Introduction: The Value of Syriac Witnesses in New Testament Textual Criticism

The Syriac New Testament manuscripts constitute a rich and essential witness to the textual history of the New Testament. These versions, beginning with the Old Syriac Gospels (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus [syS] and Codex Curetonianus [syC]) and continuing through the Peshitta, Philoxenian, and Harklean versions, offer unique insights into the early transmission of the Apostolic Writings. Their value is not limited to mere translation history; they preserve ancient textual traditions, reflect early exegesis, and display theological concerns of their respective communities.

Unlike the Greek manuscripts, the Syriac versions developed within a Semitic linguistic environment, sharing many features with the original Hebrew-Aramaic background of the New Testament milieu. Thus, they provide crucial supplemental testimony for reconstructing the original text of the New Testament, particularly when weighed alongside early Alexandrian papyri and uncials. In this article, we focus specifically on the Syriac transmission of the Apostolos—comprising Acts and the Pauline corpus—with a detailed textual analysis of two exemplary verses: 1 Corinthians 1:27 and Hebrews 5:7. These samples trace the development from the hypothetical Old Syriac text through the Peshitta, and on to the later Philoxenian and Harklean revisions.

Patristic Evidence and the Old Syriac Apostolos

1 Corinthians 1:27 in Early Syriac Writers

Several early fourth-century Syriac authors—Mar Ephrem, Aphrahat, and the author of the Liber Graduum—quote 1 Corinthians 1:27 with a peculiar addition: the phrase “by them” (ܒܗܘܢ). This instrumental phrase does not exist in the Greek Vorlage but appears in these patristic citations, suggesting it was present in their Syriac text.

In the commentary of Ephrem of Nisibis on the Diatessaron, the verse is rendered as:

“God chose the foolish of the world to shame by them the wise.”

This construction is mirrored in the Armenian version of Ephrem’s Pauline commentary and again in Aphrahat’s Demonstration 14:29, where the exact form is found. Aphrahat preserves a full four-part parallelism consistent with the Greek, and all parts use the instrumental ܒܗܘܢ. The Liber Graduum further confirms this, though it uses a different word—ܗܕܝܘܵܛܐ (“idiots”)—instead of ܣܟܠܘܗܝ (“fools”).

This suggests that an early Syriac version of the Pauline epistles circulated independently from the later Peshitta. Though no manuscript has survived, the consistency among these patristic citations supports the reconstruction of an Old Syriac Apostolos. Based on the patristic evidence, a tentative reconstruction might read:

ܓܒܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܣܟܵܠܘܗܝ ܕܥܠܡܐ
ܕܢܒܗܬ ܒܗܘܢ ܠܚܟܵܝܡܐ
ܘܓܒܐ ܟܖܵܝܗܐ
ܕܢܒܗܬ ܒܗܘܢ ܠܚܝܵܠܬܢܐ

The phrase “by them” (ܒܗܘܢ) functions theologically to underscore God’s use of the weak and foolish as instruments to confound the wise and strong. The term ܗܕܝܘܵܛܐ (“idiots”) in the Liber Graduum may reflect an even earlier stratum, with roots in Acts 4:13, where the apostles are described as “uneducated” (ἀγράμματοι).

This textual form of 1 Corinthians 1:27, free and idiomatic, reflects a Syriac translator engaging dynamically with the Greek, prioritizing clarity and contextual interpretation over slavish literalism.

Hebrews 5:7 and the Evolution of Christological Exegesis

In Hebrews 5:7, the differences between the Greek and Syriac versions become particularly instructive. The Greek reads:

“Who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to the one able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverent submission.”

The Peshitta differs notably:
ܐܦ ܟܕ ܒܣܪܐ ܠܒܝܫ ܗܘܐ
…“even when he was clothed in flesh…”

This expression, “clothed in flesh,” is a Syriac idiom not found in the Greek, which reads literally “in the days of His flesh.” This idiomatic rendering introduces theological nuances and possibly reflects a concern to emphasize the incarnation in a way the Greek does not. Interestingly, the term used for “flesh” in the Peshitta is ܒܣܪܐ, while earlier Syriac usage, such as Aphrahat’s, may have used ܦܓܪܐ (“body”), indicating an evolution in translation practices possibly influenced by later theological developments.

The Liber Graduum provides another intriguing reference, albeit more paraphrastic. It speaks of Christ offering supplication “with strong shouting and many tears,” using a plural form of “tears” and emphasizing the intensity of the experience. While not a direct quotation, this could reflect an underlying Old Syriac rendering that was freer, more expressive, and less constrained by the syntax of the Greek.

The Peshitta: A Conservative Recension of the Old Syriac

The Peshitta emerged as the standard Syriac version by the early fifth century. For the Apostolos, it reflects a relatively conservative recension of the presumed Old Syriac version. Though slightly more literal and harmonized with the Greek, it retains many Semitic idioms and does not strictly conform to the Greek word order.

In 1 Corinthians 1:27, the Peshitta reads:

ܐܠܐ ܓܒܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܣܟܠܿܘܗܝ ܕܥܠܡܐ
ܕܢܒܗܬ ܠܚܟܵܝܡܐ
ܘܓܒܐ ܟܖܵܝܗܘܗܝ ܕܥܠܡܐ
ܕܢܒܗܬ ܠܚܝܵܠܬܢܐ

Notably, it lacks ܒܗܘܢ (“by them”), the instrumental phrase present in the patristic quotations. However, in an early manuscript (B.M. Add. 14,480, ca. 600 C.E.), the addition ܒܗܘܢ appears again in line two. This shows that even within the Peshitta tradition, earlier Old Syriac readings continued to influence scribes.

In Hebrews 5:7, the Peshitta diverges from the Greek in key ways, notably the expression “clad with flesh” and other idiomatic renderings. Such readings, while understandable, lack the precision required to preserve doctrinal clarity—especially regarding the humanity and suffering of Christ.

The Philoxenian Version: Toward a Theologically Precise Text

Philoxenus of Mabbug initiated a new Syriac translation in 507 C.E., executed by his chorepiscopus Polycarp. The goal was to correct what he viewed as theological errors or ambiguities in the Peshitta, particularly in light of Christological controversies.

In Hebrews 5:7, the Philoxenian version returns to the Greek word order and lexicon:

ܗܘ ܕܒܝܘܡܬܵܐ ܕܒܣܪܗ
… “He who in the days of His flesh…”

It restores the Greek ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις and avoids interpretive paraphrasing. It also uses ܩܥܬܐ for κραυγή, demonstrating a concern for lexical accuracy. Though this rendering is only extant as a quotation, it aligns more closely with the Alexandrian Greek text, underscoring the Philoxenian version’s greater fidelity to the Greek.

The Harklean Version: Extreme Literalism in the Service of Orthodoxy

Thomas of Harkel’s revision (ca. 616 C.E.) is based on the Philoxenian but pushes the translation philosophy further, seeking a near-interlinear representation of the Greek. It was produced from Greek MSS with marginal readings and often includes textual variants.

In 1 Corinthians 1:27, the Harklean version maintains Greek word order:

ܐܠܐ ܠܣܵܟܠܐ ܕܥܠܡܐ
ܓܒܐ ܐܠܗܐ
ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܒܗܬ ܠܚܟܵܝܡܐ

Here the phrase ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕ replaces the earlier ܕ, making the ἵνα clause explicit. Such hyper-literalism occasionally results in awkward Syriac, but it secures theological and grammatical clarity, particularly in passages of doctrinal significance.

In Hebrews 5:7, the Harklean version adds ܕܝܠܗ (for αὐτοῦ), shifts to ܥܡ (for μετά), and introduces verbs like ܢܫܘܙܒܝܘܗܝ to more closely reflect σῴσειν. These are not improvements in style, but they represent a tighter alignment with the Greek Vorlage, consistent with Alexandrian textual priorities.

Conclusion: Syriac Witnesses and Their Textual Contribution

The Syriac New Testament manuscripts, though often neglected in critical apparatuses that favor Greek uncials and papyri, offer a layered witness to the early textual transmission of the Apostolos. The Old Syriac version, though lost in manuscript form, is preserved in patristic writings and reveals a dynamic, idiomatic translation strategy. The Peshitta stands as a formal recension, retaining much of its predecessor’s character while adjusting specific phrases for theological clarity. The Philoxenian and Harklean versions pursued increasing literalism, reflecting Alexandrian textual readings and heightened theological sensitivity.

The textual variants in 1 Corinthians 1:27 and Hebrews 5:7 demonstrate how doctrinal concerns, linguistic idioms, and exegetical traditions influenced each phase of translation. They confirm that the Syriac tradition, though secondary in language, is primary in historical significance. From an evangelical textual criticism standpoint, these versions confirm the essential stability of the New Testament text across linguistic boundaries and theological contexts.

You May Also Enjoy

“Did God Really Say?”: The Reliability of the Biblical Text

About the Author