THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SYRIAC MATTHEW

Steven Ring, (steven.ring@ieee.org)

Abstract: In this paper,1 historical, textual and linguistic methods have been used to investigate the recently identified primitive Syriac text of Matthew's gospel. Aspects touched upon include; A historical link between primitive Syriac Matthew and an earlier Jewish tradition, Evidence of a meticulous Semitic textual tradition found in primitive Syriac Matthew and the Babylonian Talmud, Translation artefacts visible in Greek Matthew betraying how it was translated from primitive Syriac Matthew, The relationship between Tatian's Diatessaron and primitive Syriac Matthew. All of these aspects point to the value of primitive Syriac Matthew for further historical and theological research into Christian origins.

Contents
Preface I. Introduction II. First text Matthew 7.12 III. Second text preamble Luke 19.44 IV. Second text Matthew 25.12 V. Discussions

1 I gave a paper on the identification of early Syriac gospel texts at the Symposium Syriacum in Granada last autumn.2 From this paper, it is useful to summarize how the existence of primitive Syriac gospels can be deduced methodically from the available evidence. That is to say; 1. The conventional 3-layer model of the Syriac gospel tradition; beginning with Tatian's Diatessaron, then the Vetus Syra and then the Peshitta cannot explain the four different Syriac text-types actually found in the Syriac gospel quotations of the early Syriac patristic authors. Logically therefore, another early Syriac gospel text must once have existed.
1

Steven Ring, all rights reserved. This paper was written for a seminar held at the University of Cardiff, Wales, on March 19th 2009 in the Centre for Late Antique Religion & Culture (CLARC). Ring 2008.

Page 1

2. Now, it so happens that textual examples from this fourth Syriac layer given in my earlier paper agree with multiple gospel quotations and allusions found in Paul's letters3 and that certain other readings found in the same Syriac gospel textual layer corroborate this data with independent historical and text-critical evidence indicating that our unexplained Syriac layer was indeed primitive, older than the text of the Diatessaron. In this seminar, we will explore some new evidence from translation artefacts, indicating that this primitive Syriac text type was the archetype used to translate the gospels into Greek. 2 The earlier paper also included a study of the initial layers in the development of the gospel text in Syriac, spanning approximately the first 400 years of the Christian era. In particular, a number of primitive Syriac gospels were identified for the first time, occupying the earliest layer of the Syriac gospel tradition. Recapping the list of Syriac gospel textual layers discussed;4

The primitive Syriac gospel texts, (before AD 50). Tatian, his Syriac Diatessaron gospel harmony, (c. AD 170). The Vetus Syra, representing the first attempts to revise the Syriac gospels towards the Greek gospels, (c. 4th century AD). The Peshitta gospels, (c. AD 400).

A useful bi-product of this research is that it also demonstrates how Tatian composed his Diatessaron in Syriac, because Tatian's Syriac text was patently constructed using a pre-existent set of primitive Syriac gospels. 3 In this way, I introduced the primitive Syriac gospels in my earlier paper and I demonstrated how these separate gospel texts could be identified as the earliest Syriac gospels composed in a period before AD 50. I wonder therefore, whether the study of the primitive Syriac gospels will open a new field of scholarship relevant to the study of Christian origins and perhaps even a new window on the life and teachings of Christ. In any case, there is plenty of scope for discussion about the character of the sources, possible alternative interpretations of the historical data, the applicability of the methodologies used and indeed, the validity of these first tentative results. 4 This seminar paper will follow-up my earlier conference paper with some more historical and linguistic studies. These studies mainly focus on the primitive Syriac gospel of Matthew, a gospel text of considerable interest as we shall see. In several places, I have offered reconstructions of early Syriac gospel readings. These are based upon historical and text-critical methods applied to the gospel allusions and quotations of early Syriac-speaking authors. I have used the mass of early Syriac quotations and a number of critical methods to judge the textual content and the most likely wording of the primitive text. To facilitate discussion, all the source materials used for the reconstructions have been edited and translated.
3

Outside of his letters, some of Paul's gospel quotations may only be extant in the remains of the primitive Syriac gospels. 4 From Ring 2008, VI-1.

Page 2

5 To begin with, it will be as well for me to introduce the assumptions, general approaches and methods I have used in these studies and to admit how these differ from the norm. Then, in the first textual study we will look at the historical context of a verse selected from primitive Syriac Matthew and in the second textual study we will focus on translation artefacts which obscure the meaning of a different verse from the same early gospel. The paper will then conclude with some thoughts and discussion topics, which can be pursued further if time permits.

I. Introduction
I-1 The usual approach to the original language and dating of the gospels is to state as an axiom that the Greek gospels represent their original composed form. A few scholars however, have been interested in the obvious Semiticisms found in the Greek gospels. Unfortunately, even by this scholarly minority, these Semiticisms are usually regarded as the relics of a fragmented oral tradition. In my opinion, this Hellenistic and axiomatic approach to the Greek gospels has a number of drawbacks:

In the original first-century AD Palestinian historical context of the gospels, western Hellenistic culture and the Greek language represented the culture and language of an occupying power, not the oriental culture and Semitic languages of the indigenous Jewish population. Thus, in focusing only on the Greek gospels, a cultural disconnect is introduced and a language barrier is immediately erected between these Hellenistic gospel texts and the events they describe. The Greek gospels are normally thought of as a product of the second century AD, composed around 100 years after the events they describe. Therefore, with a single stroke, a reliance solely on the Greek gospels begs the question about what happened in the first 100 years before they appeared and it relegates the most important Christian documents to the status of an afterthought!

I-2 In contrast, my initial assumptions were;

That the gospels may have been originally written down between 10 and 20 years of the events they describe and in Aramaic, a Semitic language which Christ's early Jewish followers understood very well and used every day. That these early Semitic gospels written in Aramaic may have enjoyed a currency and distribution throughout the Aramaic-speaking Near East, including in Antioch and Edessa in Syria where the Syriac dialect of Aramaic was already established as a written and spoken language.

I-3 Beginning from these alternative assumptions, it follows that traces of these early Aramaic gospels might well be preserved in the Syriac gospel tradition and certain textual anomalies found in the Greek gospels might also be explained as translation artefacts, or as cultural adaptations starting from an Aramaic original.

Page 3

I-4 The historical and text-critical methods employed here have already been outlined in the previously mentioned conference paper.5 We will begin with sourcecritical and textual analyses of Matthew 7.12 to identify the earliest of two extant Syriac readings. A analysis of the subsequent history of these readings will then be used to infer the approximate dates when each Syriac reading appeared.

II. First text Matthew 7.12

II-1 In contrast to the later Greek translation of Matthew's gospel, primitive Syriac Matthew contains sayings of Marya Isho` Meshiha6 which retain features in keeping with the surrounding Jewish historical context. My first example text from primitive Syriac Matthew is found in the context of his teaching in Matthew 7.12 and in Matthew 19.19 where he quoted from Hillel, a slightly earlier Jewish teacher, ( c. AD 10). This particularly interesting text lends itself to historical analysis over a very long period.7 II-2 The long trail of sources for our historical survey of this verse can be summarized chronologically, as follows:

Hillel the Jewish Sage and leader of the Sanhedrin, ( c. AD 10). Marya Isho` Meshiha according to primitive Syriac Matthew, (c. AD 408). The Didache, (c. AD 100). Aristides, Apology, (c. AD 150). The Syriac Peshitta Old Testament; The book of Tobit, (translated c. AD 150). Tatian, The Diatessaron Syriac gospel harmony, (c. AD 170). Clement of Alexandria, ( c. AD 214) Stromata Mani, The Manichaean Gospel of Life, (c. AD 242). Aphrahat the Persian Sage ( c. AD 345), The Demonstrations. Ephrem of Nisibis ( AD 373), Madrashe. The Liber Graduum, (c. AD 400). Menander the Dramatist, (c. 342 291 BC), the Syriac translation of his Sayings, (c. AD 400 ~ 500). Philoxenus bishop of Mabbug, ( AD 523) the Homilies.

5 6

Ring 2008, section 1 This is the Aramaic name and title The LORD, Isho` Christ which lies behind the Latin version. 7 This saying also had a long history before Hillel. See Leviticus 19.18 and the Greek and Chinese sources noticed by Resch, (Resch 1905, pp. 132 134). 8 See an analysis leading to a date before AD 50 for primitive Syriac Matthew in my earlier paper, (Ring 2008).

Page 4

The Babylonian Talmud, (c. AD 550). Romanus the Physician, a monk from Qartamin who took the name Theodosius and in AD 887 became Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch ( AD 896)9. His Letter to Eleazar, bishop of Cyros.

II-3 Firstly, there are the words of the leader of the Sanhedrin and Jewish sage Hillel, ( c. AD 10) who was an earlier contemporary of Christ. If Hillel ever wrote down his teachings in a book, we no longer possess it. We only have some of his words preserved in later Jewish writings. One of Hillel's teachings is important for our study here, it survives in Hebrew within the Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate on the Sabbath observance, Shabbat,10 11 folio 31a, (Goldschmidt 1897, p. 388, lines 6 8): Kl(d .wl rm) *hyryyg llh ynpl )b lk )yh wz - dyb(t )l Krbxl yns rwmg lyz )wh h#wryp - Kdy)w hlwk hrwth The following variants are found in Goldschmidt's text and apparatus, (Ibid.): Line 1: wl rm) > hyl rm);12 Line 2: )yh wz > Apparatus M59 wnyyh; He thereupon came to Hillel, and the latter accepted him. He told him: What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow; this is the whole law. All the rest is a commentary to this law; go and learn it. 13 II-4 In the same way as we no longer possess the works of Hillel, neither do we still possess any copies of primitive Syriac Matthew from the first Christian centuries. However, we shall now edit and distinguish two early readings from the text of Syriac Matthew from the evidence of multiple attestations by Syriac patristic authors. According to Aphrahat ( c. AD 345), Ephrem of Nisibis ( AD 373), the Liber Graduum (c. AD 400), Philoxenus of Mabbug ( AD 523) and Theodosios, Syrian Orthodox patriarch of Antioch ( AD 896), in Matthew 7.12 primitive Syriac Matthew begins with a command of Christ based around Hillel's saying.

These biographical details are taken from Marsh 1927, p. 145. The whole of the Babylonian Talmud has been edited on-line, see this excerpt on the following page: http://patrologia.narod.ru/hebraica/babli/shabbath.htm 11 Part of this text has also been edited on-line as part of Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, see http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/, select 'Text browse,' Babylonian Aramaic, reference: 71002 BT Sab, Subtext: 01031, beginning line: 01031129
10 12 13

This variant is not Hebrew, rather it may preserve a trace from an Aramaic version with hl. Translation by Isaac Wise, (Rodkinson & Wise 1903 Volume 1, p. 50).

Page 5

A reconstruction of primitive Syriac Matthew 7.12 derived from these sources,14 once read as follows:
.dB(t )L krBXL )N]s kYL(d mdMw .)$NY8NB kL nwdB(Nd tN) )Bcd kY)w .nwhL dB( tN) p) )NKh

And a thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. And as that you wish that the children of men will do to you, likewise also, you shall do to them. Some of these words of Isho` found in primitive Syriac Matthew were apparently quoted from Hillel; Certainly by comparing the two texts below, the similarity of the Aramaic quotation of Isho` found in primitive Syriac Matthew to the Hebrew text of Hillel's words is very striking: Hillel: Isho`: dyb(t )l Krbxl yns Kl(d
.dB(t )L krBXL )N]s kYL(d mdMw

A clearly visible textual relationship exists between the Hebrew and Syriac versions of this text. This close textual relationship allows us to make several important deductions:

The Syriac reading bears such a close textual relationship to the Hebrew, it suggests that the Syriac text of Isho` and the Hebrew text of Hillel are both the products of meticulously transmitted textual (not oral) traditions from a single source. Therefore, using a source-critical argument, we can tentatively identify this Syriac reading as the original reading of primitive Syriac Matthew. (Using the same reasoning, a variant Syriac reading introduced below, looks to be later.)

< Aphrahat Demonstration XXIII,15 Philoxenus Homily IX:16

.dB(t )L krBXL )N]s kYL(d mdMw

And a thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. Context: Both Aphrahat and Philoxenus place this quotation from Hillel in the context of their comments on Matthew 19.19. Furthermore, the second time he mentions these words,17 Philoxenus cites them explicitly from the lips of Isho`.18

All the sources used in this reconstruction are cited and translated below. Wright 1869, p. 498.18. 16 Budge 1894, Volume 1, pp. 333.7, 345.12. 17 Budge 1894, Volume 1, p. 345.9. 18 In several ways Philoxenus exhibits a direct influence from the Liber Graduum in these Homilies.
15

14

Page 6

~ Ephrem of Nisibis, Madrashe XI on Abraham Kidonaya:19

.dB(t )L krBXL )Ns] kYL(d lKd )tY(rtd dwXLB wh mY$rd dh[S

..the laid down testimony is only of the opinion, that all that is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. Context: In this source, there is no indication of a biblical context. ~ The Liber Graduum20 15.18:21
.. tN) )Bcd kY)w .dB(t )L krBXL kYL( )Nsd mdMd yhw

And that, A thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. And as that you wish... etc. Context: The Liber Graduum places this saying in the context of Matthew 7.12. ~ There is also an allusion to this verse in the Liber Graduum 3.10:22
oYBcd kY) )L) ;nwhYL( )NSd mdM )ND8X)L nwNh nwdB(N )Lw .)ND8X)L nwNh nwdB(N )NKh ;)$NY8NB nwhL nwdB(Nd

And they shall not do to others a thing which is hateful for them, but as that they wish that the children of men would do to them, thus they shall do to others. Context: The Liber Graduum contains this allusion in the context of Matthew 7.12. ~ Philoxenus Letter to Patrick:23 24
dB(]t )L krBXL )N]S[ kYL(d mdM wh[

That a thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. Context: Philoxenus places our reading in the context of Matthew 7.12. ~ Philoxenus Homily XIII:25
.dB(t )L krBXL kYL( )Nsd mdMd yh[d Lamy 1889, c. 817.11 & Leloir 1958, #926. Kmosko has already mentioned the early provenance of this reading in his footnotes (Kmosko 1926, cc. 145 note 7, 373 note 1 and 923 note 1). He mentions the work of Gotthold Resch, (Resch 1905, p. 135 ff.) and he notices that this saying occurs in the Didache 1, 2 and also in Theophilus Ad Autol. II, 34 and in a Latin version of the Didascalia Apostolorum edited by Hauler 3, 12 and in the writings of the mid second century author Clement of Alexandria; Stromata II, XXIII, 139. 21 Kmosko 1926, c. 376.1. 22 Kmosko 1926, c. 65.13. 23 Lavenant 1963, p. 102.11. 24 According to the footnote in Lavenants critical edition of Philoxenus letter to Patrick, (Lavenant 1963, p. 103, footnote 39) he mentions that this reading was also studied in Richard Hugh Connolly 1934, A negative form of the Golden Rule in the Diatessaron, Journal of Theological Studies 35, OUP, pp. 351-357 and that it also occurs in Ephrem, (see above) and in Philoxenus homilies (see above) as edited by Budge, (Budge 1894, volume 1, pp. 333.7, 345.12 & 607.13). 25 Budge 1894, Volume 1, p. 607.13.
20 19

Page 7

That is, A thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. Context: In this source, there is no indication of a biblical context. ~ Theodosius, Letter to Eleazar:26
.dB(t )L krBXL )N*s kYL(d mdM

A thing which is hateful for you, to your companion you shall not do. Context: In this source, there is no indication of a biblical context. That Theodosius quoted this reading, demonstrates the remarkable longevity and continuing influence of the Primitive Syriac gospel text type, in the Syrian Orthodox monasteries and even at the very top of the Syrian Orthodox church hierarchy until at least the ninth century AD. II-5 Now moving forward in time to review the evidence of Greek patristic authors and anonymous Greek works of the second century. Due to the obviously primitive social structure of the kind of Christianity it reflects, the Didache may belong to the late first, or the very early part of the second century AD;27 I quote twice from this Greek work in English translation28: The way of life is this: Thou shalt love first the Lord thy Creator, and secondly thy neighbour as thyself; thou shalt do nothing to any man that thou wouldst not wish to be done to thyself. 29 You are to have no malicious designs on a neighbour. You are to cherish no feelings of hatred for anybody;30 Here, both these texts include the negative aspects from Hillel's saying and the second text even mentions hatred, a word found in Hillel's saying. These allusions indicate that the gospel text at Matthew 7.12 current when the Didache was composed, agree much better with the text of primitive Syriac Matthew, than they do with the text of Greek Matthew. II-6 The same reading is also alluded to in a Greek defence of Christianity written by Aristeides for the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius who reigned from AD 138 to AD 161. The Apology of Aristeides survives in Greek and in Syriac translation; In Syriac translation, the Apology of Aristeides survives in a unique manuscript, Sinai Syriac 16. This is a very neatly written Estrangela manuscript of the 6th or 7th century and the Apology can be found on ff. 56a 68a. The words in question are found on f. 65b, column 2, line 22 and f. 66a, column 1, lines 23 25:
26 27

Marsh 1927, p. 146.12-132.5. A date for the Didache as early as c. AD 80 has been proposed by Stevenson & Frend 1987, p. 375. 28 Staniforth, Louth & Radice 1987, pp. 191 f. 29 Didache 1 30 Didache 2

Page 8

.. )KLM[ w) oYd )NY+SD8K .oYr(S[ )L 4}N)L .)]ND8X) nwhL nwdB{(Nd oYBc[ )Ld mdmw

The Christians O king ... And the thing that they would not wish others to do to them, they do not visit on anyone. I also quote from a recent English translation from these phrases in the Apology made by others31: Now the Christians, O king, They do not unto other that which they would not have done unto themselves.32 II-7 The first evidence of editing of this saying of Christ in Syriac form, occurs in the second century AD. We will now review the second-century Syriac sources to find out how our text was adapted. The Peshitta Old Testament Syriac version of Tobit was translated into Syriac, presumably with the rest of the Old Testament around AD 150.33 Following the appearance of Tobit in Syriac, multiple textual witnesses to a certain Syriac gospel text, also show a variant Syriac reading with: tN) )Nsd that you hate instead of the original Syriac reading identified above:
)Ns kYL(d

which is hateful for you.

This modified wording was probably introduced to the Syriac gospel tradition by Tatian in his Syriac Diatessaron gospel harmony, c. AD 170. The Peshitta Old Testament: Tobit 4.15, (translated into Syriac c. AD 150):
.dB(t 4N)L )L ;tN) )Ns[d )M w[hw

And that which you hate, you will not do to a man. A reading found in the Liber Graduum 7.134 which is thought by the present author to reflect the reading of Tatian's Diatessaron:
.. tN) )Bcd kY)w .krBXL dB(t )L tN) )Nsd mdMw

And a thing that you hate, you shall not do to your companion, and as you wish.. etc. Context: Here in the Liber Graduum, the context suggests that Matthew 7.12 was the location for our reading. ~ The Liber Graduum 30.2635:
Stevenson & Frend 1987, p. 53. Apology XV.3, 5 33 The excerpt from Tobit is edited below. A translation date in the second century AD is estimated based upon grammatical developments which occurred in Syriac at about that time, see for example Brekelmans, Sb & Haran 1996, p. 588. 34 Kmosko 1926, c. 145.10. 35 Kmosko 1926, c. 921.23.
32 31

Page 9

;krBXL tY)d mdM bStw grt )Lw ;)rQw$ twdhS dhSt )Lw .. .tN) nwhL dB(t )L )$NY8NB kL nwdB(Nd tN) )NSd mdMw .. oM khL) )YrML mXrw

.. and you shall not bear false witness, and you shall not covet and take a thing that is your companions and something that you would hate the children of men to do to you, you shall not do to them. And love the Lord your God from .. Context: Notice how this reading mixes elements from Syriac Matthew and from Greek Matthew in Matthew 7.12, indicating again, that our reading was originally located in this context. II-8 Again, sitting well with the wording of other second-century AD versions of our saying, Clement of Alexandria ( c. AD 214)36 also quotes our saying in his Stromata: This Scripture has briefly showed, when it says, What thou hatest, thou shalt not do to another. 37 II-9 Francis Crawford Burkitt pointed out that a similar saying also crops up in the Syriac translation of the Sayings of Menander the Sage.38 This Menander the Sage may perhaps be identified with Menander the Greek Dramatist, c. 342 291 BC. Either way, a corpus of moral sayings drawn from Menander's works similar to the Syriac text edited by Land was apparently once in circulation in Greek39. The manuscript edited by Land is taken from an ancient Syriac manuscript, London British Library Add. 14,65840 written in an Estrangela script typical of the 7th century AD. From the evidence of the other extant translations, the translation of Greek works into Syriac began in earnest towards the end of the 4th century AD.41 In the Syriac translation of the Sayings of Menander, the saying in question runs as follows42:
.dB(ML )Bct )L krBXL tN) ;)Ns kYL(d mdM lK

Everything that is hateful for you, you shall not wish to be done to your companion. Again, we notice that the wording shows interference between the two different versions of our saying found in primitive Syriac Matthew and in Tatian's Diatessaron. This evidence suggests that the translation of Menander may have occurred whilst the Diatessaron was in regular use. II-10 The two lost earlier Syriac gospel texts of Matthew, namely; primitive Syriac Matthew and Tatian's Diatessaron which both contained our reading, began to loose
See Stevenson & Frend 1987, p. 374. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata II, XXIII, 139. 38 Burkitt 1904, volume 1, p. 110. 39 See a brief description of Menander the Dramatist given on-line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander 40 Wright 1872, pp. 1154 1160. 41 These early translations from Greek into Syriac include the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, Josephus, Basil, John Chrysostom, Theodore and many other important Greek authors. 42 Wright 1872, p. 1159, c. 1, & Land 1862, Syriac text p. 69 line 13.
37 36

Page 10

popularity, or face active suppression in the 5th century in favour of the first and second attempts to translate the four gospels from Greek into Syriac, namely; The Vetus Syra, (of which there are two surviving fragmentary codices, the Curetonian43 and the Sinai44), and the Peshitta gospels,45 (which are still used in the Syriac churches today). To a large extent, both the Vetus Syra and the Peshitta gospels, reflect the Greek text of the gospels, and perhaps for this reason, neither of these Syriac gospel versions retain our reading, hence: > [Sinai codex] Curetonian codex, Peshitta Matthew & Luke omit. II-11 That the Manichaeans adapted and used the Syriac Diatessaron is an entire study in its own right. However, that a similar saying was also inherited by the Manichaeans from the Syriac gospel tradition can be demonstrated from the Turfan Manichaean texts; According to a Manichaean letter preserved in the Parthian language46: And do not do yourself what you detest in another person. II-12 In my opinion, this primitive Syriac Matthew reading of Matthew 7.12 is of great significance because it retains the authentic Jewish historical context of the life and teaching of Isho`, illustrating how his teaching related to the sayings of Hillel, a slightly earlier Jewish contemporary of his, who taught in Jerusalem and died around AD 10. The long historical attestation of the primitive Syriac version of our reading where Christ quotes and comments upon Hillel, leaves very little doubt that the primitive Syriac reading is both original and authentic. Even in the early Greek patristic tradition, this reading was clearly important. It is twice alluded to in the Didache, a Greek document originally composed in the late first century and it is alluded to again by Aristeides, a Christian apologist who lived in the mid second century and yet again by Clement, bishop of Alexandria, who wrote towards the end of the second century. II-13 Summarizing the two analytical methods used here: A source-critical argument based upon a Hebrew text was used to tentatively identify the original Syriac reading, then a historical analysis showed that the other Syriac reading appeared in sources datable no earlier than the second century AD. Therefore, both the source-critical analysis and the historical analysis agree that the original Syriac reading of Matthew 7.12 indicated above, can probably be dated to the first century AD. II-14 Having demonstrated how primitive Syriac Matthew sits well in the original first-century AD historical and linguistic context of the gospels, we will now explore one of the most fascinating ways that the original Semitic language of the gospels is betrayed by translation artefacts found in the Greek version.

The Curetonian codex of the Vetus Syra; London, British Library Ms Add. 14,451. The Sinai codex of the Vetus Syra; Sinai, Saint Catherine Monastery, Syriac Ms 30. 45 There is an edition of the Peshitta gospels based upon 41 manuscripts, see Gwilliam & Pusey 1901. 46 See http://www.gnosis.org/library/epistmar.html
44

43

Page 11

III. Second text, preamble Luke 19.44

III-1 Before approaching our second text from primitive Syriac Matthew, we digress briefly into the gospel of Luke, to introduce a Syriac idiom: to know visitation included in a saying of Christ about the fate of Jerusalem which is found in Luke 19: 42..Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. 43 For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, 44 and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation.47 III-2 According to the Sinai codex of the Vetus Syra at Luke 19.44:48
.yKNrw(Sd )MwY yt(dY )Ld pLX p)K l( p)K yKB nwQB$N )Lw

and they will not leave in you a stone upon a stone in place that you did not know the day of your visitation. > Aphrahat, Demonstration XXI 49, where this verse in Luke reads:
.h[twBrd )MwY t(dY )Ld .p)K l( p)K h[B qBt$t )L

It will not be left in it, a stone upon a stone, that she did not know the day of her greatness. ~ Curetonian codex of the Vetus Syra:
.yKtwBrd )MwY yt(dY )Ld pLX p)K l( p)K yKB nwQB$N )Lw

and they will not be left in you a stone upon a stone in place that you did not know the day of your greatness. ~ Peshitta:50
.yKNr(wSd )NBz yt(dY )Ld pLX ;p)K l( p)K yKB nwQB$N )Lw

and they will not leave in you a stone upon a stone in place that you did not know the time of your visitation.51 III-3 The form of this verse found in the Sinai codex of the Vetus Syra and the similar form found in Peshitta contain the idiom knowing visitation. In Syriac, the idiom knowing visitation can mean either; knowing a deed, knowing a fact or to recognise something.52 However, a closer study of this idiom, reveals it has two useful linguistic properties:
47 48

This is edited from the Revised Standard Version. Lewis 1910 49 Wright 1869, p. 412.16 50 Gwilliam & Pusey 1901 51 Compare Matthew 24.2 and its parallel in Mark13.2 where Christ spoke about the Temple in a similar way. 52 Syriac definitions of this idiom are noticed by Payne-Smith 1903, p. 369 and Brockelmann 1928, p. 488 c. 2 meaning #6.

Page 12

This idiom is archaic, it appears only in the earliest Syriac sources. For example, apart from the two biblical passages cited here, it also appears in Aphrahat's Demonstration XIII on the Sabbath53 and in some works attributed to Mar Narsai and Mar Jacob of Serug, (see the next section). This appears to be a Syriac idiom,54 unknown in other Aramaic dialects. It does not appear at all in the lexica of Palestinian Aramaic55 and it is completely unknown in Biblical Aramaic56 and Hebrew57. However, any attempt to isolate an idiom to any one dialect is almost always an argument from silence, so some caution is justified here.

III-4 For these reasons, the idiom knowing visitation may be an important linguistic marker, useful to identify the presence of an early Aramaic source written in the Syriac (i.e. an eastern) Aramaic dialect. III-5 We now notice several other Greek New Testament passages which may also owe something to our Syriac idiom. The text of Greek Luke 19.44 quoted above, contains this Syriac idiom knowing visitation written out literally, rather than translated. This indicates that Greek Luke is a secondary text, translated from an Aramaic source and most likely from a Syriac source. The semantic debris of the same Syriac idiom crops up elsewhere in the Greek New Testament, inviting further study, as follows:

Matthew 7.23 and a loose parallel in Luke 13.25, 27 which include two different meanings of this Syriac idiom in the same context; knowing a deed and not recognising someone. Matthew 25.12 analysed in the next section. Revelation 2.2, 2.19, 3.1, 3.8 & 3.15 where in all five of these texts, the phrase I know your works may have made more sense if it had been translated from our Syriac idiom into Greek with an alternative Syriac meaning, I recognise you.58

IV. Second text Matthew 25.12

IV-1 Having introduced the Syriac idiom, to know visitation and its range of meanings, we can now use this idiom to investigate the wording of primitive Syriac
53 54

Brockelmann 1928, p. 488 c. 2 notices this idiom in Aphrahat, (Parisot 1904, p. 549 line 10). This idiom is not extant in Greek, see Louw & Nida 1988, 1989 volume 1, p. 453, section 34.51. 55 This idiom is not noticed by Jastrow 1971, nor by Sokoloff 1990, nor by Fitzmyer & Harrington 1994 who are all important lexicographers of the Qumran and Palestinian Aramaic dialects over the period 200 BC until the 6th century AD. 56 Nor is this idiom noticed at all by Rosenthal 1963. 57 This idiom is not noticed in Hebrew either by Gesenius 1859, nor by Jastrow 1971. 58 The Apocalypse appears to have been written in Aramaic, so it is remarkable that this book remained unknown in the Syriac tradition before AD 508, when it may have been edited into the Syriac New Testament for the first time by Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug!

Page 13

Matthew 25.12. This verse is part of the punch-line from the parable of the Ten Virgins, (Matthew 25.1-13). In primitive Syriac Matthew, this parable is very interesting, as the whole parable is quite different to the version of it found in Greek Matthew. However, since verse 12 speaks volumes about the relationship between primitive Syriac Matthew and Greek Matthew, so it makes good sense to study this verse first. In the RSV English translation from Greek Matthew, the context of Matthew 25.12 reads as follows: 10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he replied, Truly, I say to you, I do not know you., 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. At once, we observe that verse 12 in Greek Matthew sits awkwardly in this context, because in the Greek Matthew version of the parable, all the maidens are amongst those invited to the wedding and so, even if the bridegroom was displeased with them, he most likely knew who they were. As we shall now see, our puzzlement over this verse can be explained from a study of the wording found in Syriac Matthew. IV-2 Mar Narsai ( c. AD 502) was an eminent Syriac scholar whose activities spanned much of the 5th century AD. He was the headmaster of the Persian School of Edessa and later, he became the first director of the East Syrian School of Nisibis. Whilst Mar Narsai was headmaster at the Persian School in Edessa, one his pupils was another eminent Syriac poet: Mar Jacob, bishop of Serug ( AD 521). These two men held quite different theological views and later on, each of them came to be venerated by different parts of the Syriac church; Mar Narsai is venerated as a saint and doctor by the Church of the East, whereas Mar Jacob is venerated as a saint and doctor by the Syrian Orthodox Church. So it is intriguing that the reading known to Mar Narsai is supported by a trace of the same reading also found in the works of Mar Jacob of Serug. Using the sources edited below the reading of primitive Syriac Matthew, verse 12 can be reconstructed along the following lines:
!oYKYNr(w]S )N(dY[ )Ld oYhL yNP

He replied to them, I have not known your visitation! ~ Narsai:59

!oYKYNr(w]S )N(dY[ )Ld oYhL yNP oM[L

Why did he reply to them, I have not known your visitation!? ~ Narsai:60
: oY8B[G oYrt]L oYN) 4rP )ND8(w]SB]w

And by visitations he separated them into two elects.

59 60

Mingana 1905, 1.246.10 and Siman 1984, p. 9.5 Mingana 1905, 1.245.18 and Siman 1984, p. 8.12

Page 14

~ Narsai:61
: oYhY8Nr(w]SB )X$M y8+LXd )t]MY]KXB

With the wise who mix the oil with their visitations. ~ Narsai:62
: oYhY8Nr(w]SB )X$M =L]Xd )t]MY]KXB

With the wise who mix the oil with their visitations. ~ Narsai,63 Jacob of Serug:64
;oYhY8Nr(w]Sd )MLw$ )LM )Br )$X

Great suffering filled the end of their visitations. Here, both Narsai the master and Jacob his pupil refer to the foolish virgins in identical ways. IV-3 Even though the Sinai codex of the Vetus Syra, the Peshitta and Greek Matthew at Matthew 25.12 all read, I do not know you, we recall that the Syriac idiom oYKYNr(w]S )N(dY[ )L I do not know your visitation can also mean I do not recognize your actions, or I do not recognize your works. Mar Narsai also interprets this saying in this alternative Syriac way know your works; < Narsai:65
: nwKY*LM( )N(d[Y )Ld

I have not known your works! ~ Narsai:66

: oYKLY]d )LM8(L )N([dY )Ld

I have not known your works. ~ Narsai:67

: oYKB]d )LM8(L )N([dY )Ld

I have not known the works which are in you. IV-4 Another interpretation of this early Syriac idiom, (the one which also ended up in the Greek version of Matthew 25), can also be found in the Syriac gospel tradition: > Ephrem:68
61 62

Siman 1984, p. 12.16 Mingana 1905, 1.249.7 63 Mingana 1905, 1.246.21 64 Birmingham, Mingana Ms 546, dated 1929, f. 68a.1.8. The homily quoted here has not been edited. 65 Mingana 1905, 1.324.18 66 Siman 1984, p. 17.14 67 Mingana 1905, 1.253.1 68 Assemani & Benedicti 1743, p. 308.9

Page 15

.)tYD8d )LL nrM rM]) oY8tN) oM[ oYKL )N) 9rY[ )Ld

I do not know who you are. Our Lord said to the ignorant women. ~ Ephrem:69
.oY8tN) oM )N) 9rY[ )Ld

That I do not know who you are. ~ Ephrem,70 Jacob of Serug:71

oYKL )N) 9rY[ )L

I do not know you. > The Sinai codex72 of the Vetus Syra:73
.oYK8L )N(dY )Ld oYK8L )NrM) oYM) rM)w )N( oYd wh

He then answered and said, Amen I say to you, I have not known you. ~ Ephrem:74
)NtXd hLQ oYhL yN]P oYKL )N) 9rY[ )L

I do not know you. The bridegroom's voice replied to them. ~ Narsai:75

!)NtXd hLQ oYhL yNP oYKL )N(rY[ )L

I do not know you. The bridegroom's voice replied to them. ~ Narsai:76

!)NtXd )LQ )w]h yNP oYKL )N) 9rY] )L

I do not know you. The bridegroom's voice was replying. ~ Jacob of Serug:77
!)KLM )NtX oYhL yN]P oYKL )N]) 9rY[ )L

I do not know you. The royal bridegroom replied to them. > Jacob of Serug:78
69 70

Leloir 1958, #297 excerpt. Leloir 1958, #300 71 Olinder 1937, p. 6.10, 11 72 This verse is not extant in the Curetonian codex of the Vetus Syra, (Cureton 1858). 73 Lewis 1910 74 Assemani & Benedicti 1743, p. 306.47 75 Mingana 1905, 1.245.12 76 Siman 1984, p. 8.3 77 Birmingham, Mingana Ms 546, dated 1929, f. 68a.1.6. The homily quoted here has not been edited.

Page 16

.oY8KL )N) 9rY[ )L mwtM oMd

I am not knowing you ever. > Peshitta:79

.oYKL )N) 9dY] )Ld oYK8L )N) rM) oYM) oYhL rM)w )N( oYd wh

He then answered and said to them, Amen I say to you, I have not known you. ~ Jacob of Serug,80 Jacob of Serug:81
.oYtN) oM[ oYKL )N) 9rY[ )L )NtX rM[)

The Bridegroom said, I don't know who you are.

IV-5 When an idiom having a number of different meanings comes to be translated, the translator is forced to select which meaning is going to be translated into the new language. Thus, semantic information can be lost when an idiom is translated into another language. Looked at another way, this information loss can be used to work out the language of the source text used by the translator and the language of the image text. This technique to deduce the source text is in fact a text-critical method.82 Since it has just been shown that semantic information from the different shades of meaning contained in this one Aramaic idiom from primitive Syriac Matthew have been lost in Greek Matthew, it can also be deduced that the reading in primitive Syriac Matthew was probably the original reading and conversely, that the reading in Greek Matthew was probably a text translated from the Syriac. IV-6 So, if we go along with this deduction for a minute, does the passage in question from Matthew chapter 25 make any more sense when read it in Syriac? Well yes, I think it does. Here is the passage from the RSV we started with, corrected with the help of primitive Syriac Matthew: 10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he replied, Truly, I say to you, I do not recognize your works, 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. In the uncorrected version of this passage, the spotlight is on whether the bridegroom knew who the virgins were, which seems awkward in this context. However if the same text is corrected from the Syriac, notice how the spotlight has shifted to illuminate the behaviour of the virgins who had displeased the bridegroom, an idea more congruent with the wider context. Firstly, a text-critical approach to this passage
Olinder 1937, p. 6.8. The manuscripts included in Olinder's edition carry several different spelling and pointing variations of this reading. 79 Gwilliam & Pusey 1901 80 Bedjan 1906, p. 379.3 & compare p. 380.13 81 Birmingham, Mingana Ms 546, dated 1929, f. 67b.1.3. The homily quoted here has not been edited. 82 See Ring 2008, section 1-6.
78

Page 17

has pointed out that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Aramaic and secondly, it has brought us a step closer to understanding what the parable of the Ten Virgins originally meant.

V. Discussions
V-1 Using textual examples we have explored a number of topics which may be of interest for further discussion;

An authentic historical context for primitive Syriac Matthew in the milieu of Jewish culture in 1st century Palestine. What might primitive Syriac gospels have to offer for the study of Christian origins? How primitive Syriac Matthew relates to meticulous written traditions in Hebrew and in Aramaic. The abundance of Syriac patristic sources and their very consistent quotations from primitive Syriac Matthew over nearly 900 years. How Greek Matthew appears to have been translated from primitive Syriac Matthew. What does this say about the relative historical value of Greek Matthew and primitive Syriac Matthew? The information which was lost when Greek Matthew was translated from primitive Syriac Matthew; The translator deliberately omitted a quotation by Hillel the Jewish Sage and he may have accidentally corrupted the punch-line of a parable. But, why might the Greek translator have chosen to omit Hillel's words in primitive Syriac Matthew...? Can a Syriac idiom like knowing visitation, be used to identify the original language of other works like Greek Luke and the Apocalypse?

V-2 In the discussion part of this seminar and afterwards, a number of very good questions were asked about the possible existence and nature of any primitive Syriac gospel texts. In particular:

Could the alleged text of primitive Syriac Matthew 7.12 have an alternative explanation? For example, could the patristic quotations of this verse have introduced textual matter from the Babylonian Talmud, without this Talmudic material ever being part of a Syriac gospel text? How can it be suggested that gospel texts existed at such an early date in any language, if these gospel texts are never mentioned in the New Testament? If the primitive Syriac gospels did exist, what form did they take? Were they separate documents? How consistent were their texts compared to the Greek ones?

Page 18

How would the existence of any primitive Syriac gospels relate to the established scholarly view that Mark was the earliest gospel text?

V-3 Not all of these questions can be answered adequately at this time, however here are a few observations:

What may make the intrusion of Talmudic textual material into the Syriac patristic quotations of Syriac Matthew 7.12 less likely, is the manner in which Philoxenus introduced one of his quotations which includes Hillel's words.83 Here Philoxenus explicitly attributes a quotation including Hillel's words to Isho`, in the context of his conversation with the rich young ruler found in Matthew 19.19. Also, contextual details have been provided for each patristic quotation edited above in sections II-4 and II-7 of this paper. Whether the gospels are mentioned in the New Testament is a matter of interpretation. One interpretation of a passage found in Paul's letters indicates that the gospels did exist in written form at an early date; Certain, sacred writings able to instruct someone about salvation through faith in Christ are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3.15, and it is difficult to identify any writings other than the gospels which would exactly fit this description. Initial research has concentrated on passages which have few, or no good parallels in the other gospels. This approach has been used to investigate the number, sequence and dates of gospel texts found in the early Syriac patristic tradition. Later on, investigation of parallel passages may shed more light on the form of the early Syriac gospels, whether they were separate and distinct gospels, or a single book of some kind. This question remains to be studied. Marcan primacy is an established concept in the analysis of the Greek gospels, but it is not yet clear to me what role Mark's gospel played in the early Syriac gospel tradition. This too, is a matter for future study.

_______

Bibliography printed books

Assemani, Stephanus E. & Benedicti, Petrus 1743. Ephraem Syri opera omnia Volume III, Rome. Bedjan, Paul 1905. Homili select Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis Volume 1, Harrassowitz, Paris & Leipzig Bedjan, Paul 1906. Homili select Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis Volume 2, Harrassowitz, Paris & Leipzig Brekelmans, Chris & Sb, Magne & Haran, Menahem 1996. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 1: Antiquity Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gttingen.
83

Budge 1894, Volume 1, p. 345.9 12.

Page 19

Brockelmann, Carl 1928. Lexicon Syriacum 2nd Edition, Sumptibus M. Niemeyer, Halis, Saxonum. Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis 1894. The discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbgh, A.D. 485-519 2 volumes, Asher & Co., London. Burkitt, Francis Crawford 1904. Evangelion daMepharreshe: the Curetonian version of the four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic evidence 2 volumes, Cambridge University Press. Cureton, William 1858. Remains of a very antient recension of the four gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe John Murray, London. Fitzmyer, Joseph Augustine & Harrington, Daniel J. 1994. A manual of Palestinian aramaic texts: second century B.C. - second century A.D. Biblica et orientalia; 34, Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, Rome. Originally published 1978. Gesenius, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm 1859. Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament scriptures Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Samuel Bagster, London. Goldschmidt, Lazarus 1897 Der Babylonische Talmud mit einschluss der vollstaendigen Minah Volume 1, S. Calvary & Co., Berlin. Gwilliam, George Henry & Pusey, Philip Edward, 1901. Tetraeuangelium sanctum Clarendon Press, Oxford. Jastrow, Marcus, 1971. A dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic literature 2 volumes, Judaica Press, New York. Kmosko, Mihly 1926. Liber graduum Patrologia Syriaca, part 1, tome 3, Paris. Land, Jan Pieter Nicolaas, 1862. Anecdota Syriaca, volume 1 of 4 volumes, quarto. Lugdunum Batavorum, Brill dated 1862 - 1875 Lavenant, Ren s.j. 1963. La lettre a Patricius de Philoxene de Mabboug Patrologia Orientalis, Tome XXX, Fascicule 5, Paris. Reprinted 2003, Brepols. References are given to the Syriac text by page and line numbers. Leloir, Louis 1958. Lvangile dphrem daprs les oeuvres dites Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, volume 180, subsidia, tome 12. Louvain. Ephrem's quotations from the gospel are referenced by the quotation number. Lewis, Agnes Smith & Bensly, Robert L. & Harris, J. Rendel & Burkitt, F. Crawford 1894. The four gospels in Syriac Cambridge University Press, C. J. Clay & Sons, London. Lewis, Agnes Smith 1894, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the convent of s. Catharine on Mount Sinai Studia Sinaitica 1, C.J. Clay and Sons, London.

Page 20

Lewis, Agnes Smith 1910. The old Syriac gospels, or Evangelion Da-Mepharresh Williams and Norgate, London. Louw Johannes P. & Nida, Eugene Albert 1988, 1989 Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains 2nd Edition, 2 volumes. United Bible Societies, New York. Marsh, Fred Shipley 1927. The book which is called the Book of the Holy Hierotheos, with extracts from the prolegomena and commentary of Theodosios of Antioch and from the Book of excerpts and other works of Gregory bar-Hebrus Published by Williams and Norgate for the Text and Translation Society, London & Oxford. Reprinted by Gregg International Publishers, Farnborough, Hampshire 1969. References are to the page and line in the English translation and then to the page and line in the original Syriac text. Mingana, Alphonse 1905. Narsai, doctoris Syri, homiliae et carmina 2 volumes. Mosul, Iraq. References are given by volume number then page number, then line number. . 1933. Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts, Volume 1, W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, Cambridge . 1936. Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts, Volume 2, W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, Cambridge. . 1939. Catalogue of the Mingana collection of manuscripts, Volume 3, W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, Cambridge. Olinder, Olof Gunnar 1937. Iacobi Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt, CSCO, Volume 110, Syriac 57, reprinted 1952. ISBN: 90-429-09144-6 References are to the page and line in this edition. Parisot, D. Jean 1894. Aphraatis, sapientis Persae, Demonstrationes, I-XXII Patrologia Syriaca, Part 1, Tome 1. Firmin-Didot, Paris. Payne Smith, Jessie 1903. Compendious Syriac dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith Clarendon Press, Oxford 1903. Reprinted multiple times including by Oxford University Press, 1994. Resch, Gotthold 1905. Das Aposteldecret nach seiner Ausserkanonischen Textgestalt, Leipzig. Ring, Steven Richard 2008. Identifying early Syriac gospel texts Xth Symposium Syriacum, Granada, Spain, September 22nd to 27th 2008. Rodkinson, Michael Levi & Wise, Isaac Mayer 1903. New edition of the Babylonian Talmud 2nd Edition. Volume 1, Shabbath. New Talmud Publishing Company, Boston.

Page 21

Rosenthal, Franz 1963. A grammar of Biblical Aramaic Porta linguarum orientalium; Neue Serie V, 2nd revised edition, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Siman, Emmanuel Pataq 1984. Narsai, Cinq homlies sur les paraboles vangliques, Cariscript, Paris. This is a facsimile edition from a Ms in Tehran. References are to page and line number in the Syriac text. Sokoloff, Michael 1990. A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2, Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Staniforth, Maxwell & Louth, Andrew & Radice, Betty 1987. Early Christian writings, Penguin, St Ives, United Kingdom. Stevenson, James & Frend, William Hugh Clifford 1987. A new Eusebius, SPCK, Cambridge University Press. Wright, William 1869. The homilies of Aphraates the Persian sage Williams & Norgate, London & Edinburgh. . 1870. Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum Volume 1, London. Reprinted by Gorgias Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2002. . 1871. Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum Volume 2, London. Reprinted by Gorgias Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2002. . 1872. Catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum Volume 3, London. Reprinted by Gorgias Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2002.

Bibliography manuscripts
Birmingham, Mingana Ms 546, dated 1929. A mostly unedited collection of works by Jacob of Serug; References are to the Ms folio, column and line number. For a description of this Ms, see the Mingana catalogue, Mingana 1933, volume 1, column 1012. London, British Library Ms Add. 14,451 of the 5th century AD, see codex number cxvix in Wright's catalogue, (Wright 1870, p. 73, c. 2). This is the Curetonian codex of the Vetus Syra; See the editions, (Cureton 1858, Burkitt 1904, Lewis 1910). Sinai, Saint Catherine Monastery, Syriac Ms 16. This is a very neatly written Estrangela manuscript of the 6th or 7th century. This Ms was catalogued by Agnes Smith Lewis, (Lewis 1894, pp. 18 38) and this Ms was also photographed by an expedition from the US Library of Congress in the 1950's. Sinai, Saint Catherine Monastery, Syriac Ms 30. The Sinai codex of the Vetus Syra can be found in the underwriting of this famous palimpsest. This Ms was catalogued by Agnes Smith Lewis, (Lewis 1894, pp. 42 47). For the Syriac text, see the editions, (Lewis, Bensly, Harris & Burkitt 1894, Burkitt 1904, Lewis 1910). The best Page 22

edition was the second one by Agnes Lewis who discovered this manuscript, (Lewis 1910).

Page 23