;^tJh^ ."fc^^aV tA^ ^^ tJ«(; >>rM^ ^^.aja.wo ''and ac- ceptable is everything which thou tellest us to do in truth". Perhaps the second translation (correction) was written on the margin and a later scribe incorporated it into the text. We may still further ask, was ll;-r*a still another translation of p> 13. ^IH] ^) |a«i. S. translates freely. ns pH] + ^. S. translates freely. 14. bnprrb^h] Jb»^ ^i^o. S. did not represent the meaning VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 65 of the original correctly according to which the leaders were to represent the whole congregation in this matter. On Jbai*. cf. vs. 12. n-itotfi n^r\vh] /lol^^j ),^\,. S. here misinterprets "the ap- pointed times" by "the time of prayer". ^« inn] ©.k^iOA*. S. uses one term for the two Hebrew words. ntn im!? IJ^] No* IKmow ^^^. MT is evidently wrong and must be corrected here to ntn imn b)f. Two Heb. Mss. GAB Vulg. read b^. It is true that S. paraphrases in /iopiu. but has the exact sense, and may therefore be regarded as a witness of the true text. 15. 7«nfcyj;] Vt^uask.. This is a copyist's carelessness for the original ^J^a^. Cf. v. 6 for a similar mistake in the Syriac. n*'tn''] jLuu. This is a scribal error for JLu*^. >A4uiBo]. A copyist has misplaced this name. mrbv] ^o. /KXiD v^ = nrn imn *?v. Cf. note on 1 1. ^nity] ^Im. This is a confusion of U^ (written here »») and y» (cf. first word in this verse where a similar error occurs and also vs. 6) with the omission of o. DIJ^] \oai«o^. S. points the Heb. differently and renders here "(was) their helper", the subject is Shabbethai, the Levite. In MT Meshullam, who is misplaced in S., was also the subject, "they helped them". 16. I^H'^I] «.f»o. S. with GL Kal 8ieoreiXev gives evidence of an original ^?.5»1 which MT also demands in that Ezra alone is subject. MT must here be corrected. D^tS^iK] + ^t^a^. S. freely adds ,^^^01^. niDtS^l] + o-fjDir S. has a free addition to bring out the meaning. ^1^11^] "J^ <xN:^&^vi\. = li^yf?, This is the correct reading. MT must accordingly be corrected. 5 m A CRITICAL EXAmNATION OF THE PESHITTA 17. D^B'iK ^-yi] l<A^ v««N^ = D^l5^i«n ^3:3. This is the cor- rect reading. MT must be accordingly corrected. 18. n^'YI] Ajja.0. The translator read the fuller from n''1^1'» = •^•h«- which a scribe corrupted into o^a>. 19. DT lin""!] >^Qt «t omjiA^llo. S. renders freely "and they also consented". D'lDB^WI] *A#j>. S. omits D^Dti^WI and supplies "they offered" in order to make sense. Cf. RV. which reads both. )«r^''«] jLi^j r^j. S. has the plural. 20. nD«] r^X, Cf. 2 59. nn^t] i-raj. S. reads with 9 Hebrew Mss. that which may have been the original. The confusion is as easily explained in Hebrew as in Syriac. 21. ^^^rr*] vJua*. This is a scribal corruption of the ori- ginal ^Iaao. 22. ''i^V^^^K] ^A*^- In vs. 27, S. has *«i,t»*N\ which shows that the original was m^^A\ in vs. 27 and ^axo^ here. ^fe^yOK^''] \x).>Mi«. This is an error for ^Jbkiwuo. ^«ini] '^IjuKj. S. gives here the other common form of this name. intl*'] fAjo*. This is due to an exchange of j and ^ for the original r^J**. 23. litV] fajoa. This is due to a scribe's carelessly writ- ing A for * and * for ?. «0^'?p Kin X\'hy\] J4:ij»o .\i^, S. interprets the names as belonging to two distinct individuals; but this is due to the carelessness of a scribe who wrote o for ••«. ti\« shows the confusion of 1 for -. 24. DniBfen] VibM» -= DTi^tc^on. Cf. 241. n^B^^'?^] >»uu^. This is the result of careless copying. The toriginal was >-fc«ji.^. A scribe changed - and ^ to ^. Cf. he same error in vs. 6. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA t^ Xhi^ amAa. This is due to the absence of mater lectionis in MT; the final o is a dittography of the following copula. "•IIK] -jo^ This is due to an interchange of \ and j for the original ^iol. 25. iTt''] jUiju. The X is dittography for *. ]fi''D] ^AsaxiA. A careless scribe has written a more com- mon name which resembled closely the one he found in his text. ItV^fc^] f^u^. This is for the original ?is:5^ or ;i^-iSw. 26. iTiniD] JLaKi. The aural confusion here is due to both names being so common and thus easy to confuse. ^N^n''] V»U^. This is a corruption of the original V»)-uu* or V»JLu* by a confusion of x and * and of ^ and **. Tih)^ ooM^^. This form is due to the following copula which S. connects with the fuller form of the name \7\"h)^, 27. fc^int] j-»M. The seiame points are, of course, a scribal error, due, perhaps, to a thoughtless connection with "olive trees". The mistaken pronunciation again may come from the name i<r\\t = l^j. ''ipV^K] »*iM^. This is for the original ui^a*:^. Cf. note on vs. 22 also 8 4. n*'tJ^'>^«] >->««\\. Mater lectionis was wanting in Ms. used by translator. n''in»] ujKj. Cf. vs. 26. mt] ;aaj. This is due to an interchange of ? and \ and to a different vocalization. KtMV] JL.c^. This is a copyist's corruption of the original \u)^»i^ due to the more common but different name. 29. ^in] UA3. S. reads as does one Heb. Ms. Confusion of J and 3. D^tJfD] >io^l «. This may be due to a careless copyist rather than to the translator. 5* 68 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PESHITfA iTn}f] |-.i%^. S. reads as does one Heb. Ms. Confusion of i and ». Cf. v. 28. Dlty^] ckAo^. This is a scribe's careless copying. bH\^] '^oU. S. supplied the more common pronouncia- tion. 30. nriD] ^^«*. S. always so translates in Ezra. «iiy] i^j^^^. The "^ is a mistake * and the ^ is a mistake for ^. Note how a good common name results from these mistakes. rWiOl ^):2)] Ui» uxa -ciuao = ntJ>iO •'in r^m. The trans- lator missed the word and by the interchange of ^ and 1 has changed the name "Binnui" into "his sons". 31. Din •'im] >.^ «4j:a ^. S. and GAB also many Heb. Mss. have here the original reading. MT must be corrected to read ''i|pv GAB Esd. ABL all vocalize Dnn as S. does. MT — Din which must also be corrected to D"in. no^D iTK^''] /a*i{ UAi*. S. has here a different order. S. read originally l^jul for {«jut. 32. JT'IDB^] J«s^>. A copyist mistook this for the more common name. 33. nnriD] Ih^U^. S. vocalizes differently. "TIT] ^j. S. again confuses » and ? and a and j>. ^T] ♦**if*«. This is a copyist's error for um^o. A scribe has confused * and a and * and ♦. 34. ''in] wjia. Cf. vs. 29 where the "sons of Bani" are al- ready listed. S. must be correct as one clan would not be listed twice. At least one is wrong either in vs. 29 or here. MT should therefore probably be corrected to S. = "'Sn. nyo] -^oi.. This is due to a different vocalization. '?«1K] \.l%. — hnV to which Esd. ABL and GBL also testify. Cf. Bewer ad loc. MT must be accordingly corrected. 35. mn] fa. A copyist read \ for ? and this led to the omission of n\ hence ;a. VERSION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA 69 NTI^5, I^'re IHI^D] «<*A\>a = •in"''?D which may have preserved the original reading. 36. rr'il] "^{euo. MT is corrupt; but S. does not seem to have preserved the correct reading. n''B^'''?«] ojuJi.. Cf. vs. 27. 37. )\i^V''\ I^'re ^\i^V^)] -la^. S. in its corrupted state seems to have followed I^'re and to have read originally -xa:^*. (Cf. note on vs. 36). a was corrupted to lo. 38. ''lilil *'iD1] wojQxa uia*. This is a scribal corruption for the original woia t^iao, i. e., the second without 01 = "and the sons of Binnui," so also G. MT must be accordingly corrected. 39. rciV] JL.;i^. Cf. vs. 29. A scribe mistook it for the common name, an aural error. 1 softly and badly spoken sounded like t. Cf. Heb. ItV and Syr. i^^ and the French pronunciation of the English tk. 40. "'lliDD] ouaie. This is for wa^i^i^. But both MT and S. are corrupt. ni5^] -f«. The translator read t^ for ^. 41. i^^ltj;] "^Ijf:*.. This is a corruption for the original ^..huw in its Syriac form. in^D^ti^l]. S. omits. 43. bb^y*] ^(oiii. This is a copyist's mistake for the ori- ginal V»la^. rrriniO] la^Kjoo. Cf. note in vs. 33. int] ioajo. Cf. vs. 27. S. reads with i Heb. Ms. IT*]. S. omits. 44. ^if^m] n-imi = K're 1«l?^l ijO^tS^^I D'-tS^i] u^^U U*l. MT here is corrupt. S. read the same text and tries to express the meaning by "and there were among them men who had begotten sons". r — '~~~ T^ Eh d 1 Unhersily of Toronto 044 •H s::j cd = Library M 1 i -H 1 3 DO NOT /^ 1 3 j ^ REMOVE / J THE // j Q ctl 1 CARD o ( 4J N ,C\2 1 dw FROM \\ I's * H^ THIS \ <j J o \V d-d" a CD POCKET V ^ ^ •^^' ^ Mm QJ -H . °1 ^o o i3 <d d . Bo hor e sio: Acme Library Card Pocket Under Pat. "Ref. Index File" 1 , 1 g|| Made by LIBRARY BUR£AU