Content uploaded by Godwin Mushayabasa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Godwin Mushayabasa on Feb 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The effect of etymology in rendering of the divine epithet (El) Shaddai in
the Peshitta version
1
Godwin Mushayabasa, North - West University
ABSTRACT
While scholarship has made comprehensive studies on the possible original meaning of such
divine epithets as (El) Shaddai in the Hebrew Bible, little has yet been done to find out their
manner and reason of treatment in the ancient translations. Of particular interest is the treatment
of the divine epithet (El) Shaddai in the Peshitta. This epithet appears 48 times in the Hebrew
Bible but is rendered in at least seven different ways in the Peshitta. Following a detailed survey
of the translation of this epithet in the Peshitta, the possibility that the Peshitta translators used
etymology to try to find the meaning of the divine epithet is proposed. Using text critical analysis
of the epithet in the Peshitta, it becomes apparent that etymologising may have indirectly played
an important role in the various ways in which the epithet was rendered.
1. INTRODUCTION
The divine names in the Jewish religion were significant terms, which the translators of
versions must have taken considerable pains to render correctly (Talshir 1987:75). We
are however confronted with a problem when it appears that within one version, there
exist at least seven different representations of the one epithet (El) Shaddai. Weitzman
(1999:51) has hinted that Peshitta
2
translators could have resorted to etymology on a few
specific cases.
This study intends to show that etymologizing probably played a greater role in the way
in which (El) Shaddai was rendered in P, than scholars have previously shown. The
epithet (El) Shaddai is generally rendered inconsistently throughout P. At the conclusion
of this study it becomes apparent that P translators attempted to find the meaning or
translation of the divine epithet (El) Shaddai by a number of ways, including
1
This article is a follow up on a paper read at the SASNES 2007 Annual Conference (20-21 August) at the
University of Pretoria. The Author would like to acknowledge the panel which made important critical
suggestions which have been incorporated in the compilation of this article. Specific acknowledgements go
to Prof. J Cook (Stellenbosch), Prof H. Van Rooy and Mr A Lamprecht (North West University).
2
Henceforth, referred to as P.
2
etymologizing. The scope of this ‘etymologizing’ was probably far broader than it has
previously been imagined by those who have alluded to it. However, solving problem
using etymology probably produced unexpected, negative results for the translators.
These results led the translators to resort to other means of rendering the epithet which
included transliteration and exegetical translation, rather than the simple translation,
characteristic of the treatment of other divine names in P (Weitzman 1999: 50).
The first part of this investigation intends to show the general way in which the divine
epithet has been treated in P. In the second place, reasons for the inconsistent rendering
3
of (El) Shaddai will be explored. Focus will be laid on etymological possibilities which
could have been available to P translators, as can be learned from the Peshitta and other
relevant literature. Besides these etymological possibilities, textual factors that could
have led to the phenomenon will also be briefly studied.
2. ANALYSIS OF STUDIED CASES
The nine different ways
4
in which the epithet (El) Shaddai is rendered in P are the
outcome of the rendering of only two forms
5
which appear in the Hebrew: ydv la and
ydv. In Genesis and Exodus, where the longer form of the epithet appears more frequently
in the Hebrew text, P tends to transliterate it. However in Numbers, Ruth, Job, and
Ezekiel, exegetical rendering and translation of the epithet are dominant. In these later
books, a shorter form is mostly witnessed in the Hebrew text, except for the occurrence in
Ezekiel 10:5. By far the two most popular Syriac renderings for the divine epithet in these
later books are and .
3
Especially exegetical rendering
4
Not counting cases of omissions and places where no textual data was available to us. The tally may still
fall further to eight if it is to be argued, as it seems probable, that (in Isaiah 13:6) is a corrupted form
of .
5
Three, if we should make an issue out of the use of the maqqeph in Ezekiel 10:5
3
2.1 Cases where the epithet is transliterated
The closest cases of transliteration occur in Genesis where we find four cases rendered
as
6
. Three other cases in Genesis and Exodus are best identified as transliterations
mixed with exegetical elements, where the exegetical is added after the
transliteration . Strictly speaking therefore, these later extended cases should be
referred to as doublets
7
.
2.2 Cases where the epithet is translated
The first case where the epithet is completely translated is at Ruth 1:21
8
. The translator
here chose to render the Hebrew Shaddai with the etymologically derived expression,
, ‘the one who is sufficient’, probably understood according to the
corresponding Greek
9
rendering o` i`kano.j, (the sufficient one)
10
. The second case of
translation is almost exclusively confined to the book of Job, where the epithet is
translated as
11
which means ‘strong one’, or ‘mighty one’. This could have been
the believed meaning of the epithet, especially since we find that the translators did not
attempt to explain whether this ‘mighty one’ was God or another personality. The
rendering in question is used almost alternately with the other rendering in Job, .
Other places where the epithet is rendered by a different translation () include Job
6:14 and Isaiah 13:6
12
.
2.3 Cases where the rendering is exegetical
This relates especially to the rendering of the epithet (El) Shaddai by . This
rendering is plainly neither a translation nor a transliteration of the epithet El shaddai.
6
Peshitta Institute Leiden, Genesis – Exodus
7
See Weitzman (1999:112f). Greenberg (2002:43) treats them as ‘additional epithets’ noting that the
expansion of the titles of God in Peshitta of Jeremiah is frequent.
8
Weitzman, (1999:51)
9
Since it has been observed that the Greek to which P referred was not always the Septuagint (LXX)
(Weitzman, 1999:80), we will refer to the Greek Text which the P translators consulted simply as ‘the
Greek Text’. We find it appropriate however at other points to refer to the ‘Septuagint’ since we have made
use of comparative evidence from the LXX.
10
Cf. Weitzman (1999:51), see below. In the very next verse (20), the epithet is transliterated.
11
Peshitta Institute Leiden, Job
12
Peshitta Institute Leiden, Isaiah
4
Although it may be admissible to refer to P rendering such as in Ezekiel 10:5
13
as a
substitution or identification, it seems more appropriate to refer to it as an exegetical
rendering, with a theological motive (Tov 1999:260-263). This theological exegesis
effectively identifies the epithet El Shaddai with Elohim (God).
From analysing the textual data above, we may surmise that P translators encountered
difficulties in rendering the epithet (El) Shaddai. This is evident from the many different
forms of rendering discussed above
14
, where at times two or more of these forms occur
within a single book! In the following section of our study, we focus specifically on the
possible explanations for the exegetical renderings employed by P translators for the
divine epithet (El) Shaddai.
3. TEXTUAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EXEGETICAL RENDERINGS
Two probable textual reasons may be given for the way the epithet was rendered in P. In
the first place the occasional exegetical rendering in Job of the epithet by can be
traced to the parallelism of that book
15
. Weitzman (1999:51) suggests that in P in general,
translators used one Syriac word as ‘A-word’ and the other as ‘B-word’ for synonymous
words in the Hebrew text. Such however was not the case with the translation of the
epithet, especially in Job. The translator tends to render the epithet, rather hesitantly with
the Syriac word and more preferably with the exegetical form . This
exegetical form is almost consistently employed at places where the epithet occurs
without the alternative la (or hwla) in a particular verse of the Hebrew text.
Example: Job 21:20
(MT) htvy ydv tmxmw wdyk wny[ wary
His eyes shall see his destruction, and from the wrath of Shaddai he shall drink.
(P)
His eyes shall see his destruction, and from the wrath of God he shall drink.
13
Peshitta Institute Leiden, Ezekiel
14
That is translation, transliteration and exegetical rendering
15
Cf. Weitzman (1999:42) and Barr (1968:267)
5
On a number of times, even when the Hebrew text displays parallelism which identifies
la with ydv, the translator would only use the one Syriac term for both Hebrew
terms, for example at Job 33:4;
(MT) ynyxt ydv tmvnw yntf[ la-xWr
The spirit of God has made me; and the breath of Shaddai makes me live.
(P)
The spirit of God has watched over me; and the breath of God has caused me to live.
It is thus apparent that the translators were not at all confident of rendering the epithet by
the Syriac word . Secondly, as the rendering of the divine epithet Shaddai
seems to have been used uniquely by P translator of Job
16
. We may conclude therefore
that P was very minimally affected by the parallelism in the Hebrew text, if at all.
The second textual explanation may be that the translators were influenced by the Greek
Text. One likely case is when the divine epithet was rendered by the doublet,
which appears commonly in the Pentateuch. is plainly the transliteration of the
epithet El Shaddai as it appears in the Hebrew text. Clearly the Hebrew expression
identifies El (God) as the Shaddai. One may argue that the Syriac doublet seeks to
identify God with the Shaddai. This identification is however clear in the epithet itself
where means God – Shaddai. The doublet was therefore not necessarily an
attempt to identify Shaddai with God but a doublet stemming from the influence of the
Greek Text. The Septuagint translators rendered the epithet in the Pentateuch by a form
of the noun θεός usually with a pronoun added to it. As Weitzman (1999:80) has noted, P
occasionally gives a double translation in order to present the sense of both the Hebrew
and the Greek. While a number of other explanations may apply, it may be concluded
that the Greek Text played a major role in the manner in which the divine epithet was
rendered in the Pentateuch
17
. This however does not exclude the possibility that
etymological inquiries affected the way in which the epithet was rendered in P as a
16
There is a chance though that at the three points where we have not been able to secure data, the
translators may have also used .
17
See also Numbers 24:4 and 16 where there is a possibility that the Greek Text was an influence on P’s
translation of the divine epithet.
6
whole. Outside the Pentateuch, P translators succeeded to avoid the transliteration
altogether – a phenomenon which may have been induced by etymological aspects.
Though cases of Greek Text influence can still be found outside the Pentateuch
18
, there is
an overall considerable lack of clear correspondence or pattern between the Syriac and
Greek renderings in this later part of the Old Testament. Furthermore other explanations
may be possible for those cases which may initially appear as results of the Greek Text
influence. Thus for example, polygenesis or a similar exegetical tradition between P and
the Greek translators may be the cause for the similarity between P and the Greek Text of
Numbers. In the case of Ruth 1:21, the Syriac exhibits a more literal representation of the
rabbinic etymology than the Greek representation (see appendix below). It is therefore
difficult to see the Greek Text as the sole influence (or even as the major influence) for
all the resultant renderings of the epithet in P.
4. ETYMOLOGY
We now turn our attention to etymology as a possible device used by P translators.
Bronkhorst (2001:1) describes two kinds of etymology: semantic etymologies and
historical etymologies. According to Bronkhorst (2001:1), “a historical etymology
presents the origin or early history of a word; it tells us, for example, that a word in a
modern language is derived from another word belonging to an earlier language, or to an
earlier stage of the same language”. On the other hand a semantic etymology connects
“one word with one or more others which are believed to elucidate its meaning”. In the
case of semantic etymology, incidences within the Han Chinese ethnic group have been
discovered where even the meaning of obscure characters are sometimes explained by
sound analogy with related homophones on the assumption that phonetic correspondence
indicated semantic relation
19
. Relating closer to our study, Bronkhorst (2001:7) notes
from rabbinical studies that, various rabbinical etymologies of one and the same
problematic word are simultaneously presented as possibly linked to that word.
18
For example at Job 37:22-23, P and the LXX both have an identical variant reading which strongly
suggests LXX influence.
19
Ibid., p. 4. What is also apparent from his study of etymologies in Hinduism cultural practices (Found in
commentaries called Vedic Brahmnas written around 250 BCE) is that the number of etymologies for each
word are not confined to just one (Ibid., pp. 7, 9).
7
With respect to the representation of the divine epithet (El) Shaddai in P, we should posit
in the first place the thesis that P translators’ first intention was to translate the epithet
(El) Shaddai, wherever they encountered it. Weitzman (1999:50-51) notices this
translation characteristic with most epithets in P, where for example twabc is usually
translated by . Furthermore, translating the epithet (rather than transliterating or
interpreting it) would best conform to the general Peshitta translation technique, whereby
a simple, clear and meaningful rendering was pursued (Weitzman, 1999:26-27). In order
to translate the epithet, the translators needed to be sure of the meaning of this important
divine epithet, yet it seems that they could not secure that meaning.
Faced with the difficulty of translating the divine epithet (El) Shaddai, translators could
simply turn to such devices as overtones in searching for possible meaning or references
of the problematic name. The word could evoke a well-known story or a similar word
elsewhere in the Bible (Ackroyd 1968:3). Ackroyd (1968:3) points out that late rabbinic
discussion often seemed to centre upon the minutiae of the text. Thus, lists were made (as
in the example of the Masoretic Text) of the occurrences of the same form of a word, and
marginal notes added containing information of unusual forms of words
20
. In view of
such possibilities, we have reason to believe that P translators could have made wide
references both within the Bible and from extra biblical sources in an attempt to secure
the meaning of the problematic epithet (El) Shaddai.
4.1 Etymological cases likely to have affected the translators
To determine the magnitude of the problem which the translators faced when they
decided to solve the epithet etymologically and their reaction to it, we have to attempt a
reconstruction of all the possible etymological references which these translators were
likely to have made. Such an attempt is certainly huge and somewhat subjective, but
probable cases can be concluded from finding what modern etymology has made of the
divine epithet and what information (of present day theories) was likely to be available to
the translators. Inevitably, the cases presented in this study will not be exhaustive but it is
20
cf. Weitzman, 1999: 42f. See also Tov (1999: 216 f.) who identifies reliance on etymology as a known
procedure for translators especially when they are faced with difficult words.
8
intended here to create a picture of the kind of challenge with which the translators were
faced in rendering the epithet.
We may first consider the etymology which some Peshitta translators seem to have in fact
accepted. Cooke (1936:115) says that the Jews (or Rabbis) came up with an impossible
(historical) etymology explaining the Hebrew epithet Shaddai as a compound, ‘(he) who
is sufficient, ὁ ἱκανὸς in the Greek, and in P. The epithet in this case is
understood to be a compound of the relative particle v and the adjective yd (Hamilton,
1990:463). As far as we are aware, the Hebrew Bible does not give a hint which may lead
to such a rendition of the epithet
21
. Perhaps (which means ‘strong one, mighty one’)
was for P translators, also another way of rendering the epithet following rabbinical
etymology.
There is also a possibility that names of foreign deities known from Israelite history came
to the mind of the translators in the process of their historical etymological enquiries.
Reference could thus have been made to an Amorite deity referred to as ‘the lord of the
mountain’ (Mettinger 1988:70-71; Albright 1968:94). Hamilton (1990:463) points out
that there has been an attempt recently, to link El Shaddai with bel sade, the most
common title given to the god Amurru in early Babylonian texts. As this last reference
indicates, much of modern scholarship encounters these deities through reference to
mostly non Israelite or non Jewish texts. In this case, it is quite unlikely that the second
century BC Peshitta translators could access such literature. It is also doubtful whether
oral tradition available to the translators could have provided such information. Thus
etymologizing following this route is much less likely to have occurred.
Semantic etymologizing was probably the most effective tool used by the translators.
Such a method of etymologizing could have led the translators to the Hebrew word, dv
(breast) and other associated nuances such as reference to a mound, mountain, hill and so
on
22
. Meanwhile, Cooke (1936:115) is confident that the etymology of the epithet
Shaddai is linked to the Hebrew root shadd (ddv) meaning to ‘destroy’ or ‘overpower’.
21
Weitzman (1999:51) also attributes it to the rabbinic interpreters.
22
Albright (1935: 184)
9
He explains that the meaning of the epithet may have gradually developed from this verb
root to mean ‘Almighty’
23
.
The account of Balaam in Numbers 22-24 is certain to have been another reference made
by the translators in their quest to solve the meaning of Shaddai. Balaam’s claims to
prophecy in the Bible by Yahweh, El, Elyon, Shaddai and perhaps also Elohim makes him
quite familiar with the names of the God of Israel. But Balaam’s subsequent inciting of
the Israelites to participate in the Baal-Peor incident, links him to child sacrifice
24
and
casts a question on his background (Hackett 1980:88). Hackett (1980:89) postulates
further that Balaam’s gods are the sdyn (or sdym). Except for Yahweh, all the other divine
names used by Balaam in Numbers 22-24 account; El, Elohim, Elyon and Shaddai could
be etymologically traced to the names of ‘other gods elsewhere’
25
. The translators, if they
were aware of such foreign deities, probably battled to avoid a possible confusion of
Shaddai, the God of Israel, with the deities of the Moabites or other pagan deities found
in the vicinity of Israel as suggested in discoveries mentioned above. Even if these
translators may not have had all the information about most foreign deities mentioned
here, as little information as the events surrounding Balaam and probably an oral history
of his worship system could have produced enough uncertainty in employing the
translation of the epithet. In the end, P translators might have chosen to represent the
divine epithet exegetically. The theological exegesis was simple: this Shaddai could be
none other than the God of Israel and thus their rendering of the epithet by
26
.
Interestingly, Numbers 24 verses 4 and 16 (featuring the Balaam oracles) are the only
two instances where the epithet is simply rendered by
27
in P Pentateuch.
Semantic etymologizing could also have touched on the sdym, identified above as ‘gods
of foreigners’ in Israel, and which in Jewish tradition later developed the meaning of
‘demons’ (sedim). This meaning would eventually become established during the
rabbinical times (Hacket 1980:88). Etymologizing brought up questions whether ‘shed’
23
See Hamilton, (1990:462ff)
24
See Psalm 106
25
At least from what scholars have etymologically shown possible (cf. Hacket 1980: 88f.)
26
This was probably buoyed by the parallelism in poetic texts found in Numbers and Job.
27
Peshitta Institute Leiden, Leviticus – Numbers – Deuteronomy – Joshua
10
(demon) was not related to ‘Shaddai’. This direction of etymologizing is quite likely
considering that during the rabbinic times demonology, like angelogy, assumed
considerable importance in aggadic and general Jewish folklore (ODJR 1997:197).
During the period of the translation of P
28
, the epithet Shaddai could be linked with
demonism and mysticism in more indirect ways of etymologizing. According to Wolfson
(1987:77), drawing upon midrashic writings mostly by thirteenth century writers, the
divine epithet has been linked to circumcision in Jewish mystical beliefs. These writings
have revealed that at the time of Jewish circumcision, the name Shaddai is inscribed upon
the male infant’s body. By virtue of its function as a protective name in these mystical
beliefs, Shaddai was connected with specific rituals, like tefillin and mezuzah, thereby
infusing the religious object with magical significance
29
. P translators, in their renderings
probably sought to avoid linking the name of God to such mystical beliefs common in
their day. This last case represents a rather uncommon way of etymologizing, where the
problematic word occurring in one context (that is the conservative Jewish religious
context) is compared to the same word used however in a slightly different context (that
of Jewish mystical belief). Etymology is made possible by the fact that in both contexts
the problematic word refers to the same object, the God of the Jews (although its use or
understanding is different).
In view of the cases of etymological references just discussed here, it is interesting to
note that there is no exact transliteration of the Hebrew short form ydv
30
in the whole
Peshitta Old Testament
31
, although this form of the epithet is tolerated 41 times in the
Hebrew Bible. Thus by avoiding such a transliteration, the translators were eliminating
from their renderings any suggestions, overtones or unintended references to any such
roots and references derived by etymology as discussed above. The probability that the
translators were aware of especially the semantically derived etymologies is quite high,
28
Around 200 AD (Brock 2006:109)
29
The divine epithet Shaddai in this case was conceived of as possessing a special potency to ward off evil
and demonic beings (Wolfson 1987:81, 82).
30
As opposed to the fuller rendering ‘El Shaddai’
31
So far as textual study in this presentation and reference to other sources have proved
11
given that such was the more common type of etymologizing in the rabbinic tradition,
and thus in the time of the translation of P.
For a group of Jewish translators who intended to give a proper translation of the epithet,
an encounter with such possibilities of meanings could have been frustrating, probably
leading to a quest for other ways of representing the Hebrew enigmatic term. At many
places, the discovered etymologies were rejected, probably because they did not conform
to the translators’ theological conceptions, especially as touching appropriate names of
God
32
. Thus etymologizing affected the rendering of the divine epithet (El) Shaddai
mostly in an indirect way, by forcing the translators to adopt other means of representing
the epithet, such as following the Greek Text, or transliteration or exegetical renditions.
But cases such as at Ruth 1:21 may be evidence that the translator’s enquiries touched on
and even benefited from rabbinic thought.
5. CONCLUSION
Barr (1968:266) has noted that many passages and individual words which are difficult
for us today were also difficult for the ancient translators. Faced with such difficulty,
translators had to make what they could out of the context (including the socio-historical
context) and out of such indications as the text had to offer. These indications included
etymology and similarities to other words, especially to words which were more familiar.
Their procedure was not entirely different from that of the modern philological
interpreter. As a consequence of this study, I would suggest that the field from which
such ‘etymologies’ were drawn material in midrashic and talmudic sources, the aggadah,
and related practices of Jewish sub-groups in their society. Cook (1988:168), focusing on
P Pentateuch, says that P translator(s) made reference to various exegetical writings in
order to clarify or avoid problems in the Hebrew text. The various forms of renderings
used for the epithet (El) Shaddai; transliteration, translation and exegetical rendering,
have proved that the translators faced a problem in the representation of the epithet,
especially given the fact that the translators were expected to translate the epithet.
32
See Weitzman (1999:29) who referrers especially to P translators’ tendency to reject figures of speech
which represent God as an inanimate object. The epithet ‘rock’ becomes ‘helper’, or ‘trust’ or simply
‘God’, which are all elements of theological exegesis.
12
Focusing on the exegetical renderings in particular, we have discovered that these could
have been a direct result of the parallelism of the Hebrew text which the translators used.
A second possibility is that some translators were directly influenced by the Greek Text at
problematic sections. A third possibility is that the exegetical renderings originated with
the translators, after their own careful enquiry to find clues of the meaning of the epithet
etymologically had failed. It is apparent here that there is a tenuous line separating the
last two possibilities provided we realize that, in either of these ways, an element of
exegesis on the part of P translators should have been involved
33
.
Concerning P itself, this opens up research into possible areas of reference to which the
translators might have made when faced with difficulties in translating divine names and
epithets, as we see especially that the scope of etymologizing could have been broader
than previously judged. It confirms to us that the translators did grapple with terms and
names in the text, trying to understand the Hebrew source so that they could present an
understandable translation. This study may also strengthen the understanding that some
Peshitta Old Testament translators were tasked to translate whole books, with little
consultations of the work in other books
34
as the evidence in Job may reveal.
33
Even referring to the LXX would have meant agreeing with the exegetical rendition employed by the
LXX translator!
34
Weitzman (1999: 203ff.).
13
APPENDIX: TEXTUAL DATA
Table showing the occurrence of the epithet (El) Shaddai in the BHS and corresponding
renderings in the Peshitta and the LXX
Reference
Hebrew (MT) Text
Peshitta (P) Text
Greek Text (LXX)
Gen 17:1
ydv la
o` qeo,j sou
Gen 28:3
ydv la
ὁ θεός μου
Gen 35:11
ydv la
o` qeo,j sou
Gen 43:14
ydv la
o`…… qeo,j mou
Gen 48:3
ydv la
o` qeo,j mou
Gen 49:25
ydv
o` qeo.j o` evmo.j
Exo 6:3
ydv la
qeo.j
Num 24:4
ydv
qeou/ (qeo.j)
Num 24:16
ydv
qeou/ (qeo.j)
Ruth 1:20
ydv
or
o` i`kano.j
Ruth 1:21
יד
i
o` i`kano.j
Job 5:17
יד
ii
pantokra,toroj
14
Job 6:14
ydv
iii
kuri,ou
Job 8:3
ydv
ta. pa,nta poih,saj
Job 8:5
ydv
ku,rion
pantokra,tora
Job 11:7
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 13:3
ydv
ku,rion
Job 15:25
ydv
kuri,ou
pantokra,toroj
Job 21:15
ydv
i`kano,j
Job 21:20
ydv
kuri,ou
Job 22:3
ydv
Text uncertain, no form
of shaddai
tw/| kuri,w|
Job 22:17
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 22:23
ydv
kuri,ou
Job 22:25
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 22:26
ydv
Text with Shaddai
omitted here.
kuri,ou
Job 23:16
ydv
Shaddai omitted.
o` …pantokra,twr
Job 24:1
ydv
ku,rion
Job 27:2
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 27:10
ydv
? (probably omitted)
Job 27:11
ydv
pronoun used instead of
translation of Shaddai
pantokra,tori
Job 27:13
ydv
pantokra,toroj
15
Job 29:5
ydv
u`lw,dhj li,an?
Job 31:2
ydv
i`kanou/
Job 31:35
ydv
kuri,ou
Job 32:8
ydv
pantokra,toroj
Job 33:4
ydv
pantokra,toroj
Job 34:10
ydv
Shaddai referred to by
pronoun.
pantokra,toroj
Job 34:12
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 35:13
ydv
o` pantokra,twr
Job 37:23
ydv
refer to 37:22, see
LXXiv
see Job 37:22
Job 40:2
ydv
i`kano,j
Psa 68:14
ydv
?v
o.n evpoura,nion
Psa 91:1
ydv
?
tou/ qeou/ tou/
ouvranou/
Isa 13:6
ydv
vi
tou/ qeou/
Eze 1:24
ydv
text omitted
Eze 10:5
ydv la
qeou/ Saddai
Joe 1:15
ydv
?
alaipwri,aj
16
Table showing overall statistical analysis
Tally of
different
variants
Variant forms in the
Peshitta
Total number of
appearances for each
variant
1
18
2
11
3
2
4
5
5
1
5
0
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
pronoun used
1
10
omissions
4
11
places where no data
was available
3
TOTAL NO. OF
CASES
48
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackroyd, P.R. 1968. Words and meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Albright, W.F. 1968. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: a historical analysis of two
contrasting faiths. University of London: The Athlone Press.
Barr, J. 1968. Comparative Philology and the text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brock, S. 2006. The Bible in the Syriac tradition. New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
Bronkhorst, J. 2001. Etymology and magic: Y’aska’s Nirukta, Plato’s Cratylus, and the
riddle of semantic etymologies. Numen, Vol. 48, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Cook, J. 1988. The Composition of the Peshitta Version of the Old Testament
(Pentateuch) in Dirksen & Mulder 1988:147-168.
Dirksen, P.B. & Mulder, M.J., eds. 1988. The Peshitta: its early text and history. Papers
read at the Peshitta Symposuim held at Leiden 30-31 August 1985. Leiden, NY: Brill.
p.147-168.
Cooke, G.A. 1936. A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Ezekiel.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
De Lagarde, P. 1892. Bibliothecae Syriacae. Gottingae.
Greenberg, G. 2002. Translation technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah. Leiden: Brill.
Hackett, J.A. 1980. The Balaam Text of Deir ‘Alla. California: Scholars Press.
Hamilton, V.P. 1990. The book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB
Eerdmans.
Mettinger, T.N.D. 1988. In search of God: The meaning and message of the everlasting
names. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
ODJR (Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion). 1997. Demons. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Talshir, Z. 1987. The representation of the divine epithet Tsebaoth in the Septuagint and
the accepted division of the books of Kingdoms. The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXVIII,
(1-2):57-75, July-October.
THE PESHITTA INSTITUTE LEIDEN. 1977. The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version: Genesis-Exodus. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
18
THE PESHITTA INSTITUTE LEIDEN. 1982. The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version: Job. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
THE PESHITTA INSTITUTE LEIDEN. 1985. The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version: Ezekiel. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
THE PESHITTA INSTITUTE LEIDEN. 1987. The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version: Isaiah. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
THE PESHITTA INSTITUTE LEIDEN. 1991. The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version: Leviticus – Numbers – Deuteronomy – Joshua. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Tov, E. 1999. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: collected essays on the Septuagint. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
Weitzman, M.P. 1999. The Syriac version of the Old Testament: an introduction.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Wolfson, E. 1987. Circumcision and the Divine Name: a Study in the Transmission of the
Esoteric Doctrine. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXVII (1-2): 77-112, July–
October.
ABREVIATIONS
LXX - The Septuagint
KJV - King James Version
MT - Masoretic Text
P - The Peshitta Text
Godwin Mushayabasa
School of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages
North-West University (Potchefstroom)
Private Bag X6001
Potchefstroom
2520
i
According to Weitzman (1999:51), the edition of De Largade (1892) has the text from the Syrohexapla,
thus the form , he who is the sufficient one, see also LXX.
ii
The strong, mighty or powerful one.
iii
Heavenly, supreme.
iv
The LXX uses a the title παντοκράτορος in 37:22 to translate the difficult Hebrew terms there, a Greek
word which is otherwise used for the epithet Shaddai. Interestingly enough, the Syriac also employs its
equivalent of the epithet of Shaddai, that is . Consequently, since the LXX in the next verse 23
19
omitted the translation of Shaddai appearing in the Hebrew text, the Syriac also omitted it, which may be a
clear example of influence at this point.
v
Where this sign is displayed, relevant Peshitta texts could not be accessed.
vi
The meaning of this word is problematic and may be a corrupted form of the word employed in the
rendering of the epithet at Job 6:14.
