The Journal of Ecclesiastical

History
http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH

Additional services for The

Journal of
Ecclesiastical History:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Immanuel Tremellius' 1569 Edition of the Syriac

New Testament

ROBERT J. WILKINSON

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 58 / Issue 01 / January 2007, pp 9 - 25

DOI: 10.1017/S0022046906008980, Published online: 22 January 2007

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022046906008980

How to cite this article:

ROBERT J. WILKINSON (2007). Immanuel Tremellius' 1569 Edition of the Syriac
New Testament. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 58, pp 9-25 doi:10.1017/
S0022046906008980

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 22 Apr 2015

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 58, No. 1, January 2007. f 2007 Cambridge University Press 9
doi:10.1017/S0022046906008980 Printed in the United Kingdom

Immanuel Tremellius’ 1569 Edition

of the Syriac New Testament
by ROBERT J. WILKINSON

Tremellius’ 1569 edition of the Syriac New Testament was a quite distinctive product of Heidelberg
oriental scholarship, very different from other sixteenth-century editions produced by Catholic scholars.
Tremellius produced his edition by first reconstructing an historical grammar of Aramaic and then, in the
light of this, vocalising the text of Vat. sir. 16 which he took to be more ancient than that of
Widmanstetter’s editio princeps. Thus in this way he sought to construct the earliest recoverable
linguistic and textual form of the Peshitta. The anonymous Specularius dialogus of 1581 is here used
for the first time to corroborate this assessment of Tremellius’ achievement and to cast light on the
confessional polemics his edition provoked.

A recent study of Tremellius has brought to light additional docu-

mentary evidence for his life and has provided a new and serviceable
account of this interesting sixteenth-century biblical scholar who con-
verted successively from Judaism to Catholicism and then to the Reformed
Faith.1 At the same time new work on early printed editions of the Syriac
New Testament has cleared the way for a just appreciation of Tremellius’
achievement in both philology and textual criticism as an editor of the
Peshitta.2 Such an account seems timely in the light of growing scholarly
interest in the production of Renaissance Bibles and sixteenth-century

I should like to thank Dr Trevor Johnson and Dr Sebastian Brock who both commented most
helpfully on previous drafts of this article.
1
K. Austin, ‘From Judaism to Calvinism: the life and writings of Immanuel Tremellius ’,
unpubl. PhD diss. St Andrews 2003.
2
Robert J. Wilkinson, ‘The origin of Syriac studies in the sixteenth century ’, unpubl. PhD
diss. University of the West of England 2004. This work contains both extensive justification of
the broader perspectives assumed in this article and more detailed presentation of specific
points. It should be consulted particularly for evidence for the kabbalistic inspiration of early
Catholic Syriac studies. I have refrained from extensive citation below. The Peshitta is the
Syriac ‘ vulgate ’ version of the Bible. For initial orientation see B. M. Metzger, The early versions
of the New Testament, Oxford 1977, 48–63.
10 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
biblical exposition.3 To the extent that aspects of the Reformation are
understood as the product of a revolution in bible-reading understanding of
them will be enhanced by a technical textual and philological appraisal
of sixteenth-century biblical scholarship, and particularly one that extends to
the study of the relevant Semitic languages. In this latter respect a study of
Tremellius provides an opportunity to indicate the relevance of Syriac studies
to students of early modern intellectual history.4
This article describes the context of Tremellius’ work within the oriental
studies characteristic of sixteenth-century Heidelberg. This scholarly tradition
was very much of Tremellius’ own making and was determined by the
specific holdings of the Elector Palatine’s library. Thereafter Tremellius’
New Testament edition will be examined in some detail. Making full use for
the first time of the Specularius dialogus (1581), not implausibly attributed to
Franciscus Junius the Elder (du Jon) (1545–1602), his pupil, collaborator and
successor, a clear picture of just what Tremellius himself thought he was
doing will be outlined. It will then be possible to offer a technical evaluation
of Tremellius’ achievement.
Tremellius was born to Jewish parents in Ferrara but was converted at
Viterbo by Reginald Pole and baptised in 1540. He came into contact with
Italian evangelicals and was persuaded by them. In 1541 he went, at the
request of Peter Martyr Vermigli, to teach Hebrew at the Cloister School in
Lucca. In 1542 he fled from the inquisition to Strasbourg where he taught
with Vermigli. Tremellius came to England at the invitation of Archbishop
Cranmer, worked on the Book of Common Prayer and was in 1549
appointed to the chair of Hebrew at Cambridge. He fled from Mary Tudor
in 1553. He went back to Strasbourg, then to Geneva and arrived in
Heidelberg in 1561, where he produced the majority of his writings, including
his Bibles. Tremellius left Heidelberg with other professors after Frederick III’s
death. In 1577 he was deprived of his post by Ludwig VI, who sought to
enforce Lutheranism in the Rhineland Palatinate. He went to Metz and then
on to become Professor of Hebrew at Sedan where he died in 1580.5

3
This is exemplified by the programmatically titled K. van Kampen and P. Saenger (eds),
The Bible as a book : the first printed editions, London 1999. On biblical interpretation see also
D. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the sixteenth century, Durham 1996 ; R. A. Muller and
J. L. Thompson (eds), Biblical interpretation in the era of the Reformation, Grand Rapids 1996; and
R. Griffiths (ed.), The Bible in the Renaissance, Aldershot 2001.
4
For aspects of the Reformation as a revolution in bible reading see A. McGrath, The
intellectual origins of the European Reformation, Oxford 1987, 152–74. For the case of Luther see
B. Moeller, ‘Scripture, tradition and sacrament in the Middle Ages and Luther ’, in F. F.
Bruce and E. G. Rupp (eds), Holy book and holy tradition, Manchester 1988, 113–15, 128.
5
Austin, ‘From Judaism to Calvinism ’, should now be consulted for details of Tremellius’
life. His work supersedes W. Becker, Immanuel Tremellius : ein Proselytenleben in Zeitalter der
Reformation, Leipzig 1891.
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
11
Tremellius was not the first western editor of the Syriac New Testament. He
had in his hands J. A. Widmanstetter’s splendid editio princeps of 1555, with its
accurate text and most felicitous font.6 This edition was the result of a unique
collaboration between a native Syriac-speaking scribe, Moses of Mardin,
who had been sent to Rome by his patriarch to obtain printed Syriac gospel
books, and two western scholars both of whom had some previous involve-
ment with Syriac and who together (along with Andreas Masius) represented
practically the only humanist scholars at the time capable of reading Syriac.
These were Widmanstetter himself and Guillaume Postel. To appreciate the
achievement of these scholars, but also, most important, to appreciate the
contrast between their work and that of Tremellius, it will be helpful for a
moment to consider the origins of Syriac studies in Europe.7
Effective contact between native Syriac speakers and western scholars began
with the arrival of the Maronite delegation to the Fifth Lateran Council
(1513–15). Through his contact with the delegation Teseo Ambrogio
(1469–1540) became the first western scholar to acquire any significant
knowledge of Syriac. Teseo’s reception of the language and his understanding
of its significance were determined by the perspective of the great oriental
scholar and cardinal at the council, Egidio da Viterbo. Egidio was a Christian
kabbalist and his book Libellus de litteris sanctis (1517)8 shaped in turn Teseo’s
own presentation of Syriac in his Introductio ad Chaldaicam linguam (1539).9 Thus

6
Johann Albert Widmanstetter, Liber sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo Domino et Deo nostro etc.
characteribus et lingua syra, Vienna 1555.
7
The best introductory account of Syriac studies to date is S. P. Brock, ‘The development
of Syriac studies ’, in K. J. Cathcart (ed.), The Edward Hincks bicentenary lectures, Dublin 1994,
94–113. W. Strothmann, Die Anfänge der syrischen Studien in Europa, Wiesbaden 1971, is not much
more than a list of editions with descriptions of their immediate circumstances. Its
reproductions of book pages are quite outstandingly poor. A. van Roey, Les Études syriaques de
1538 à 1658, Louvain 1988, is essentially an exhibition catalogue. Earlier accounts specifically
of printed Syriac New Testaments are anon, ‘The printed editions of the Syriac New
Testament ’, Church Quarterly Review lii (1888), 257–94; Alfred Durand, ‘ Les Éditions imprimées
du Nouveau Testament syriaque ’, Recherches de science religieuse xi (1921), 385–409 ; and E. Nestle,
‘Literatura syriaca ’, in Syriac grammar with bibliography, chrestomathy and glossary, Berlin 1889, 1–39.
R. Contini, ‘Gli inizi della linguistica siriaca nell’Europa rinascimentale ’, Rivista degli studi
orientali lxviii (1994), 15–30, discusses early Syriac studies from the perspective of modern
linguistics. J. Perles, Beiträge zur Geschichte der hebräischen und aramäischen Studien, Munich 1884, is
an important source of relevant observations. Bibliographically, R. Smitskamp, Philologia
orientalia : a description of books illustrating the study and printing of oriental languages in Europe, Leiden
1976–92, despite being a sale catalogue, is a most helpful work in the area of typography, and
written by a master. There is also, of course, Cyril Moss, Catalogue of Syriac printed books and
related literature in the British Museum, London 1962. Wilkinson, ‘Origin of Syriac studies ’, now
supersedes all these for the early sixteenth century.
8
F. Secret (ed.), Egidio da Viterbo : scechina e libellus de litteris hebraicis, Rome 1959.
9
The full title is revealing : Introductio in chaldaicam linguam, syriacam, atque armenicam, et decem
alias linguas : characterum differentium alphabeta, circiter quadraginta, et eorundem invicem conformatio,
mystica et cabalistica quamplurima scitu digna : et descriptio ac simulachrum Phagoti Afranii : Theseo
12 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
were established right at the beginning of Syriac studies in the west two
characteristics of Catholic Syriac scholarship that did not hold for Tremellius.
The first was contact with native Syriac-speaking monks and scribes, drawn
generally for reasons of church politics to the chair of St Peter. Such contacts
were not frequent, but they did bring first-hand knowledge of the language
(its phonology, idioms and distinctive lexical items) and provided copies of
manuscripts for the few interested patrons and scholars. The second and con-
sistent characteristic of Catholic Syriac studies until the foundation in 1584 of
a native tradition of Syriac scholarship at the Maronite College in Rome was
its kabbalistic inspiration derived initially from Egidio da Viterbo. Syriac,
which was considered to be the language of Christ and his mother (and thus
carrying particularly holy and rich significance), was thought to be susceptible
to the same mystical linguistic operations that kabbalists performed on the text
of the Hebrew Bible. Its proper names in particular held hidden meanings,
but so too did even the shape of the letters. I have demonstrated this
exhaustively elsewhere in the case of the editio princeps. The same kabbalistic
interests, however, can be detected behind the edition of the Syriac New
Testament in the Antwerp Polyglot and behind the 1584 Paris edition, both
by Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie.10 Tremellius’ situation was quite different : he
had no contact whatsoever with native Syriac speakers, and had never heard
Syriac spoken. He had no living experience of such Syriac lexical items as
differed from earlier Aramaic. He had no contacts with Catholic scholars
other than his possession of the editio princeps, and no interest at all in
Kabbalah.
Widmanstetter’s dedicatio to the 1555 editio princeps has long been a valued
source of information to historians writing on the early history of oriental
studies in the west. It tells how in 1529 Widmanstetter met the elderly Teseo
Ambrogio who had by then devoted fifteen years of his life to the study of
Syriac and was looking for someone to take over the sacred task of producing
a printed New Testament. Widmanstetter took up the charge and from here
on the story of Syriac studies, as Widmanstetter tells it, is Widmanstetter’s
own story. It concludes with Widmanstetter’s providential (divities) meeting
with Moses of Mardin and the eventual production, with some assistance
from Postel, of the editio princeps in Vienna. Widmanstetter thus portrays

Ambrosio ex comitibus Albonesii I. V. Doct. Papieň. Canonico Regulari Lateranensi, ac Sancti Petri in coelo
Aureo Papiae praeposito, authore MDXXXIX : linguarum vero, & alphabetorum nomina sequens pagella
demonstrabit : Pavia excudebat J. M. Simoneta, sumptibus & typis auctoris libri.
10
See Wilkinson, ‘Origin of Syriac studies ’. Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie, djvjsa hdva
H KAINH DIAHHKH Novum Iesu Christi D. N. Testamentum. Ad Christianiss. Galliae et Poloniae
Regem Henricum III. Potentiß. & Invictiß. Principem, Christianae religionis Vindicem & Assertorem unicum,
appeared, according to the title page : Parisiis MDLXXXIIII apud Ioann. Bene natum, the
preface being dated Falaise 29 May 1583. The final page (812) has: Excudebat Steph Prevosteau,
Ioan. Bene nati sumptibus & labore. Parisiis, pridie kalend. Novembris, anno Domini MDLXXXIII.
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
13
himself as the man who with the publication of the 1555 edition brought
Teseo’s sacred commission to fulfilment. The dedicatio, however, is a piece of
Renaissance self-promotion ; excessive reliance upon its perspective has
distorted the early history of Syriac studies. Specifically it conceals the role of
Guillaume Postel, and the significance of his typographic expertise. Postel
was working on a Syriac Gospel as early as 1537, he wrote to Masius
recording progress in 1547 and he was still at work in 1549.11 All this
constitutes a prehistory to the editio princeps that has been previously
overlooked through reliance upon Widmanstetter’s dedicatio. Furthermore,
Postel had been in contact with Teseo Ambrogio, and had evidently learned
from him the secret of cutting Syriac moveable type. Thereafter Postel was
the sole repository of this skill (even Plantin consulted him on the subject),
and the felicity of the type of the editio princeps was a product of the unique
combination of Moses of Mardin’s scribal hand and Postel’s printing
skills. Not unreasonably one may ask why Tremellius, who had no Syriac
type at all, thought it appropriate to publish a new edition in Hebrew
characters only fourteen years after the appearance of the incomparable editio
princeps.
If Tremellius lacked any contact with eastern scribes, the nascent Catholic
tradition of Syriac scholarship as it was developing, or Postel’s typographic
expertise, he possessed in the Elector Palatine’s library a manuscript he
considered would justify his efforts. This manuscript had been brought back
from the east by Postel, but in 1554, when the impecunious Postel was
languishing in Pope Paul IV’s prison in Rome, he had been obliged to sell his
books. In Venice Johann Jakob Fugger acted as an intermediary for the
purchase by Pfalzgraf Ottheinrich of fifteen oriental manuscripts for 200
gulden. Thus Postel’s fifteen manuscripts became part of the Elector
Palatine’s library in Heidelberg.12 Their presence there between their arrival
in 1554 and their removal to Rome after the fall of Heidelberg on 15
September 1622 was the great stimulus for – and inevitably determined the
nature of – oriental studies in Heidelberg. One of the fifteen manuscripts was
Vat. sir. 16, the manuscript Tremellius used in his preparation of his printed
edition of the Syriac New Testament in 1569.
The fifteen all-important manuscripts were inventoried in Codex Palatino
Latino 1951 by Jakob Christmann (1554–1613), astronomer and orientalist,

11
See Wilkinson, ‘Origin of Syriac studies ’, 76.
12
The single best initial guide is the full German catalogue of the important exhibition of
the library’s books mounted by the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana and the University of
Heidelberg in the Heiliggeist Church in Heidelberg in 1986. An English translation of the
excellent introductory material with the same title is Bibliotheca palatina : a summary, Heidelberg
1986. Ottheinrich’s significant contribution to the growth of the library is discussed at pp.
35–6 ; Fugger is discussed at pp. 45–6 ; oriental manuscripts are discussed at pp. 23–4. Leonard
Boyle and Elmar Mittler (eds), Bibliographie zur Bibliotheca Palatina is available in a CD-ROM
edition, Munich 1998.
14 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
and a pupil of Junius, who was successively professor of Hebrew (from 1584)
and professor of Arabic (from 1609) at Heidelberg.13 There were seven
Arabic texts – some of them Christian, an Ethiopic Psalter and four Syriac
manuscripts. Christmann’s inventory note for Vat. sir. 16 both introduces
Tremellius’ work and signals the controversy to which it would give rise :
‘ Syriac New Testament (lacking Apocalypse) used by Immanuel Tremellius.
The holy lectionary passages for feast days are not marked here as they are in
the Vienna copy. It was because of this that Génébrard unfairly denounced
Tremellius’ translation as an attack on the Roman Church’.14
The severe limitations imposed upon Heidelberg scholars by their lack of
living contacts with the east and the absence of oriental fonts is apparent in
the work of those who followed in Tremellius’ footsteps. Though they had
adequate knowledge of biblical Hebrew, they were fundamentally ignorant
of the other relevant languages and were unable to print them except as
woodcuts. We may perhaps anticipate ourselves in considering Tremellius’
successors before turning to Tremellius himself. In this way his achievement
will stand in sharper relief.
Tremellius’ successor Franciscus Junius translated some of the Arabic
Bible from Postel’s collection (Vat. ar. 23).15 Not daring to print the text
because of the lack of characters and his own diffidence in Arabic, he offered
merely a translation of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles to the
Corinthians with a discussion of Arabic variants. As we will see, it may also
have been Junius who defended Tremellius’ Syriac edition of the New
Testament against Génébrard in 1581. Junius’ pupil Jakob Christmann, the
compiler of the inventory to Postel’s manuscripts, was Heidelberg’s first
professor of Arabic, but the extent of his knowledge of the language is
apparent from his woodcut Alphabeticum arabicum (1582). This is substantially
dependent (though without acknowledgement) upon Postel’s Grammatica

13
G. Levi della Vida, Ricerche sulle formazione del piu antico fondo dei manoscritti orientali della
Biblioteca Vaticana, Vatican City 1939, 290ff.
14
Novum Testamentum Syriace [Apocalypsis non adest]. Usus hoc Imm. Tremellius.
Distinctiones lectionum sacrarum dieb(us) festis, ut in exemplari Viennensi, heic non
habentur. Genebrardus immerito igitur calumniatur translationem Tremellii, quasi detraxerit
Romani [sic] Ecclesiae ’: Levi della Vida, Ricerche, 294. For a description see pp. 303–6. J. G.
Chr. Adler, Novi Testamenti versiones syriacae, Hafniae [Copenhagen] 1789, 20–3, gives an
illustration in table 3. J. S. Assemani, Bibl. Apost. Vat. Codicum manuscriptum catalogus, Rome 1758,
ii. 59–61, describes the manuscript as ‘Codex in fol. bombycinus ’ of 285 folios in an elegant
Nestorian script, lacking date and scribe’s name but attributed to the thirteenth century. The
manuscript is very clearly written, though staining has rendered illegible some text which has
been restored in a less than certain hand. A later hand has added the lections ‘iuxta ritum
Ecclesiae Syrorum’. Levi della Vida gives details of the Harclean variants and Arabic glosses
subsequently added. It is also of importance for what follows to appreciate that the manuscript
is not vocalised.
15
On Junius see F.-W. Cuno, Franciscus Junius der Ältere, Professor de Theologie und Pastor,
1545–60, Amsterdam 1891, Geneva 1971.
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
15
arabica (c. 1539–40). In 1585 he wrote to Scaliger describing work on an Arabic
edition of the Acts of the Apostles that he proposed to print, like Tremellius’
Syriac New Testament, in Hebrew script. Scaliger evidently dissuaded him.16
Ruthger Spey (dates unknown, though a minister in Schönau near Heidelberg
1575–85) was another pupil of Tremellius. He clearly came across one of the
Postel manuscripts (now Cod. Vat. ar. 23) for in 1583 he published part of the
Epistle to the Galatians from it (fos 7–108v): Epistula Pauli ad Galata, item sex
primaria capita Christianae religionis arabice. This was the first edition of an Arabic
text published in Germany. The letters are woodcut.

II

Oriental studies in Heidelberg were thus characterised by dependence upon

Postel’s manuscripts, lack of typographical expertise and lack of any contact
with native speakers who might instruct the scholars in the relevant
languages. In one significant respect, however, Tremellius stands out from
those who followed him: his philological acumen. As a result of his Jewish
education Tremellius enjoyed a thorough knowledge of Jewish Aramaic, a
dialect of Aramaic earlier than Syriac and found in rabbinic texts. Using both
the editio princeps of 1555 and Vat. sir. 16 as representatives of different stages
of the later dialect Syriac, and his profound knowledge of the earlier dialect,
he was able to construct a historical grammar of the development of Aramaic
upon which he based his understanding of Syriac. A grasp of this philological
enterprise of describing the historical changes in Aramaic is fundamental to
an understanding of Tremellius’ edition.
Tremellius’ Grammatica chaldaea et syra, which was bound with his New
Testament in 1569, is dedicated to Matthew Parker, recalling Cambridge
days together, and is dated 1 March 1568. Tremellius clearly felt the need to
defend himself against the charge of writing a grammar in part treating of a
barbaric language (for that is how he regarded the modern dialect of
Aramaic i.e. Syriac), yet he explained clearly in his dedication the linguistic
context of his work: Aramaic is descended from the holy Hebrew language; if
Aramaic and Syriac are said to be the same language, they must however be
clearly distinguished as dialects. This entirely accurate description explains
the purpose and contents of this substantial grammar. In contrast to
Widmanstetter’s Syriacae linguae … prima elementa (1556), effectively little more
than a guide to reading Syriac script, Tremellius offers nothing less than an
historical grammar of Aramaic.17 The whole of the language is described
with vocalised paradigms after the model of the great Hebrew grammarians,

16
See Levi della Vida, Ricerche, 330.
17
Johann Albert Widmanstetter, Syriacae linguae … prima elementa, Vienna 1555 [1556], repr.
in Strothmann, Syrischen Studien, 63–114.
16 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
but morphological and other significant changes between earlier and later
forms are given throughout. There is in addition generous reference to
passages both in the Targums and the Syriac New Testament where
exemplified forms occur. Tremellius first and explicitly demonstrates the
place of Syriac in Aramaic by a systematic marshalling of all the evidence
that was then available to him. A modern comparative grammar of Aramaic
would draw on subsequent epigraphic and papyrological discoveries to
embrace more varieties of Aramaic; a modern account of Syriac would draw
on far more texts and scarcely presume to omit the spoken language.
However, once allowances are made for what Tremellius had to hand, it
would not be a significantly different project. This philological perspective
will condition our reading of Tremellius’ New Testament and also help us to
grasp his understanding of his task as a textual critic of the Peshitta.
‘H KAINH DIAHHKH. Testamentum Novum. djvjsa hdva. Est autem
interpretatio Syriaca Novi Testamenti … autore Immanuele Tremellio … Genevae ap.
Henr. Stephanum was produced in 1569. Characteristically an opening of
Tremellius’ New Testament has two columns on the left-hand page and two
on the right. On the left is the Greek text and Beza’s Latin translation, on the
right the Syriac text in vocalised Hebrew script (the significance of the
vocalisation will be dealt with later) and its Latin translation. For those books
not represented in the Syriac canon, the Greek text and its translation appear
on both pages. Chapter divisions are given and Vulgate verse numbers
(which were not intruded into Widmanstetter’s editio princeps, destined for use
in the east) appear between the two columns on each page.
Each of the four columns of an opening is annotated. The annotations to
the Greek text are references to other biblical passages, identifying either Old
Testament quotations and allusions or New Testament parallels. These are
given without comment. The annotations to the translation of the Greek text
summarise the content of the passage, thereby offering a certain amount of
expositional or explanatory help. The Syriac text is annotated with identifi-
cation of ‘ roots’ and Hebrew synonyms that are linked to the word in
question by superscript letters. These notes seem sometimes to be offered as a
guide to successful parsing, but progressively appear to become simply Hebrew
glosses of the words in question. Both would be useful to Christian Hebrew
scholars or to the Jewish readers eager to be converted whom Tremellius
imagined might read his edition. The Latin translation is characterised by
an extreme literalness in rendering idiom. Where Tremellius considered
the idiom insupportable in Latin he offered an annotation giving a
translation ‘ Ad verb. ’. These are very frequent. He preferred his translation
to err on the side of literalism, rather than rashly depart from the ‘ domini
vestigia’. Also striking is the transliteration of proper names: one meets
‘ Jeschua ’, ‘ Mariam’ and ‘Jauseph ’, ‘ Iuchannan Baptista ’ and ‘Hiraudis
Rex ’. There is however no suggestion here that Tremellius was interested in
the arcane significance of the names as Postel and his friends were. The
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
17
numerous and interesting textual annotations to this Latin translation have
been treated elsewhere.18 They are readily intelligible in the light of the
understanding of Tremellius’ edition we are developing here. They show
technical maturity and skill in dealing with both Greek and Syriac texts, and
also an awareness of the difficulties of textual criticism when dealing with
translations and the relevance of observing translation technique.
It is from the preface to his New Testament that more may be learned
about Tremellius’ text-critical approach to his edition. When his philological
convictions and his view of the text are brought together it will be possible to
grasp his understanding of his work as an editor. Though Tremellius
conceded the possibility of an Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, he believed, quite correctly, that the New
Testament he was editing – the Peshitta, Syriaca nostra – had, like the Vetus
Latina, been made from the Greek. Tremellius held that next to nothing was
known about this translation but argued that it was very early (i.e. apostolic
or sub-apostolic): as evidence he advanced the deficiencies of the Syriac
canon and the lack of the pericope about the adulteress in the Gospel of John
(together with the elegance of New Testament Syriac). The presence of this
material in later manuscripts surely indicated their subsequent addition.
Textually the variants between Greek and Syriac did not seem greater than
between Greek witnesses. No doubt better manuscripts would show greater
similarity. Tremellius then described his own procedure. He had the Postel
manuscript (Vat. sir. 16) and Widmanstetter’s edition that had been made
from two manuscripts. The Postel manuscript he considered far more
ancient, and therefore a better witness to the original text than
Widmanstetter’s. Tremellius corrected the editio princeps from Vat. sir. 16.
Tremellius wrote of the circumstances of Widmanstetter’s edition and
Moses’s mission from the patriarch. He was reluctant, like the Apostle, to
reap where another had sown, yet, though Widmanstetter in the editio princeps
had promised notes and an edition of the text in Hebrew characters, other
demands and ultimately death had prevented him from producing them.
Tremellius was thus able to make a virtue out of his lack of Syriac type: he
would provide the text in Hebrew characters for the conversion of the Jews
that Widmanstetter had only promised. His provision of margin references to
Hebrew roots and, of course, his grammar would enable Jewish readers to
read the New Testament in Aramaic.
The decisive additional merit of Tremellius’ work, and an element that
was to prove controversial, was his vocalisation of the text. He improved the
text of the editio princeps from his ‘most ancient ’ manuscript. Then he put the
Syriac text into Hebrew letters and then he vocalised it ‘ multo certe &
taedioso labore ’, as one may well believe. The editio princeps is only partially

18
See Austin, ‘Tremellius ’, and Wilkinson, ‘Origin of Syriac studies’.
18 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
vocalised, and Vat. sir. 16, the ‘ longe antiquissimus & optimus codex
manuscriptus’ is not vocalised at all. An appreciation of the real achievement
of Tremellius’ edition, and a judicious estimate of his philology, must
recognise the fundamental if tiresome editorial labour that he undertook.
The critical issue, of course, is how he vocalised the text. He did so, not in the
light of a knowledge of spoken sixteenth-century Syriac (for he had none), but
on the basis of his previous philological reconstruction of the history of
Aramaic set out in his grammar. He took serious account of the consequences
of his text-critical view that the Peshitta translation from Greek was early. He
therefore vocalised this supposedly early text (that he had corrected from the
earliest available manuscript) as if it represented early (apostolic or sub-
apostolic) Aramaic, and not the barbarism of later vernacular Syriac. The
Maronite scholar Gabriel Sionita who was, of course, a native Syriac speaker
was later to accuse Tremellius of ‘Chaldeanising’ Syriac in vocalising his
edition.19 But this was exactly what Tremellius had set out to do : to produce
a more ancient text in a more original linguistic form. To fail to understand
this is to fail to understand the edition.20

III

Tremellius’ preface to his New Testament begins with a fulsome dedication

to the English Queen Elizabeth I. Tremellius had held a chair at Cambridge
and had undertaken minor diplomatic missions to Elizabeth. The dedication
to the Protestant monarch of England in itself marks the work as
confessionally aligned. Tremellius’ observations on the recent religious
history of England, and particularly Mary Tudor’s reign when he was himself
expelled, leave no doubt as to his religious and political allegiance. He wrote
as a persecuted Protestant to a monarch besieged by Catholic powers in

19
By ‘Chaldeanising ’ he meant making the later Syriac text conform to the earlier dialect
of biblical and rabbinic Aramaic (Chaldean) by vocalising the Syriac after the fashion of that
earlier dialect.
20
It is difficult to illustrate the character of Tremellius’ vocalisation without reference to the
Syriac. A printer’s note at the end of Tremellius’ edition lists printing errors quite unhelpfully
mixed with corrections to the editio princeps : ‘ Loci Quidam in Quorum Scriptura partim
peccarunt operae, partim codex Viennensis ex Heidelbergensi est emendandus. ’ There
follows a note illustrative of the problems of vocalisation: ‘Sciendum est praeterea, F in
nominibus praesertim non peregrinis mutandum esse modo in f, modo in in diphthongum f⁄
pro linguae Syrae analogia. Quod F licet errore descriptionis irrepsisse putaremus, quum
tamen procul absentem D. Immanuelem consulere non possemus, quaedam nobis religio fuit
in aliud punctum mutare. ’ The printer felt Tremellius’s vocalisation of proper names not to be
Syriac but declined to adjust the vowels being unable to consult him. This should be borne in
mind when considering Tremellius’ defence against having produced an Aramaic Bible
unrecognisable to Syriac speakers. On the other hand Grammatica, col. 7, reads : ‘Observandum
autem quod Syri vocali o prorsus carent ’.
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
19
whose country he had once himself received asylum. There can be little
doubt that Catholic scholars would have found Tremellius’ preface
provocative even before they encountered his edition.
Controversy arose as indicated in Christmann’s inventory note. Gilbert
Génébrard (1537–97), Catholic Professor of Hebrew in Paris, criticised
Tremellius’ edition in his Chronographiae where he alleged that Tremellius had
tendentiously omitted the festal readings from what was essentially a rehash
of the Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie edition in the Antwerp Polyglot done in
Hebrew characters only, and with numerous errors of vocalisation of its
own.21
Widmanstetter’s editio princeps offered a list in Syriac and Latin of all the
feasts of the Syriac lectionary; these are also marked in the body of the
biblical text. In addition to the list itself he added a factual description in
Latin of all of the feasts of the liturgical year. Widmanstetter’s interest here
was not particularly in the lections or feasts per se but with their
demonstration of the antiquity and universality of precisely such liturgical
practices as were being assailed by the Protestants. This lectionary material
also reappears in the Syriac New Testament in the Antwerp Polyglot and in
the 1584 Paris edition of the Syriac New Testament: its potential in
confessional controversy was clearly recognised and Génébrard had himself
taken an interest in the subject. For this reason its omission by the Protestant
Tremellius occasioned his outcry.
Génébrard also accused Tremellius of plagiarising Lefèvre de La Boderie’s
edition of the Syriac New Testament that also has (in addition to Syriac
characters) a transcription of the text into Hebrew characters. Génébrard
had probably known Guy at the Collège de France in 1563–8 where in 1567
Guy completed his work, though, of course, this edition was not printed until
it appeared several years later in the Antwerp Polyglot. Thus he may well
have been aware that Guy had completed the work well before Tremellius’
edition appeared in 1569.22 This gives a certain intelligibility to his false
charge of plagiarism.

21
G. Génébrard, Chronographiae libri quatuor, Paris 1580, 732–3. Gilbert Génébrard
(1537–1597), a Benedictine, and Parisian professor of Hebrew, left several works of erudition
(of which the Chronologia is the most famous). He appears to lack the monograph treatment he
deserves. Amongst his works one may note Psalmi Davidi Vulgata editione Calendario Hebraeo Syro
Graeco Latino Hymnis, argumentis & commentariis genuinum & primarium psalmarum sensum,
Hebraismosque breviter aperientibus A. G. Genebrardo Theologo Parisiis Oliva Petri L’Huillier, via
Iacobara. MDLXXXI … . Génébrard showed a particular interest in calendars ‘ ut Ecclesiarum
toto orbe et quovis tempore concordiam contra nostros Novatores, in divorum festis reco
endis, aliisque similibus liceat conspicere’. His intervention in the matter of Tremellius’
alleged suppression of the lectionary material in the editio princeps is thus made more
comprehensible.
22
See Christophe Plantin to Cardinal Granvelle, Antwerp, 17 Mar. 1568, in M. Van
Durme, Supplement à la correspondance de Christophe Plantin, Antwerp 1955, 73, no. 56 : ‘J’ay aussi
20 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
Génébrard’s attacks gave rise to a particular text, the Specularius dialogus of
1581,23 written in defence of Tremellius, which sheds light upon the
confessional dimension of the controversy. In the course of refuting
Génébrard’s charges, this pamphlet offers a quite precise characterisation
of Tremellius’ intentions in preparing his edition which corroborates the
argument presented above.
The pamphlet takes the form of a dialogue in which Tremellius and
Génébrard 24 meet and abuse each other and each other’s Churches in learned
fashion : Greek phrases and scholarly allusions abound ; they argue whether
‘ Sacramentarius’ is a properly Ciceronian form and which of them fails to
understand such formations; Génébrard calls Tremellius a Calvinist, and
Tremellius refers to the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon; Tremellius
accuses Génébrard of violating the canons of history with his partiality and
falsehood, Génébrard calls Tremellius an ignorant Jew from Caphernaum and a
Marrano. After a huge amount of spiteful and agonisingly pedantic tit-for-tat,
the Dialogue turns to more substantive issues. Génébrard had accused Tremellius
(fo. Ee ii v) of merely publishing the book Moses of Mardin had brought to
Europe. Tremellius (fo. Ee iii) cannot believe that Génébrard has even read his
work. The editio princeps was a Bible for contemporary Syrians ; would that the
Church of Rome had a similarly enlightened attitude to vernacular Scriptures :
I have no objection, Génébrard, to the Vienna edition : it is entirely suitable to be
taken and used by modern Syriac speakers. Would only that your own Roman
Church showed the same desire to permit Holy Scripture to be put before the eyes of
all honest men in the vernacular and took pains that it should be in the hands of
ordinary people.25

receu ces jours ici le nouveau testament transcrit des characteres syriens en formes hebraı̈ques
plus utiles et congneus et le tout traduit en latin par un nomme Guido Fabricius, chose qui
enrichera grandement ladicte edition en quatre langues, nonobstant laquelle je me delibere
aussi de l’imprimer devant qu’un autre de Juif faict calviniste, nommé Emanuel Tremelius, ait
faict imprimer le mesme, que je me doubte bien qu’il aura traduict selon son opinion, parquoy
je desire que ceste version d’un catholique precede, s’il m’est possible l’autre du calviniste. ’
23
Specularius dialogus, quo se Immanuel Tremellius purgat ab illis criminationibus, quas Gilbertus
Genebrardus theologus parisiensis, divinarum & hebraicarum literarum professor regius, ipsi in Chronographia,
seu universae historiae speculo intulerat, Neustadt 1581, repr. at the end of Animadversiones in Roberti
Bellarmini controversiam, VII … , Heidelberg 1608, 419–51. This is the text I have used. A copy is
in Glasgow University Library. The work is anonymous though has often been attributed to
Junius : Cuno, Franciscus Junius Der Ältere, 274. It is quite possible that Junius defended his
teacher against an attack launched in the year of the latter’s death, and not easy to think of a
more likely author short of Tremellius himself. However the argument here does not depend
on authorship.
24
Tremellius and Génébrard are italicised whenever the reference is to the characters in the
dialogue and not to the historical individuals.
25
‘ Ego, mi Genebrarde, non improbo editionem Viennensem: nam ad recentiorum
Syrorum captum usumque tota accommodata est. Atque utinam Romana Ecclesia tua idem
imitaretur studium, Scripturam sacram lingua vernacula sineret oculis bonorum ferri & vulgi
manibus curaret teri.’
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
21
His own work was attempting something different, and more learned.26
Possessed of the elector’s older manuscript (i.e. Vat. sir. 16 ‘vetustiore stylo,
scriptura & forma’), his intention was to use this to ‘ restore several vowels to
the norm of the old Syriac dialect’ 27 and to fill a few lacunae in the editio
princeps. This is not to copy the editio princeps but rather to collate it with a
more ancient manuscript.
What, we may ask, did Tremellius mean by ‘ restore several vowels to the
norm of the old Syriac dialect’ ? He helps us by comparing (fo. Ee iii v) his
work to that of Génébrard’s teacher Joannes Mercerus whom Génébrard
would recall corrected the language of the Aramaic Targum to conform to
the Aramaic of the earlier biblical books.28 The language of the Syriac New
Testament had by daily and popular use been corrupted towards that of the
modern Syriac vernacular by changes of both consonants and vocalisation.
Tremellius could prove this from his more ancient manuscript:
If you are unaware, Génébrard, that with the passage of time the Syriac New
Testament was conformed to the Syriac vernacular for popular use and both letters
and vowels changed, I certainly am not. And I can prove it by the evidence of one
old Syriac manuscript and similarly by the evidence of another older one.29
This documentary evidence of linguistic change was more than Mercerus
had :
If you accept Mercerus who on the authority of his own judgement alone revised that
ancient translation [i.e. the Targum] without the aid of any other copies, what have I
done wrong? What do I deserve when I have done the same thing but not on my
own authority as he did but relying upon older manuscripts ?30
What Mercerus did without any authority, Tremellius has done with ancient
manuscript evidence.
These passages provide an essentially accurate description of what
Tremellius thought he was doing in his edition. The ad hominem citation of
Mercerus’ work that seems so odd, should not obscure the essential soundness
of Tremellius’ own project, though, of course, the rationale of the two
exercises is the same. Tremellius believed that the Syriac New Testament was
(by and large) the product of a translation from a Greek exemplar in apostolic

26
‘Verumetiam illud amplius diserte professus sum.’
27
‘voces aliquas ad antiquioris linguae Syrorum normam revoca[are] ’.
28
‘Grammatico opere Chaldaicum Thargum ad normam Chaldaeorum Danielis & Ezrae
scriptorum reddere. ’
29
‘Novum Testamentum Syrum vernaculo Syrorum sermoni fuisse in dies conformatum
ad popularem usum, & literas atque vocales commutatas si nescis, Genebrarde, ego certo scio,
& probare possum documento Syri Testamenti unius veteris, & item alterius. ’
30
‘Si Mercerum illum non improbas, quod veterem illam translationem judicio suo &
auctoritate limaverit sine exemplorum consimilium adjumento : quid feci ? Quid commerui,
miser ? Cum idem non mea auctoritate fecerim, exemploque illius, sed codicum vetustorum
fide. ’
22 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
or sub-apostolic times. He was also aware that Aramaic had evolved over the
centuries, and that the contemporary vernacular of the east was not that of
the first century when the New Testament was first put into Aramaic. At the
end of his New Testament he had set out in his grammar the evidence of
precisely this change, juxtaposing biblical and targumic forms that might
reasonably be thought to be those of the apostolic times in which the New
Testament was put into Aramaic (and possibly the Gospel of Matthew and
the Epistle to the Hebrews written in Aramaic), and the more recent Syriac
forms. His knowledge of these more recent forms was derived from the
partially vocalised editio princeps and the unvocalised Vat. sir. 16. He made sense
of the modern language (Syriac) philologically from his deep and extensive
knowledge of Jewish Aramaic, without the advantage of native speakers and
on that basis proceeded to vocalise his edition. This seems a most impressive
work of scholarship. That Tremellius had ‘ Chaldaeanised ’ the Syriac in
vocalising his edition, as Gabriel Sionita alleged, was an almost unavoidable
consequence of the way Tremellius had come to terms with the language. Yet
one suspects that Tremellius would not have felt the criticism too keenly: he
was not after all trying to produce a Bible for the ‘ recentiores Syri’ (that is a
Bible in contemporary vernacular Syriac), but where possible a more ancient
text. His procedure here was inflexible: he preferred the consonantal spelling
of his older manuscript where it differed from the editio princeps as evidence of
an earlier ‘ more original ’ linguistic form of the Syriac New Testament.
It seems worth reflecting upon the sophistication of Tremellius’ approach.
He is not committing the simple error of reading Syriac as if it were Jewish
Aramaic (which Widmanstetter had cautioned against in his Obtestatio ad
lectorem in the editio princeps). He is rather making use of a textual witness that
he supposes to be more ancient to recover philologically intelligible older
linguistic variants in pursuit of the earliest possible attainable linguistic form
of the Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament. Had he in his hand a
manuscript from apostolic times, he tells us, he would of course have
preferred that above both the editio princeps and Vat. sir. 16. Technically and
imaginatively this project seems to be far superior to any other sixteenth-
century semitic philology unless it be that of Ēlias Lévita.31 Here
Jewish philological acumen has supplanted the Jewish mysticism of the
Christian kabbalists. The intelligence of Tremellius’ undertaking should
be acknowledged, even though modern scholars have not much looked for
historical developments within the text of the Peshitta. Where – more
recently – they have, they have thought in terms of the textual influence of
earlier Syriac versions rather than the historical development of the
language.32 Tremellius was in fact wrong about the extent of change in the

31
For Lévita see G. E. Weil, Ēlias Lévita, Leiden 1963.
32
For a description of recent scholarship see Metzger, Early versions of the New Testament,
3–98, supplemented by T. Baarda, ‘The Syriac versions of the New Testament ’, in B. D.
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
23
language during the history of the Peshitta, but he did not have the evidence
to refute his assumption that it was similar to that, say, between Latin and
Italian.
An understanding of Tremellius’ purposes helps us to follow further the
debate within the Specularius dialogus. There Génébrard (fo. Ee iiii) accuses
Tremellius of removing all the liturgical material from the editio princeps: ‘ you
removed all the lectionary rubrics that were spread throughout the Gospels
and Epistles. These showed the wonderful agreement of the eastern
Churches with Rome in respect of: the Sacrifice of the Altar or the Mass;
the adoration of the Holy Cross; fasting, Lent, the cult of the Saints and their
feasts ; ecclesiastical ordination etc’.33 Tremellius replies that he had no need of
such material. He had nothing to say about the role of the editio princeps in the
reconciliation of Rome and the east : he held in his hand a manuscript ‘more
ancient … , of greater authority and linguistically purer ’34 and he had
published a pure text without any glosses (there were no lections marked in
Vat. sir. 16).35 Where was the problem?
Génébrard persists (fo. Ee v v): ‘ My second charge is that you suppressed the
table of lections from the Gospels and Acts that shows how these are spread
over Sundays and the annual festal days according to the rite of the Syriac
Church and teaches the rites, ceremonies, observations and other acts of
their Holy Religion. ’36 Tremellius again asserts that he is following his more
ancient manuscript with the aim of producing an unencumbered text. There
follows the third charge: Tremellius had produced a Syriac Bible unrecognis-
able to native speakers:
My third charge like the others convicts you of an error. For you, scholar that you
are, omitted through ignorance many letters you considered superfluous, changing
the vocalisation at will against the analogy, usage and idiom of the Syrians. You
more clearly displayed your ignorance of the language by appending a short

Ehrman and M. W. Holmes (eds), The text of the New Testament in contemporary research, Grand
Rapids 1995, 97–112.
33
‘Primum quod titulos Epistolarum & Evangeliorum per totum contextum inspersos
sustulisti, e quibus apparebat admirabilis omnium Ecclesiarum Orientis cum Romana
consensio : ut de sacrificio altaris sive Missa, de adoratione S. crucis, de ieiuniis, de
Quadragesima, de cultu divorum, de festis eorundem, de ordinationibus Ecclesiasticis, &c.’
34
‘antiquius … auctoritate maius, sermone purius, sententiis plenius, omnibusque numeris
perfectius ’.
35
When examining the manuscript in the Vatican Library it is amusing to observe that
precisely such lectionary material has been added. One may safely assume that it was
transcribed from the editio princeps after the controversy here described.
36
‘Secundum crimen illud est quod tabulam Evangelicarum & Apostolicarum lectionum
suppressisti, sicut hae in Dominico & festos dies anniversarios Ecclesiae Syriacae ritu
distribuuntur, e qua ritus, ceremoniae, cultus & caeteri sancti religionis ipsorum actus
discebantur. ’ The reference here is not to the running lectionary headings found throughout
the editio princeps to which Génébrard has referred in his First Charge, but to the summary table
of lections Widmanstetter placed at the end of that edition.
24 R O B E R T J. W I L K I N S O N
Alphabet to your edition … If Syriac speakers read your edition of it, they will avow
that on that basis what they read is scarcely or not at all Syriac !37
Such a charge, appearing in a contemporary pamphlet in defence of
Tremellius, suggests strongly that it was generally recognised by his friends
(amongst whom we must presumably count the author) that he precisely and
self-consciously had no intention of producing a Bible for the eastern
Christians.
The answer to the third charge, Tremellius will insist, is also the answer to
Génébrard’s fourth : that he has again removed letters, and misunderstood the
morphological significance of nun because he does not know spoken Syriac
but imposes talmudic norms on the language.38
Tremellius’ response is ever the same : the purpose of his edition is quite
different from that of the editio princeps.39 Misled by a quite uncompromising
classicism, Tremellius then asks: Who would want a demotic Demosthenes, or
an Italian Cicero?40
Is Tremellius so arrogant as to condemn modern Syriac and its orthography ?
asks Génébrard.41 Tremellius replies again that he is not interested in modern
Syriac, but is working on the basis of older more accurate texts to produce a
scholarly not a popular edition.42 Génébrard has one last shaft to fire. Tremellius
has plagiarised the work of Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie in the Antwerp
Polyglot. Tremellius’ answer (after a lot of bluster) is: ‘ I published first’. The
Dialogus closes with maintained mutual antipathy. Following the course of its
defence has however enabled us for the first time to see in it a description of
Tremellius’ intentions in the production of his scholarly edition which

37
‘ Tertium crimen, ut superiora, pariter te evincit falsi. Multas enim literas, quas tu
gravissime auctor scilicet, putabas superfluas, prae imperitia subduxisti immutatis pro libidine
punctis, contra analogiam, usum & phrasin Syrorum: quam infantiam ut clarius ostenderes,
brevissimum Alphabetum editioni tuae subjunxisti incitiae plenissimum. Unde si eius
editionem Syri legerent, se Syriace illic nihil aut parum legere faterentur. ’
38
‘ Vis quartum inferam ? Tu, Marrane, indocte, non modo literas protractionis sustulisti,
quod impudentiam simul ac inscitiam tuam elevare utcunque potuisset, sed & consonantes,
praesertim literam Nun esse symbolum tertiarum personarum futuri aeque ac primarum
pluralium. Quod tamen discere poteras non modo e lingua hodierna syrorum, cuius te illic
expertem prodidisti, verum etiam e tuis Talmidicis & Baal Haruch (i.e. Aruch) qui etiam sic
loqui solent.’
39
‘ Primum de Viennensi exemplo instas, ego de antiquiore testor : deinde Scripturam illius
obiis, ego auctoritatem mei: tum iudicium Syrorum qui hodie vivunt jactitas, & ego veterum. ’
40
The contempt shown by this classicising humanist Aramaic scholar for the modern
Syriac vernacular (‘faex hoderiernae Syriorum linguae ’), contrasts strikingly with the use of
‘ Aramaic’ by Egidio, Postel and others precisely to legitimise vernaculars.
41
‘ Tu igitur hoc tibi arrogas, ut de hodierna Syriorum lingua scriptique iudices ? ’
42
‘ Minime vero, Genebrarde : sed hanc suo loco relinquo : in vestustiorem ex fide
emendatissimorum librorum incumbo, & ex ratione magis esse judico ut in pretio habeantur
veteres,quam ut subiiciantur novi ad commoditatem studiorum : de popularitate aliud plane
iudicium facio.’
 I M M A N U E L T R E M E L L I U S’ S Y R I A C N E W T E S T A M E N T
25
confirms our own examination, and further to contrast his Bible clearly with
that of Widmanstetter.
The confessionally-motivated controversy of hebraists and theologians
should not prevent us from recognising the considerable influence of
Tremellius’ Bible.43 After Henricus Stephanus’ edition of 1569, there were
subsequent editions in London and elsewhere. A glance at the catalogue of
the British Library which holds a large number of these editions is instructive.
A quarto edition of Tremellius’ translation appeared in London in 1580 from
Henry Middleton. In 1581 an edition of Tremellius’ translation of the Syriac
and Beza’s of the Greek came out. A third edition appeared from Middleton
in 1585 and there were several others.44 The 1594 edition of these translations
was bound together with that of the Old Testament. It would appear
(perhaps not altogether surprisingly) that knowledge of the Syriac New
Testament was spread more widely in Protestant Europe by these editions of
Tremellius’ translation, than by editions of the Syriac text itself. The history of
the distribution of these translations however remains to be written.45
This article has sought to expose the philological and text-critical rationale
that makes of Tremellius’ 1569 edition of the Syriac New Testament one of the
outstanding scholarly productions of the sixteenth century. Far from attempt-
ing to produce a contemporary Bible for the eastern churches, Tremellius
sought to reconstruct the earliest textual and linguistic form of the Peshitta
that could be achieved, exploiting to the full the inadequate resources at his
command. In the course of his work he drew up the first comparative
grammar of Aramaic that included Syriac. In all of this he worked very much
on his own and without significant reference to the interests of Catholic
scholars active in the same field. The result was a significant milestone in
biblical scholarship, and an edition that still deserves respect today.

43
Austin, ‘Tremellius ’, 323.
44
See Cuno, Junius, 53–6, 263, and Catalogue of books in the library of the British Museum printed in
England, Scotland and Ireland to 1640, London 1884, i. 141ff. There are subsequent editions in
Geneva, Basle, Zurich and Amsterdam waiting to be evaluated : Cuno, Junius, 55.
45
A most interesting example is Milton’s use of Tremellius’ translation which is discussed
with acuity in Gordon Campbell and Sebastian Brock, ‘Milton’s Syriac’, Milton Quarterly xxvii
(1993), 74–7.