EARLY SYRIAC VERSIONS.
The rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church in Syria was
startling in its rapidity. Damascus and Antioch shot up suddenly into
prominence as centres of Christian zeal, as if they had grown whilst men
slept.
The arrangement of places and events which occurred during our Lord’s
Ministry must have paved the way to this success, at least as regards
principally the nearer of the two cities just mentioned. Galilee, the
scene of the first year of His Ministry—“the acceptable year of the
Lord”—through its vicinity to Syria was admirably calculated for laying
the foundation of such a development. The fame of His miracles and
teaching extended far into the country. Much that He said and did happened
on the Syrian side of the Sea of Galilee. Especially was this the case
when, after the death of John the Baptist had shed consternation in the
ranks of His followers, and the Galilean populace refused to accompany Him
in His higher teaching, and the wiles of Herod were added as a source of
apprehension to the bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent
some months between the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles in the north
and north-east of Palestine. If Damascus was not one of the “ten
cities(145),” yet the report of His twice feeding thousands, and of His
stay at Caesarea Philippi and in the neighbourhood(146) of Hermon, must
have reached that city. The seed must have been sown which afterwards
sprang up men knew not how.
Besides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, according to which
Antioch following upon Damascus became a basis of missionary effort hardly
second to Jerusalem, the records and legends of the Church in Syria leave
but little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about. The
stories relating to Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of St. Addaeus or
Thaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his Liturgy and “Doctrine,” and
various other Apocryphal Works(147), leave no doubt about the very early
extension of the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic was the chief
vehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most likely depended upon their
neighbours in Palestine for oral and written teaching. But when—probably
about the time of the investment of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus and
the temporary removal of the Church’s centre to Pella—through the care of
St. Matthew and the other Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek,
some regular translation was needed and doubtless was made.
So far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed. The question between
them is, was this Translation the Peshitto, or was it the Curetonian? An
examination into the facts is required: neither School has any authority
to issue decrees.
The arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the oldest form of the
Syriac New Testament, and of the formation of the Peshitto in its present
condition from it, cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is
accustomed to weigh disputation. Doubtless this weakness or instability
may with truth be traced to the nature of the case, which will not yield a
better harvest even to the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not
with truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause?
Those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal character of the
two texts. It is asserted(148) (1) that the Curetonian was older than the
Peshitto which was brought afterwards into closer proximity with the
Greek. To this we may reply, that the truth of this plea depends upon the
nature of the revision thus claimed(149). Dr. Hort was perfectly logical
when he suggested, or rather asserted dogmatically, that such a drastic
revision as was necessary for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was
made in the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty lay in his
manufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead of following it. The
fact is, that the internal difference between the text of the Curetonian
and the Peshitto is so great, that the former could only have arisen in
very queer times such as the earliest, when inaccuracy and looseness,
infidelity and perverseness, might have been answerable for anything. In
fact, the Curetonian must have been an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it
must have been partly an independent translation helped from other
sources: from the character of the text it could not have given rise to
it(150).
Again, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon “certain peculiarities in the
original Hebrew which are found in this text, but not in the Greek,” he
has not found others to follow him, and (3) the supposed agreement with
the Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, as regards any results to
be deduced from it, is of a similarly slippery nature. It will be best to
give his last argument in his own words:—“It is the internal evidence
afforded by the fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of St.
Matthew and the parallel passages of St. Mark and St. Luke, they are found
to exhibit the same phenomena which we should, _a priori_, expect
certainly to discover, had we the plainest and most incontrovertible
testimony that they are all in reality translations from such an Aramaic
original as this.” He seems here to be trying to establish his position
that the Curetonian was at least based on the Hebrew original of St.
Matthew, to which he did not succeed in bringing over any scholars.
The reader will see that we need not linger upon these arguments. When
interpreted most favourably they carry us only a very short way towards
the dethronement of the great Peshitto, and the instalment of the little
Curetonian upon the seat of judgement. But there is more in what other
scholars have advanced. There are resemblances between the Curetonian,
some of the Old-Latin texts, the Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian’s
Diatessaron, which lead us to assign an early origin to many of the
peculiar readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but all the
reverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the Curetonian were related
to one another in line-descent. The age of one need have nothing to do
with the age of the other. The theory of the Peshitto being derived from
the Curetonian through a process of revision like that of Jerome
constituting a Vulgate rests upon a false parallel(151). There are, or
were, multitudes of Old-Latin Texts, which in their confusion called for
some recension: we only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have
come into consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but a fragment: and
the Codex Lewisianus, though it includes the greater part of the Four
Gospels, yet reckons so many omissions in important parts, has been so
determinedly mutilated, and above all is so utterly heretical(152), that
it must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of the
Gospels. The disappointment caused to the adherents of the Curetonian, by
the failure of the fresh MS. which had been looked for with ardent hopes
to satisfy expectation, may be imagined. _Noscitur a sociis_: the
Curetonian is admitted by all to be closely allied to it, and must share
in the ignominy of its companion, at least to such an extent as to be
excluded from the progenitors of a Text so near to the Traditional Text as
the Peshitto must ever have been(153).
But what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied till the middle
of the present century? What is the evidence of facts on which we must
adjudicate its claim?
Till the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as _the_ Syriac Version,
adopted at the time when the translation of the New Testament was made
into that language, which must have been either the early part of the
second century, or the end of the first,—adopted too in the Unchangeable
East, and never deposed from its proud position. It can be traced by facts
of history or by actual documents to the beginning of the golden period of
Syriac Literature in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its
sway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony sufficient to track
it into the earlier ages of the Church.
The Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst the Nestorians who
have always kept to it(154), by the Monophysites on the plains of Syria,
the Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar, and by “the Maronites on the
mountain-terraces of Lebanon(155).” Of these, the Maronites take us back
to the beginning of the eighth century when they as Monothelites separated
from the Eastern Church; the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth
century; the Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century. Hostile as
the two latter were to one another, they would not have agreed in reading
the same Version of the New Testament if that had not been well
established at the period of their separation. Nor would it have been thus
firmly established, if it had not by that time been generally received in
the country for a long series of years.
But the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable proof afforded by
the MSS. of the Peshitto Version which exist, dating from the fifth
century or thereabouts. Mr. Gwilliam in the third volume of Studia Biblica
et Ecclesiastica(156) mentions two MSS. dating about 450 A.D., besides
four of the fifth or sixth century, one of the latter, and three which
bear actual dates also of the sixth. These, with the exception of one in
the Vatican and one belonging to the Earl of Crawford, are from the
British Museum alone(157). So that according to the manuscriptal evidence
the treasures of little more than one library in the world exhibit a very
_apparatus criticus_ for the Peshitto, whilst the Curetonian can boast
only one manuscript and that in fragments, though of the fifth century.
And it follows too from this statement, that whereas only seven uncials of
any size can be produced from all parts of the world of the Greek Text of
the New Testament before the end of the sixth century, no less than eleven
or rather twelve of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same
date. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two, perhaps three, of
the fourth century: but the fact cannot but be taken to be very
remarkable, as proving, when compared with the universal Greek original,
how strongly the local Peshitto Version was established in the century in
which “commences the native historical literature of Syria(158).”
The commanding position thus occupied leads back virtually a long way.
Changes are difficult to introduce in “the unchangeable East.”
Accordingly, the use of the Peshitto is attested in the fourth century by
Ephraem Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem “in the main used the Peshitto
text”—is the conclusion drawn by Mr. F. H. Woods in the third volume of
Studia Biblica(159). And as far as I may judge from a comparison of
readings(160), Aphraates witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which
the Peshitto mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The
Peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of the Syrian
Fathers.
But the course of the examination of all the primitive Fathers as
exhibited in the last section of this work suggests also another and an
earlier confirmation of the position here taken. It is well known that the
Peshitto is mainly in agreement with the Traditional Text. What therefore
proves one, virtually proves the other. If the text in the latter case is
dominant, it must also be in the former. If, as Dr. Hort admits, the
Traditional Text prevailed at Antioch from the middle of the fourth
century, is it not more probable that it should have been the continuance
of the text from the earliest times, than that a change should have been
made without a record in history, and that in a part of the world which
has been always alien to change? But besides the general traces of the
Traditional Text left in patristic writings in other districts of the
Church, we are not without special proofs in the parts about Syria. Though
the proofs are slight, they occur in a period which in other respects was
for the present purpose almost “a barren and dry land where no water is.”
Methodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth century,
Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter half of the third, the
Synodus Antiochena in A.D. 265, at a greater distance Gregory Thaumaturgus
of Neocaesarea in Pontus who flourished about 243 and passed some time at
Caesarea in Palestine, are found to have used mainly Traditional MSS. in
Greek, and consequently witness to the use of the daughter text in Syriac.
Amongst those who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions
were Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and Justin who issued
from the site of Sychar. Nor is there reason, whatever has been said, to
reject the reference made by Melito of Sardis about A.D. 170 in the words
ὁ Σύρος. At the very least, the Peshitto falls more naturally into the
larger testimony borne by the quotations in the Fathers, than would a text
of such a character as that which we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis
Codex.
But indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian with its single
fragmentary manuscript, and at the best its short history, even with so
discreditable an ally as the Lewis Codex, should try conclusions with what
we may fairly term the colossal Peshitto? How is it possible that one or
two such little rills should fill so great a channel?
But there is another solution of the difficulty which has been advocated
by the adherents of the Curetonian in some quarters since the discovery
made by Mrs. Lewis. It is urged that there is an original Syriac Text
which lies at the back of the Curetonian and the Codex Lewisianus, and
that this text possesses also the witness of the Diatessaron of
Tatian:—that those MSS. themselves are later, but that the Text of which
they give similar yet independent specimens is the Old Syriac,—the first
Version made from the Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church.
The evidence advanced in favour of this position is of a speculative and
vague nature, and moreover is not always advanced with accuracy. It is not
“the simple fact that no purely ‘Antiochene’ [i.e. Traditional] reading
occurs in the Sinai Palimpsest(161).” It is not true that “in the
Diatessaron Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and wife,”
because in St. Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called “her husband,” and
in verse 24 it is said that Joseph “took unto him Mary his wife.” It
should be observed that besides a resemblance between the three documents
in question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian heresy, which is
spread much more widely over the Lewis Codex than its adherents like to
acknowledge, is absent from the other two. The interpolations of the
Curetonian are not adopted by the remaining members of the trio. The
Diatessaron, as far as we can judge,—for we possess no copy either in
Greek or in Syriac, but are obliged to depend upon two Arabic Versions
edited recently by Agostino Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on
it by Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or Jacobus
Nisibenus—, differs very largely from either. That there is some
resemblance between the three we admit: and that the two Codexes are more
or less made up from very early readings, which we hold to be corrupt, we
do not deny. What we assert is, that it has never yet been proved that a
regular Text in Syriac can be constructed out of these documents which
would pass muster as the genuine Text of the Gospels; and that, especially
in the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one of the
leading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot with any probability
have formed any stage in the transmission of the pure text of the original
Version in Syriac to the pages of the Peshitto. If corruption existed in
the earliest ages, so did purity. The Word of GOD could not have been
dragged only through the mire.
We are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical facts of the
case. What we do know without question is this:—About the year 170 A.D.,
Tatian who had sojourned for some time at Rome drew up his Diatessaron,
which is found in the earlier half of the third century to have been read
in Divine service at Edessa(162). This work was current in some parts of
Syria in the time of Eusebius(163), to which assertion some evidence is
added by Epiphanius(164). Rabbūla, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 412-435(165),
ordered the presbyters and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the
distinct or _Mĕpharrĕshe_ Gospels. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus near the
Euphrates(166), writes in 453 A.D., that he had turned out about two
hundred copies of Tatian’s Diatessaron from his churches, and had put the
Gospels of the four Evangelists in their place. These accounts are
confirmed by the testimony of many subsequent writers, whose words
together with those to which reference has just been made may be seen in
Mr. Hamlyn Hill’s book on the Diatessaron(167). It must be added, that in
the Curetonian we find “The _Mĕpharrĕsha_ Gospel of Matthew(168),” and the
Lewis Version is termed “The Gospel of the _Mĕpharrĕshe_ four books”; and
that they were written in the fifth century.
Such are the chief facts: what is the evident corollary? Surely, that
these two Codexes, which were written at the very time when the
Diatessaron of Tatian was cast out of the Syrian Churches, were written
purposely, and possibly amongst many other MSS. made at the same time, to
supply the place of it—copies of the _Mĕpharrĕshe_, i.e. Distinct or
Separate(169) Gospels, to replace the _Mĕhallĕte_ or Gospel of the Mixed.
When the sockets are found to have been prepared and marked, and the
pillars lie fitted and labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars
into their own sockets? They were not very successful attempts, as might
have been expected, since the Peshitto, or in some places amongst the
Jacobites the Philoxenian or Harkleian, entirely supplanted them in future
use, and they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed
them, and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an importance not
their own(170).
What was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of which some were
transferred into the text of these two Codexes, will be considered in the
next section. Students should be cautioned against inferring that the
Diatessaron was read in service throughout Syria. There is no evidence to
warrant such a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and Cyrrhus point to the
country near the upper Euphrates; and the expression of Theodoret,
relating to the Diatessaron being used “in churches of our parts,” seems
to hint at a circumscribed region. Plenty of room was left for a
predominant use of the Peshitto, so far as we know: and no reason on that
score can be adduced to counterbalance the force of the arguments given in
this section in favour of the existence from the beginning of that great
Version.
Yet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto was brought
first into prominence upon the supersession of the Diatessaron, though it
is never found under the special title of _Mĕpharrĕsha_. What is this but
to disregard the handposts of history in favour of a pet theory?